The legality of vigilantism is fundamentally flawed

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Allowance of vigilantism breaks down to subjective enforcements which is a chaotic spiral.

The familial, feudal system you mentioned has been tried, and doesn't work for large groups. Usually leads to tribal like alliances, fights, and infighting.

Governance ain't easy.

Hold up. I was careful to say soft, not allowed.

We are talking 5-8 year prison sentences for cases of vigilantism, in stay of the 20-40 year sentences we typically are seeing for the last few decades (and only seem to be increasing). You don't believe in that?

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hold up. I was careful to say soft, not allowed.

We are talking 5-8 year prison sentences for cases of vigilantism, in stay of the 20-40 year sentences we typically are seeing for the last few decades (and only seem to be increasing). You don't believe in that?

I'm still waiting for a response.

Anyone can step up. Should there not be reduced sentences for acts of vigilantism?

[Bones]

the real problem is that population is just too high.

too many people

[entruil]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Angushjalmur]

Why have any penalty for instances of vigilantism that are justified though?

Someone kills a member of your family, kill a member of theirs ect.

There's nothing to penalize there

[aMindAmok]

Originally Posted by Angushjalmur [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why have any penalty for instances of vigilantism that are justified though?

Someone kills a member of your family, kill a member of theirs ect.

There's nothing to penalize there

This is absurd. Let's say your cousin kills my brother. In retaliation, I choose you as my fair target for death. Would you die willingly? Would you defend youself? Should you kill me as I am trying to kill you does my family now get to kill two of your family indescriminantly? When does this cycle stop? This is why vigilantism is discouraged and punished. There is no way to determine equitable justice for any party outside of mediation. That is the roll the law plays. The rule of law makes civilized society possible. Meating out justice based on revenge will quickly devolve into anarchy. This is one of the ideals that keeps some third world countries from progressing to become a modern society. It's a backwards and regressive concept that best left to the history books.

[BardPop]

Originally Posted by aMindAmok [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is absurd. Let's say your cousin kills my brother. In retaliation, I choose you as my fair target for death. Would you die willingly? Would you defend youself? Should you kill me as I am trying to kill you does my family now get to kill two of your family indescriminantly? When does this cycle stop? This is why vigilantism is discouraged and punished. There is no way to determine equitable justice for any party outside of mediation. That is the roll the law plays. The rule of law makes civilized society possible. Meating out justice based on revenge will quickly devolve into anarchy. This is one of the ideals that keeps some third world countries from progressing to become a modern society. It's a backwards and regressive concept that best left to the history books.

/thread

Except for that-ahem-there is no such thing as a modern society. All of the societies are interconnected and the big ones that the rest depend on almost went down in flames several times,-think the bank bailout-, we might have been better if we had stayed a race of goat farmers. Instead we're hyper-industrialized and sucking up the planets oil/gas/coal faster then ever, navigating one disaster after the next, the only thing saving our asses from the burning heat of a complete carbon melt down is the ever increasing technology our scientists keep pulling out from behind the curtain. If not for that we would could have all been dead and gone, the Philippines will keep trucking along and that will be that, being some great "1st world" country isn't really all that much to aspire too, 1st worlders fuck up way more then the 3rd worlders ever could if only because their governments can fuck up more. Hope we'll pull it off but jesus, we've had a pretty rough ride dealing with all these economic, nuclear, and global warming challenges.

[entruil]

Originally Posted by Angushjalmur [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why have any penalty for instances of vigilantism that are justified though?

Someone kills a member of your family, kill a member of theirs ect.

There's nothing to penalize there

I like to think that a "No-Harm" policy is what we strive to live by.

It's kinda like an election... it can Never be "fair" unless everyone agrees on the rules.

Starting from a place of "Freedom of One's Own Body", there are certain parallels that are inherant.

We are able to decide for Ourselves how we wish to earn/accomplish/proceed.
I am not able to decide for Yourself how you can earn/accomplish/proceed.

therefore,

We both must come to an acceptable standard when mitigating disputes.

I will go in my corner and you can goto your's. We will not be able to hit each other, but just in case, we have an army of like-minds ready to enforce and live prosperously and in peace.


Now Sir, I ask Me!, how Drunk are You!

[Angushjalmur]

Originally Posted by entruil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I like to think that a "No-Harm" policy is what we strive to live by.

It's kinda like an election... it can Never be "fair" unless everyone agrees on the rules.

Starting from a place of "Freedom of One's Own Body", there are certain parallels that are inherant.

We are able to decide for Ourselves how we wish to earn/accomplish/proceed.
I am not able to decide for Yourself how you can earn/accomplish/proceed.

therefore,

We both must come to an acceptable standard when mitigating disputes.

I will go in my corner and you can goto your's. We will not be able to hit each other, but just in case, we have an army of like-minds ready to enforce and live prosperously and in peace.


Now Sir, I ask Me!, how Drunk are You!

As widespread as war is, as violent as law enforcement are, the amount of violence that is allowed on TV ect i'd hardly say we strive to live by a no harm system.

But assuming we do, It hasnt worked out too well. When you can't kill those who need to be killed, you end up with people like Hillary Clinton running for president

[entruil]

Originally Posted by Angushjalmur [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As widespread as war is, as violent as law enforcement are, the amount of violence that is allowed on TV ect i'd hardly say we strive to live by a no harm system.

But assuming we do, It hasnt worked out too well. When you can't kill those who need to be killed, you end up with people like Hillary Clinton running for president

I can't say that we do and I am speaking from my Ideal(read; my interpretation of what's right and Spirit of the Rules(Bill of Rights) so to speak) yet i dug many holes.

hmm ... to much bait there... you are making me rethink thought and posting...

I will throw this in just so people will hate me. It will also have to suffice for my psyche to not have to create a 4-part novel and become a millionaire...

*---- Not Good Rap Loud Curse and anti-thetical(dont know what that means) ----*
Don't Click*Esham - Brick*Don't Click it's worst East Side Hoes and Money

*--Still Meant It , Except I Didn't--*

after preview i add...

Don't blame me for the Libertarian's Curse...



'I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.'
~ Woodrow Wilson (this was after he passed the federal reserve act of 1913)


*`-stands so far, but i just actually read your last post and realized this was an aggravated expansion of... hmm...