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.
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.