🇯🇵 Major crime in the news in Japan
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (71)
sorted by:
I don't give a damn about 'the law' - look at the moral character of those who make them. I've never followed any speed limit. Jaywalking and speeding are not moral matters, unless you're going 200 km/hour where it's unsafe.
There is a sharp difference between law and legislation, as Hayek said. Law is something that is organic and has deep foundations in a society. The law against stealing would be law. On the other hand, a ban on gas stoves is legislation. If you define the terms in this way, law is worthy of respect and legislation is not.
Yes, I don't understand why you're explaining this. Although this guy was a repeat offender.
Before he gets to me, he'd have to kill 95% of the population first, so I'm relatively safe.
In fact, I used it today. What about the word 'nigger'? I hope I've never given the impression that I care about ridiculous liberal-American sensitivities.
I never argued that I was a 'darling' of the left. Considering the things that make them cheer, I hope not.
It's long abandoned.
That's a big issue, isn't it? They have an aversion to any sort of punishment - except for their political opponents. If you know Robert Sapolsky, the allegedly eminent biologist, in one of his books he argues that humans do not have free will, and that ideally, people who commit crimes would be segregated from society in such a way that they would not feel as punishment. Quite apart from the moral wrong that this is, only a total fool would believe that this has no anti-deterrent effect.
With all this said, I do understand where you're coming from. But what I don't understand is how you can be so certain and confident that where you decide to draw the line is good, and the people allowing stealing up to $950 are wrong. I can easily see them make the same argument for that, though they never make arguments based on any moral foundation, let alone that of the Western world.
That's a nice philosophical delineation. I will admit that Japanese culture leans more towards collectivism and passive deference to authority, and is far too accepting of legislation as authority in itself. From my experience, many people there would explain that you can't do something simply because it's against the law or rules and that's the only explanation needed. Morals and justification are irrelevant. There's also a petty nature to some people who think "if I can't do that thing, I won't let you do it either", but I'm not sure how common that is.
I do agree, although Japanese authority is probably worthy of far more respect than Western authority. This is a country where companies go on TV and apologize for having to increase prices when they have no other choice.
Respect for authority is a two-way street: authority also has to at least pretend to care about you. In the West, this is not the case. I'm no Japan expert, but it seems to be much more the case in Japan. At the very least, they have a functioning society with very low crime rates and no immigration. To a European, that looks like paradise, considering what the parasites who are our elites have inflicted on us.
Not necessarily. Legislation is more of a diktat imposed by rulers, whereas law bubbles up from the values that the society itself holds. If you make a law that mutilating children is a fundamental right, and make some moral claims for this, then that is still just legislation, because that is not broadly shared within the population.
Unfortunately, with our rulers being as awful as they are, we should dispense any notion that laws are worthy of respect by the mere fact that they are laws, lest these scruples be used against us. Here in Europe, one crazy law after another is passed, and I'd have to be crazy to believe that they are worthy of being followed. Such high trust as we have is only enabling governments to become ever more tyrannical.
I've seen people speed in a way that I think: this guy is a maniac. But do it in a safe way, and yeah, no one cares. It does not necessarily put people at risk. Particularly when speeding limits are not imposed for safety reasons, but for all sorts of reasons completely unrelated to it, like 'climate change'.
It is, but do we have an alternative? Unless we want to say that obedience to the literal worst people in the world is something we should strive for.
I think of the Chinese school when you say 'legalism'. But as you use it, it seems to mean 'strict adherence to the word and not the spirit of the law'. I don't believe in that. If someone steals bread because his sister is hungry, sure. But if you're a wealthy bastard who just wants to save on 50 cents on coffee, how exactly should I feel sympathy for that? Sure, you could argue that he is more sinned against than sinning, but while you can argue about the precise punishment - it is good to come down hard on small (real) crimes! Broken windows and all. It sets an example of what heppens when you steal even minimal amounts, so imagine what happens if you engage in serious theft.
As I said though: this works both ways. If it's not significant enough for draconian punishment, why was it significant enough for him to steal? And repeatedly steal. By no means do I want to accuse you of dishonesty or of being anything like that lot, but it sort of reminds me of the pro-transgender lot, who argues "who cares what other people want to do?" when you are arguing against it... but then it turns out they care a great deal. They just use indifference as a weapon against others.
But you were suggesting this one would be on the right, correct? Just saying that like the group fleeing from a wolf, I don't need to be the fastest, just faster than 95%.