Starchild, I agree with you; under the Geneva Convention, individuals are liable for their own individual acts, regardless of orders given.
That is what was drilled into us, Marines: to resist orders one deems immoral; that its best to face a court martial.
Point being: nearly, every high ranking police official, I have had contact with had/has a military background. Thus, our belief system shall prevail.
Therefore, the “hired hit man” bears all the blame, which may only be shared: as testified by him, and investigated by another.
Just as driving a car reckless: one can’t blame the instructor/s.
#trainingbedamned
It is seldom an individual acting alone, who constitutes any problem.
It is the mob, instinctive in humans, that does heinous things. Considering the individual independent of the mob in these cases, is ignoring what humans are.
When theories are based on what humans aren't they are flawed.
Starchild:
What??? Comparing the cops with a hitman hired to kill someone is the most inappropriate comparison I have ever seen! Do you really think that cops who investigate and arrest people who commit robberies, rapes, murders and vandalisms are equivalent to hitman???
Actually I would blame both the contractman and the hitman in this example. In the case of the cops enforcing a law I would be more inclined to blame the legislators who passed the law and voters who voted for them, rather than the cops who enforce it.
Your comparison is breathtaking for what it reveals about your attitude towards the police. I don't deny that some cops go beyond what their legitimate function, but the police do have a legit function, which is, protecting one group of citizens against crimes committed by other citizens.
As to caring more about crimes (A) committed by the State or the cops over (B) crimes committed by one citizen against another, I have no immediate comment. But you seem obsessed with A and totally oblivious to B.
It is seldom an individual acting alone, who constitutes any problem.
It is the mob, instinctive in humans, that does heinous things. Considering the individual independent of the mob in these cases, is ignoring what humans are.
When theories are based on what humans aren't they are flawed.
Les,
Some hitmen go beyond their legitimate function, sure, but I contend they too have a function which is legit. Like police, their legitimate purpose is protecting one group of citizens (or the population as a whole) against crimes committed by other individuals. For instance, assassinating an oppressive dictator or secret police chief who is causing mass harm and whom those acting on behalf of the victims do not have the resources to simply apprehend and bring to justice in a more civilized manner.
I'm not oblivious to "ordinary" crime (actual acts of aggression committed by individuals against each other). If the police were strictly focused on such crimes, and didn't routinely commit aggression themselves on behalf of the State above and beyond arresting people, both in their objectives and their methods, I wouldn't consider police abuse a major issue.
I'm kind of shocked that you as a libertarian don't immediately perceive crimes committed by the State as a far worse problem for society than crimes committed by individuals. To me there's no comparison. There are things people can do to protect themselves from ordinary criminals -- acquire the means to defend oneself, move to a low-crime community, etc. When it comes to the ravages of government there is no low-crime community, and if they really decide to target you there is no adequate defense, since they both write and enforce the laws and have practically unlimited resources. And in a historical context, I don't think the actions of ordinary criminals have ever come close to the democides and genocides perpetrated by government.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - I would not equate vandalism with robbery, rape and murder. Some so-called vandalism is simply artistic expression in the commons. A government bureaucrat requiring standardized lighted exit signs to be placed inside a beautiful old theater building is more of a real act of vandalism than a street artist creating an unlicensed piece of artwork on a freeway underpass.
Starchild:
I am a libertarian, not an idiot. I am also shocked by your breezy indifference to victims of ordinary crime.
(1) I believe in placing blame where it belongs. The onus for state oppression for perpetrators of victimless crimes belong with the legislative body that passed the law, not so much with the police who enforce the law. The problem of governments committing crimes is mostly a problem of legislators passing laws that they have no business passing.
(2) There is a difference between (A) crimes committed by the state such a minimum wage and antidiscrimination laws and (B) crimes committed by agents of the state such as police using excessive force. You use the term "government" too loosely with paying any attention to distinctions. The "government" is composed of many different individuals and groups some of whom work at cross purposes.
PS By vandalism I mean breaking windows on private property, looting stores and burning down buildings. Are you really asserting that these acts are mere "artistic expression in the commons"???
Les
Les,
Some hitmen go beyond their legitimate function, sure, but I contend they too have a function which is legit. Like police, their legitimate purpose is protecting one group of citizens (or the population as a whole) against crimes committed by other individuals. For instance, assassinating an oppressive dictator or secret police chief who is causing mass harm and whom those acting on behalf of the victims do not have the resources to simply apprehend and bring to justice in a more civilized manner.
I'm not oblivious to "ordinary" crime (actual acts of aggression committed by individuals against each other). If the police were strictly focused on such crimes, and didn't routinely commit aggression themselves on behalf of the State above and beyond arresting people, both in their objectives and their methods, I wouldn't consider police abuse a major issue.
I'm kind of shocked that you as a libertarian don't immediately perceive crimes committed by the State as a far worse problem for society than crimes committed by individuals. To me there's no comparison. There are things people can do to protect themselves from ordinary criminals -- acquire the means to defend oneself, move to a low-crime community, etc. When it comes to the ravages of government there is no low-crime community, and if they really decide to target you there is no adequate defense, since they both write and enforce the laws and have practically unlimited resources. And in a historical context, I don't think the actions of ordinary criminals have ever come close to the democides and genocides perpetrated by government.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - I would not equate vandalism with robbery, rape and murder. Some so-called vandalism is simply artistic expression in the commons. A government bureaucrat requiring standardized lighted exit signs to be placed inside a beautiful old theater building is more of a real act of vandalism than a street artist creating an unlicensed piece of artwork on a freeway underpass.
Les,
I'm not indifferent to ordinary violent crime, I just put it in perspective. Two main thoughts on that:
(1) it pales in comparison to crimes by the State; and
(2) virtually nobody is defending it, it's not legal, and taxpayers aren't being robbed to pay for it (at least not en masse)
For those reasons, there's not as much reason to focus on it.
I believe in individual responsibility. Even if someone else passes a bad law, you don't have to help enforce it. If someone voluntarily chooses to help enforce that bad law -- and accepts money for doing so -- I think s/he should take responsibility for profiting at the expense of violating people's rights, and not just say, "Oh, someone else passed that law, so blame them, I'm just doing my job." To me that excuse does not cut it.
If anything, I think State crimes against persons -- e.g. wrongful assault, kidnapping, police brutality, etc. -- are *worse* than State economic crimes. If you are a victim of the police, you may incur economic losses from that, such as missing work, having to pay bail, medical bills, etc., but on top of that there is the actual, physical violation of your person which is not present in cases where the State simply takes your money, either directly via taxation or indirectly via things like wage control laws.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - On vandalism, please note that I said *some* vandalism is simply artistic expression in the commons. But even vandalism that destroys private property and has no redeeming artistic, aesthetic, or enhancing qualities does not rise to the level of crimes like robbery, rape and murder. There is a good reason why it is generally a misdemeanor and those other crimes are felonies.
In the postscript of the comment below, I meant to say "some *so-called* vandalism" -- I do not think adding unauthorized art to public spaces is necessarily real vandalism. However I am not talking about breaking windows on private property, looting stores (that is theft, not vandalism), or burning down (presumably private) buildings (that is arson, not vandalism).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild:
Your comment in this post appears to be nitpicking.
My dictionary defines vandalism as willful or malicious destruction or defacement of private or public property. This would seem to me to include both theft and arson. It would also seem to included adding unauthorized art to public spaces regardless of what you may think.
Les
In the postscript of the comment below, I meant to say "some *so-called* vandalism" -- I do not think adding unauthorized art to public spaces is necessarily real vandalism. However I am not talking about breaking windows on private property, looting stores (that is theft, not vandalism), or burning down (presumably private) buildings (that is arson, not vandalism).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
My thoughts on your thoughts.
(1) "Violent crime pales in comparison with State crime". I am not sure where you're getting this "fact" from. Maybe this depends on what exactly to consider a "state" crime to be. The extermination of the Jews in WWII was definitely a state since this was the official policy of the Nazi German government. The My Lai massacre in the Vietnam War was not, since this was definitely not the policy of the US government.
(2) "Nobody is defending it (violent crime). Well I should hope not, but I am not sure what difference this would make.
(3) "It's not legal". Funny you should mention this because in other posts and generally you seem to think this doesn't matter. In the meeting on Saturday you appear to have said that laws shouldn't be enforced without any regard to whether the law was passed by the legislature.
(4) "Even if someone else passes a bad law, you don't have to help enforce it". What??? Are you saying that the police and bureaucracy can decide what laws they will and will not enforce??? How would anyone know what the law is? It seems to me that, if you think a law is bad, you should work to have it repealed rather than heap calumny on the people who are enforcing it.
(5) "I think State crimes against persons are worse than State economic crimes". I can't think of what I have said that would lead you to believe I would disagree with this. I suppose it is true that I focus on economic crimes. That doesn't necessarily mean that I ignore other crimes, just that I do understand the technicalities of State economic crimes so that is what I focus on.
(6) "Crimes against persons, e.g. wrongful assault, kidnapping, police brutality". It isn't the case that I don't condemn such acts, but many specific instances that you would consider to wrongful or brutal, I would not so consider. I am not sure what you mean by kidnapping unless you think an arrest is a kidnapping.
Les
Les,
I'm not indifferent to ordinary violent crime, I just put it in perspective. Two main thoughts on that:
(1) it pales in comparison to crimes by the State; and
(2) virtually nobody is defending it, it's not legal, and taxpayers aren't being robbed to pay for it (at least not en masse)
For those reasons, there's not as much reason to focus on it.
I believe in individual responsibility. Even if someone else passes a bad law, you don't have to help enforce it. If someone voluntarily chooses to help enforce that bad law -- and accepts money for doing so -- I think s/he should take responsibility for profiting at the expense of violating people's rights, and not just say, "Oh, someone else passed that law, so blame them, I'm just doing my job." To me that excuse does not cut it.
If anything, I think State crimes against persons -- e.g. wrongful assault, kidnapping, police brutality, etc. -- are *worse* than State economic crimes. If you are a victim of the police, you may incur economic losses from that, such as missing work, having to pay bail, medical bills, etc., but on top of that there is the actual, physical violation of your person which is not present in cases where the State simply takes your money, either directly via taxation or indirectly via things like wage control laws.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - On vandalism, please note that I said *some* vandalism is simply artistic expression in the commons. But even vandalism that destroys private property and has no redeeming artistic, aesthetic, or enhancing qualities does not rise to the level of crimes like robbery, rape and murder. There is a good reason why it is generally a misdemeanor and those other crimes are felonies.
Les,
I think words are important, and shape how people view things. I'm not going to intentionally call something by a name that I think is undeserved. "Vandalism" is a term that often carries negative connotations and implies destruction or defacement, as per the definition you quote. "Theft" and "arson" seem even more unequivocally negative. Meanwhile, the reality is that street art is often appreciated and regarded by many as adding to the urban landscape, not detracting from it. I don't particularly share the prejudiced against "unauthorized" art in the commons. In fact I think it's healthy for society when more things happen without government authorization. Don't you?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
What difference does it make that street art is appreciated by many? It isn't the property of the street artist. What some people might consider street art others might consider an eyesore.
If a street artist put something on the common property, it is no longer common property. Besides, if the street artist has a right to appropriate common property, then someone would have a right to paint over his/her work with their own art, since everyone would have a right to put their own art work in the same place. An art war could break out over who has control of the space. That's why we need a group to make decisions on behalf of all the public, not just allow the individual artist to "homestead" the space.
Les
Les,
I think words are important, and shape how people view things. I'm not going to intentionally call something by a name that I think is undeserved. "Vandalism" is a term that often carries negative connotations and implies destruction or defacement, as per the definition you quote. "Theft" and "arson" seem even more unequivocally negative. Meanwhile, the reality is that street art is often appreciated and regarded by many as adding to the urban landscape, not detracting from it. I don't particularly share the prejudiced against "unauthorized" art in the commons. In fact I think it's healthy for society when more things happen without government authorization. Don't you?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
It is the property of the street artist as much as it is the property of any other member of the public. If you as a member of the public don't have the right to put something on the common property, then arguably it is no longer common property, but rather the exclusive property of the State. Is that what you would prefer?
I did not say anything about "appropriating" common property. That would imply ownership. I agree that creating street art does not convey property rights, and other people would have the same right to put their artwork in the public space. You worry that an "art war" would break out. I say better an art war than an actual war. It would be fairly simple to have some basic rules to avoid actual physical conflict (e.g. you cannot interfere with another artist when they are working). In practice I think a kind of "spontaneous order" would develop in which a process of governmental approval/control would be superfluous.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))