When it comes to predators (the irredeemable), you build the legal system to basically catch up to them anyway. Only very clever sociopaths and psychopaths actually succeed. Most destroy every social group they exist in or even cultivate. Their predator drive is inevitably self-destructive, so (as an institution) all you have to do is wait for them to cause enough chaos to justify pulling them out of the population.
Frankly, this is true for basically any kind of human predator. Their predilections keep them on the run basically forever until they get smart and stop (usually this is due to age, violent crime basically ceases past the age of 40), or they get caught up being predated upon by other predators, or they end up in the hands of the state.
Though personally, I'm eager to be able to identify them more efficiently. If I could accurately identify all the ones I come across, perhaps I could find one that I can stomach researching.
This is actually where social pressures come into play the most. We live in a society where we can share vast amounts of information, so social stigma still has an effect; but there is a significantly missing aspect of social violence.
Now, I'm not trying to emphasize social violence as a good thing, but there needs to be some of it. Perhaps this is a bit too masculine of a punishment mechanism, but as I've said before, I'd be happy to just ride a tazer for 5 seconds instead of paying a $500 fine for speeding. A small amount of social violence in response to proper social taboos actually works very well to reduce the extreme over-confidence of most modern day bullies. A hard slap in the face is frankly needed for most of the bullies who just think they can get away with shit.
You DO NOT want to form a violent honor culture where someone can kill you for disrespecting them, but I feel that in some places, particularly the middle class, we've lost any tolerance of violence altogether.
For genuine predators and hunters of people, I'd still say that honest-to-god mandated CCW-ing would resolve some of their predator drives. This is what basically happens to these hunters. They get cocky, bite off more than they can chew, and they are not prepared for the severity of the consequence of victimizing someone of an unknown potential. For a predator, you have to maximize and anonymize the threat against them.
In insurgency tactics, I call this "The Battle of Algeris Scenario". What the Insurgents in Algeria used to do is walk up with a loaded revolver behind a French solider shoot them, and then immediately drop the gun as if they hadn't noticed. The scene was so chaotic that most bystanders wouldn't know what happened. There was no good or practical response that the French could mount to this. Anyone could be a threat of absolutely maximum force. It makes you extremely cautious and paranoid, which are both highly exploitable.
For predators, unknowable number of defenders of unknowable skill and unknowable armament is the worst case scenario. This is why I've previously harped on creating a militia system. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless.
You don't have to necessarily go actively looking for predators, if everyone is capable of dealing with the predator the moment they appear, and even is short-term collectives.
This is why you create social institutions for communities. They provide a mechanism to support anti-predatory social pressures on a community when a predatory threat emerges. The social group can react quickly against a threat, and return to normal when the threat has passed. This can be done through many mechanisms, dissemination of information, direct intervention to prevent conflict, informal arbitration, or even collective defense.
It is also why Leftists seek to utterly destroy or subvert these institutions wherever they may be, and why you must keep them as decentralized as possible.
I'm reminded of Sam Hyde saying that bullying should occur "early and often". Presented satirically, it still has some truth to it. Some people need to be kept in line, to put it bluntly.
Put more nicely, our present scenario permits tyranny from passive/feminine/victim-like angles, but no masculine ones (let's ignore the multiculturalism non-integrating immigrant problem like the media does for now). The power balance is messed up. The how of it is difficult, but really should be acknowledged more often so preparations can be made for future safeguards.
A small amount of social violence in response to proper social taboos actually works very well to reduce the extreme over-confidence of most modern day bullies.
I think most of the people in this place would agree with your general point. The speeding ticket fine is a good example; that monetary fine can hurt a lot for some people, but some tazing would hurt for every person - and enforcement doesn't work well if it's not received equally.
The people in charge of handling these laws and enforcement systems seem highly out of touch with reality. It's hard to not assume that things are compromised by clever predators like sociopaths who are making adjustments that make it easier for the next sociopath.
I think a large chunk of the problem comes from some assumption that got made in the past about the government having a monopoly on violence. You and I know that's not the intention behind the founding of the US. But here I am, in a society where I get in trouble if I tackle a thief (and there's no penalty for frivolous lawsuits). The appeal of comic book heroes can come from a desire to enact needed justice, not simply the desire for a superman to act as your savior - I find myself often advocating in favor of vigilantiism, even if it causes extra problems it might be worth it to solve other problems.
If enforcement of social boundaries, rules and expectations were enforced by random citizens rather than specially elected enforcers, that would mean that only laws that people care about get enforced. This is great for society, but terrible for current power wielders. Laws don't protect men, men protect the law; or, if no one wants to enforce a law, then it stops being a law. Somewhere along the line people took up legalism as a replacement for ethics, and decided "I should obey the law because it is the law" instead of "This is the law because we all value it enough to hurt our neighbors if they violate it." It also would mean that immigrants that fail to integrate will find trouble, and that's pretty naughty too.
The people in charge of handling these laws and enforcement systems seem highly out of touch with reality.
That's really the point of a lot of regulation. Unequal enforcement so that some people are immunized from consequence.
I think a large chunk of the problem comes from some assumption that got made in the past about the government having a monopoly on violence. You and I know that's not the intention behind the founding of the US.
Agreed. Good governance can only exist when there is a balance of terror. The monopoly of violence thing was actually openly rejected by the Founders.
I find myself often advocating in favor of vigilantiism, even if it causes extra problems it might be worth it to solve other problems.
So, I don't necessarily think vigilantism is the solution (because you're basically creating another protection racket), but people should know that there is a risk of social violence when you start doing stupid, dangerous, or criminal shit to the general public, and it's not clear who that could come form.
While CCW'ing is certainly one option. I'd argue people just carrying mace would even be enough. If someone refuses to behave, a face full of mace is more than survivable, and you don't need the level of brutality that fists, elbows, and knees deliver. You don't need vigilantism, just the threat of unknown force to keep people straight.
When it comes to predators (the irredeemable), you build the legal system to basically catch up to them anyway. Only very clever sociopaths and psychopaths actually succeed. Most destroy every social group they exist in or even cultivate. Their predator drive is inevitably self-destructive, so (as an institution) all you have to do is wait for them to cause enough chaos to justify pulling them out of the population.
Frankly, this is true for basically any kind of human predator. Their predilections keep them on the run basically forever until they get smart and stop (usually this is due to age, violent crime basically ceases past the age of 40), or they get caught up being predated upon by other predators, or they end up in the hands of the state.
This is actually where social pressures come into play the most. We live in a society where we can share vast amounts of information, so social stigma still has an effect; but there is a significantly missing aspect of social violence.
Now, I'm not trying to emphasize social violence as a good thing, but there needs to be some of it. Perhaps this is a bit too masculine of a punishment mechanism, but as I've said before, I'd be happy to just ride a tazer for 5 seconds instead of paying a $500 fine for speeding. A small amount of social violence in response to proper social taboos actually works very well to reduce the extreme over-confidence of most modern day bullies. A hard slap in the face is frankly needed for most of the bullies who just think they can get away with shit.
You DO NOT want to form a violent honor culture where someone can kill you for disrespecting them, but I feel that in some places, particularly the middle class, we've lost any tolerance of violence altogether.
For genuine predators and hunters of people, I'd still say that honest-to-god mandated CCW-ing would resolve some of their predator drives. This is what basically happens to these hunters. They get cocky, bite off more than they can chew, and they are not prepared for the severity of the consequence of victimizing someone of an unknown potential. For a predator, you have to maximize and anonymize the threat against them.
In insurgency tactics, I call this "The Battle of Algeris Scenario". What the Insurgents in Algeria used to do is walk up with a loaded revolver behind a French solider shoot them, and then immediately drop the gun as if they hadn't noticed. The scene was so chaotic that most bystanders wouldn't know what happened. There was no good or practical response that the French could mount to this. Anyone could be a threat of absolutely maximum force. It makes you extremely cautious and paranoid, which are both highly exploitable.
For predators, unknowable number of defenders of unknowable skill and unknowable armament is the worst case scenario. This is why I've previously harped on creating a militia system. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless.
You don't have to necessarily go actively looking for predators, if everyone is capable of dealing with the predator the moment they appear, and even is short-term collectives.
This is why you create social institutions for communities. They provide a mechanism to support anti-predatory social pressures on a community when a predatory threat emerges. The social group can react quickly against a threat, and return to normal when the threat has passed. This can be done through many mechanisms, dissemination of information, direct intervention to prevent conflict, informal arbitration, or even collective defense.
It is also why Leftists seek to utterly destroy or subvert these institutions wherever they may be, and why you must keep them as decentralized as possible.
I'm reminded of Sam Hyde saying that bullying should occur "early and often". Presented satirically, it still has some truth to it. Some people need to be kept in line, to put it bluntly.
Put more nicely, our present scenario permits tyranny from passive/feminine/victim-like angles, but no masculine ones (let's ignore the multiculturalism non-integrating immigrant problem like the media does for now). The power balance is messed up. The how of it is difficult, but really should be acknowledged more often so preparations can be made for future safeguards.
I think most of the people in this place would agree with your general point. The speeding ticket fine is a good example; that monetary fine can hurt a lot for some people, but some tazing would hurt for every person - and enforcement doesn't work well if it's not received equally.
The people in charge of handling these laws and enforcement systems seem highly out of touch with reality. It's hard to not assume that things are compromised by clever predators like sociopaths who are making adjustments that make it easier for the next sociopath.
I think a large chunk of the problem comes from some assumption that got made in the past about the government having a monopoly on violence. You and I know that's not the intention behind the founding of the US. But here I am, in a society where I get in trouble if I tackle a thief (and there's no penalty for frivolous lawsuits). The appeal of comic book heroes can come from a desire to enact needed justice, not simply the desire for a superman to act as your savior - I find myself often advocating in favor of vigilantiism, even if it causes extra problems it might be worth it to solve other problems.
If enforcement of social boundaries, rules and expectations were enforced by random citizens rather than specially elected enforcers, that would mean that only laws that people care about get enforced. This is great for society, but terrible for current power wielders. Laws don't protect men, men protect the law; or, if no one wants to enforce a law, then it stops being a law. Somewhere along the line people took up legalism as a replacement for ethics, and decided "I should obey the law because it is the law" instead of "This is the law because we all value it enough to hurt our neighbors if they violate it." It also would mean that immigrants that fail to integrate will find trouble, and that's pretty naughty too.
That's really the point of a lot of regulation. Unequal enforcement so that some people are immunized from consequence.
Agreed. Good governance can only exist when there is a balance of terror. The monopoly of violence thing was actually openly rejected by the Founders.
So, I don't necessarily think vigilantism is the solution (because you're basically creating another protection racket), but people should know that there is a risk of social violence when you start doing stupid, dangerous, or criminal shit to the general public, and it's not clear who that could come form.
While CCW'ing is certainly one option. I'd argue people just carrying mace would even be enough. If someone refuses to behave, a face full of mace is more than survivable, and you don't need the level of brutality that fists, elbows, and knees deliver. You don't need vigilantism, just the threat of unknown force to keep people straight.
YES.
The Supreme Court lied. We are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of men, who built a government of laws.
The Constitution of the United States means nothing if it is not protected by the constitution of men.