Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only in nations or states where the justice system is totally corrupt. I would not have blamed a relative of Emmit Till if they had administered justice. Mexico and the Philippines are two nations today where the law is so corrupt that extrajudicial means are needed.
Like extreme cases such as a pedophile getting off due to a technicality. Say then someone just shoots them in the head or beats them to death. Sure in the eyes of the law it's wrong and you'll go to prison, but isn't that a small price to pay compared to a lot more kids getting raped/molested? Or a guy rapes a mans wife/daughter and gets off and similar thing.
Just who pays that 'small price'? Since when is death or imprisonment a 'small price'? It's only small when you aren't the one who's dead or living in a room the size of an average toilet for the rest of your life.
Our system of justice. That's who pays. When vigilantes take the law into their own hands, we no longer are a nation of law. We are a mob, out for instant gratification for a wrong that was committed to someone else.
Once anyone is killed because they offended someone's sensibilities, anyone can be killed for anything or any reason. Mob rule is rule by fear. Fear always spreads, so the mob always ends up killing each other once the easy targets are dead.
That's why humans created governments. That's also why all vigilantes wear masks or keep their identities hidden. Fear only works briefly, and justice works forever, even when it sometimes fails in specific instances. For every pedophile who gets off on a technicality, there are several hundred who are removed from society.
If you want the death penalty to be applied freely, then seek change within the courts. But if you want ISIS, then destroy the justice system and have at it; you can kill anyone at any time for anything if you are a terrorist. Extremity only starts the slaughter. Once it begins, the scale of extremity always slides right down to the bottom, where any excuse to kill someone is good enough. That rips a society up into little pieces real fast.
That's why the old vigilantes of the western expansion never existed for very long.
They would rise only when there was no law to be had at the fringes of civilization, and they only acted when crime became so egregious that it had to be stopped. Once the crime stopped, the organization disbanded and kept their dirty secrets to themselves.
It sounds to me like the OP wants it when he believes that he knows the truth better than a jury. Our justice system is not perfect - nothing administered by human being is ever perfect - but it's a lot better than the alternative. Hell, I don't even like the death penalty, because of the possibility that an innocent could be convicted and executed.
Would I go out and kill someone I believed was guilty of a terrible crime? No.
Would I kill someone, or use potentially deadly force if I caught them in the act? Yes, if it would save the life of the victim, or stop a rape in progress, I probably would.
Yes. I don't think it is the Justice systems role to be handing out vengeance but if someone like say Dexter wants to take out a few bad people.. godspeed.
This of course is if we could ever get rid of the fictional social contract and it's demon-child: the State
I'm not going to get into another argument with you about state vs. no state, but I do agree with you about defensive force, on two conditions: I would not use deadly force to protect a TV or a car, but I would use it to protect a child unknown to me.
I'm not going to get into another argument with you about state vs. no state, but I do agree with you about defensive force, on two conditions: I would not use deadly force to protect a TV or a car, but I would use it to protect a child unknown to me.
You?
Personally I wouldn't use deadly force to protect my private property. That's just me.
Logically and morally though it is completely fine under the non-aggression principle. Private property is an extension of your labor (you must do something to obtain it). When someone steals your stuff they are outright enslaving you. But not for your labor resulting in the acquiring of that TV it would not be there in your possession. The confiscation of the fruits of your labor without your permission (obviously) is a clear violation of the NAP.
Do you have the right to kill a man trying to enslave you?
Just who pays that 'small price'? Since when is death or imprisonment a 'small price'? It's only small when you aren't the one who's dead or living in a room the size of an average toilet for the rest of your life.
Our system of justice. That's who pays. When vigilantes take the law into their own hands, we no longer are a nation of law. We are a mob, out for instant gratification for a wrong that was committed to someone else.
Once anyone is killed because they offended someone's sensibilities, anyone can be killed for anything or any reason. Mob rule is rule by fear. Fear always spreads, so the mob always ends up killing each other once the easy targets are dead.
That's why humans created governments. That's also why all vigilantes wear masks or keep their identities hidden. Fear only works briefly, and justice works forever, even when it sometimes fails in specific instances. For every pedophile who gets off on a technicality, there are several hundred who are removed from society.
If you want the death penalty to be applied freely, then seek change within the courts. But if you want ISIS, then destroy the justice system and have at it; you can kill anyone at any time for anything if you are a terrorist. Extremity only starts the slaughter. Once it begins, the scale of extremity always slides right down to the bottom, where any excuse to kill someone is good enough. That rips a society up into little pieces real fast.
That's why the old vigilantes of the western expansion never existed for very long.
They would rise only when there was no law to be had at the fringes of civilization, and they only acted when crime became so egregious that it had to be stopped. Once the crime stopped, the organization disbanded and kept their dirty secrets to themselves.
Well said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
