Random Thoughts IV: the Abyss Gazes Back

[Traitorfish]

Nothing wrong with taking the lead and the burden off the shoulders of the people if you know what you're doing.

Can a free people give up the burden of dispensing justice without, in the same moment, ceasing to exist as a free people?

 

[Cutlass]

Nothing wrong with taking the lead and the burden off the shoulders of the people if you know what you're doing.

We really don't ever have to worry about the possibility of a statist or authoritarian knowing what they are doing.

It's not just that pigs will fly before these people know what they're doing, but that the Pig Air Force will be so omnipresent that it rules the world.

 

[Ryika]

That just makes for an angry criminal who does something else, and likely worse. If there is no option of rehabilitation then permanent exile/incarceration is unfortunately the answer.

There is no rehabilitation for a person who rapes a child. At least there should not be. Simply not worth the risk for such a worthless creature. That's why Penectomy is such a great thing, avoids the problem of prison rape when they're imprisoned for life.

Can a free people give up the burden of dispensing justice without, in the same moment, ceasing to exist as a free people?

If they do it of their own will, sure, why not?

We really don't ever have to worry about the possibility of a statist or authoritarian knowing what they are doing.

It's not just that pigs will fly before these people know what they're doing, but that the Pig Air Force will be so omnipresent that it rules the world.

To be honest, does anybody know what they're doing when it comes to leading a state? I think not. The problem with authoritarians is that they generally stick to one plan full of errors, while people in a democracy always feel like things are only ever getting worse, and as a result move between bad plans and thus stabilize the system because no bad plan is ever implemented for too long, before an alternative bad plan reverses half of the things that had been done by the plans that came before.

I, however, am in a state of constant eratticness, as the people around me can attest to, which is why I can be the authoritarian leader of the country and still provide the stability that is needed.

 

[Cutlass]

To be honest, does anybody know what they're doing when it comes to leading a state? I think not. The problem with authoritarians is that they generally stick to one plan full of errors, while people in a democracy always feel like things are only ever getting worse, and as a result move between bad plans and thus stabilize the system.

I, however, am in a state of constant eratticness, as the people around me can attest to, which is why I can be the authoritarian leader of the country and still provide the stability that is needed.

The problem with authoritarian leaders, and this includes those for whom the state was allegedly all, is that they are always actually concerned, and ruling for, their own interests, and not the interests of the nation.

 

[Traitorfish]

If they do it of their own will, sure, why not?

The ability to adminster justice, and to see it being administered, is one of the fundamental premises of a free community. People need a way to resolve disputes peaceably, to prevent private disputes from breaking down into violence and coercion. If the right to administer justice is held by an outside power, one which is not directly subjugated under the people but none the less holds a monopoly on this necessary social function, the people are rendered dependent on that power, they cease to be an independent people. They are rendered unfree, as surely a man who sells himself into slavery. That the bargain may have been freely struck does not change that, and does not somehow guarantee that their freedom persists at a metaphysical level.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The ability to adminster justice, and to see it being administered, is one of the fundamental premises of a free community. People need a way to resolve disputes peaceably, to prevent private disputes from breaking down into violence and coercion. If the right to administer justice is held by an outside power, one which is not directly subjugated under the people but none the less holds a monopoly on this necessary social function, the people are rendered dependent on that power, they cease to be an independent people. They are rendered unfree, as surely a man who sells himself into slavery. That the bargain may have been freely struck does not change that, and does not somehow guarantee that their freedom persists at a metaphysical level.

Is this really all that different if the power involved is internal? I've long since recognized that many people look at police as just a stick they get to beat people that they don't like with that doesn't get the blood visibly on their hands. At least not so visibly that they can't tell themselves that it isn't really there. But that stick is a whole lot less reliable, in terms of aiming it, than my own bat. The 'direct subjugation' is no more apparent than it would be if justice were being contracted to an outside power, the people are just as 'rendered dependent,' so seemingly they are just as 'unfree.'

 

[Takhisis]

Ease of mind, knowing that these people are no longer a part of our world.

And like I said, it might actually be a good way to sooth the right-wingers a bit.

So all extremists have to do is harp on about their POVs until you cave in, and then cave in again once a formerly extreme position is not mainstream, and so on?

Can a free people give up the burden of dispensing justice without, in the same moment, ceasing to exist as a free people?

No.

 

[Ajidica]

Honestly, the guy looks more like a racist post-"makeover" than before.

When John Kinsman of the Proud Boys, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group, appeared in court for a hearing last week, he looked like an entirely different man. During a previous court appearance, on October 19, Kinsman had a scraggly beard, long hair, and wore a T-shirt and overalls. Less than a week later, he was unrecognizable in court in a suit, black-rimmed glasses, short slick hair, and a clean-shaven face.

(Photo in link)
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/31/18049980/john-kinsman-beard-hair-court-makeover-proud-boys

 

[cardgame]

I guess I grew up with this idea that bipartisanship was a real thing that existed, and under that framework, making a concession like Ryika's in exchange for something else that your politics want sounds like classic "good government".

Such things no longer apply to the U.S. though.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is this really all that different if the power involved is internal? I've long since recognized that many people look at police as just a stick they get to beat people that they don't like with that doesn't get the blood visibly on their hands. At least not so visibly that they can't tell themselves that it isn't really there. But that stick is a whole lot less reliable, in terms of aiming it, than my own bat. The 'direct subjugation' is no more apparent than it would be if justice were being contracted to an outside power, the people are just as 'rendered dependent,' so seemingly they are just as 'unfree.'

If one part of the populace can use the apparatus of police and state to exercise coercive another part of the populace, that doesn't seem to me a genuine example of a self-governing community. How can a community be self-governing, if part of the community is excluded from meaningful participation in the process of government? How can we say that justice is self-administered by the people, if "justice" is something inflicted upon one part of the people by another? Please don't imagine that, when I talk about "free peoples", I mean to describe any currently-existing nation-state, not without severe qualification.

 

[Takhisis]

How can a community be self-governing, if part of the community is excluded from meaningful participation in the process of government? How can we say that justice is self-administered by the people, if "justice" is something inflicted upon one part of the people by another?

This sounds a lot like apartheid.

 

[Ryika]

So all extremists have to do is harp on about their POVs until you cave in, and then cave in again once a formerly extreme position is not mainstream, and so on?

Did I say that I want the death penalty back because it soothes the right-wingers? No, I didn't. It would merely be a positive side effect, the goal would be, as stated, to remove child rapists from existence. I know some people get really triggered when their political opponents gain something as side effects, so much so that they'll argue against that thing even if they get more out of the deal, but that's not me. If there's a deal where everybody gets what they want, then I'm very happy.

Of course the death penalty isn't actually that, but if you allow your rational side to hide at the back of your brain for a bit and let your emotional side go to take the lead, then that's how it may look.

 

[Traitorfish]

Did I say that I want the death penalty back because it soothes the right-wingers? No, I didn't. It would merely be a positive side effect, the goal would be, as stated, to remove child rapists from existence.

In what sense would making the far-right feel appear to have political clout than they really do be a positive side-effect?

 

[Ryika]

In what sense would making the far-right feel appear to have political clout than they really do be a positive side-effect?

I don't quite understand this argument. The only way the death penalty could be brought back, is the public in in favor of it, and then politicians see that trend in the general public and reinstate the death penalty. How would that make the far-right appear as if they had "political clout"?

What would happen is that the far right loses power, because the far right's argument that refugee criminals aren't punished properly, would seem a lot less convincing. The far ends of the spectrum only ever gain mainstream recognition when there are real problems that no party is willing to really willing to acknowledge, and thus they have the ability to completely overplay the issue.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't quite understand this argument. The only way the death penalty could be brought back, is the public in in favor of it, and then politicians see that trend in the general public and reinstate the death penalty. How would that make the far-right appear as if they had "political clout"?

That's a pretty naive understanding of how the legislative process works. It's mostly about managing competing interest groups, weighed against the expected reaction of certain electoral demographics. There's no nebulous public will directing the process.

 

[Ryika]

You're focusing on a side-issue. But I mean sure, I kept that post simple because I didn't expect we'd go into political science when I made it, but the point is still the same... the far right is not an interest group that can push the death penalty back into law. The political push towards that change can only be made if other interest groups have the same goal. Which in this case, I would argue, correlates rather nicely with the opinion of the "general public", because there's not much to be gained from it other than the direct effect that instating such a law would have.

In any case, my main point - the thing you didn't respond to - remains the same, and already answered your original question.

 

[Traitorfish]

You're focusing on a side-issue.

In what sense is the process by which the death penalty is introduced and overseen a "side-issue"?

The point of all this is, we're talking about something which, in Europe, is campaigned for almost exclusively by the fascist and quasi-fascist fringe. You're not merely content with handing them a victory, you want us to see that as a bonus. That demands some sort of justification beyond "lol triggered much".

 

[Cutlass]

Did I say that I want the death penalty back because it soothes the right-wingers? No, I didn't. It would merely be a positive side effect, the goal would be, as stated, to remove child rapists from existence. I know some people get really triggered when their political opponents gain something as side effects, so much so that they'll argue against that thing even if they get more out of the deal, but that's not me. If there's a deal where everybody gets what they want, then I'm very happy.

Of course the death penalty isn't actually that, but if you allow your rational side to hide at the back of your brain for a bit and let your emotional side go to take the lead, then that's how it may look.

But then what's the Catholic Church going to do for priests?

 

[Ryika]

But then what's the Catholic Church going to do for priests?

I don't quite understand the question. Can you tell me more about this?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think "going to do for priests" in this case is being used to mean "from where will it source new priests", not "how will it help existing priests". That should make it clearer.