• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's Not That Complicated

So how is your idea of civilization different than the jungle? Might makes right. There is no idea of justice or society watching out for those in positions of weakness or vulnerability. There is complete natural freedom: for the strong to eat the weak for lunch, with no one to interfere. Survival of the fittest.

So that's what you think civilization and law, order, and justice are all about?

What you don't understand is that might *always* makes right. The difference between civilization and barbarism is that, in the former, might is concentrated in a single entity (i.e. the state). This entity can then resolve disputes between its subjects, without regard for their individual power.

What we are seeing now is a reversion to barbarism, in which the physical power of individuals is allowed to determine who gets what. The only way to remedy this is for one entity (again, the state) to bring overwhelming force to bear against the mobs.
 
Someone said that Floyd was not resisting arrest, so there should not have been any force. But he resisted getting out of the car, being handcuffed, and refused to get in the police van. So force was needed. But police should know how to be forceful without killing people. They should know someone could have heart disease or something that makes them easy to kill.
I understand what you’re saying. At least initially, Floyd resisted the police which necessarily caused them to use force to gain his compliance. That part, for me, was proper use of force. Once under the officer’s control, Floyd’s safety was their responsibility.

Not only did they fail to provide for Floyd’s safety, their willful negligence caused his death.

Whatever other health factors that may have contributed to his death take a backseat to the officers actions that ultimately killed Floy.

But for Chauvin, and the other officers actions/inactions, Floyd would still be alive.
 
I understand what you’re saying. At least initially, Floyd resisted the police which necessarily caused them to use force to gain his compliance. That part, for me, was proper use of force. Once under the officer’s control, Floyd’s safety was their responsibility.

Not only did they fail to provide for Floyd’s safety, their willful negligence caused his death.

Whatever other health factors that may have contributed to his death take a backseat to the officers actions that ultimately killed Floy.

But for Chauvin, and the other officers actions/inactions, Floyd would still be alive.

Yes, police are not supposed to be bullies. Maybe there are some cops who see their job that way, but they are wrong. Most police are probably respectful of suspects. These were not.

I still don't think the rioting is all about this killing and racism though. Yeah there are bad cops, but I think most are not. And there are plenty of black cops.

I think a lot of Americans are angry for mostly economic reasons, and that's why Trump got elected. If he takes the side of the callous ruling elite, he could lose most of his supporters.

Or worse. We could have a revolution.
 
What you don't understand is that might *always* makes right. The difference between civilization and barbarism is that, in the former, might is concentrated in a single entity (i.e. the state). This entity can then resolve disputes between its subjects, without regard for their individual power.

What we are seeing now is a reversion to barbarism, in which the physical power of individuals is allowed to determine who gets what. The only way to remedy this is for one entity (again, the state) to bring overwhelming force to bear against the mobs.

So what is wrong with the state also watching out for a demographic in a position of vulnerability and trying to protect them against those in a position of strength and privilege (for example, women not being able to vote, or blacks not being allowed to vote, or not having as much access to educational or work opportunities, etc... in short, all those things called "social justice" that make you make a face like you just bit into a lemon)?

And are you now taking back your claim that leaving everyone free without any state intervention, restraint, or justice always works out for the best, because we are all mammals and understand empathy anyway?
 
Yes, police are not supposed to be bullies. Maybe there are some cops who see their job that way, but they are wrong. Most police are probably respectful of suspects. These were not.

I still don't think the rioting is all about this killing and racism though. Yeah there are bad cops, but I think most are not. And there are plenty of black cops.

I think a lot of Americans are angry for mostly economic reasons, and that's why Trump got elected. If he takes the side of the callous ruling elite, he could lose most of his supporters.

Or worse. We could have a revolution.
You’re right that the protesters are angry about more than Floyd’s death.

I seriously doubt that the current unrest will lead to revolution. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Americans have protested after an African American was unlawfully killed by police.
 
He wouldn't get in the police van. That's why it turned physical. That doesn't excuse the excessive force. But there had to be some kind of force.

And if "some kind of force" were used in a judicious and appropriate manner we aren't where we are now.
 
So what is wrong with the state also watching out for a demographic in a position of vulnerability and trying to protect them against those in a position of strength and privilege (for example, women not being able to vote, or blacks not being allowed to vote, or not having as much access to educational or work opportunities, etc... in short, all those things called "social justice" that make you make a face like you just bit into a lemon)?

"Social justice" in a democracy is generally a means of increasing the power of those promoting it. Expansion of suffrage is explicitly so (the enfranchised groups will use their votes to support whoever gave them the right to vote), while other hand outs like affirmative action are implicitly so (the beneficiaries, presumably already enfranchised, will vote for the party giving the handouts). In a way, this is a more limited version of the jungle, where different sides are still fighting over power, and doing harmful (from the perspective of society generally) things to secure it.

And are you now taking back your claim that leaving everyone free without any state intervention, restraint, or justice always works out for the best, because we are all mammals and understand empathy anyway?

I have no idea where you think I said anything like that.
 
"Social justice" in a democracy is generally a means of increasing the power of those promoting it. Expansion of suffrage is explicitly so (the enfranchised groups will use their votes to support whoever gave them the right to vote), while other hand outs like affirmative action are implicitly so (the beneficiaries, presumably already enfranchised, will vote for the party giving the handouts). In a way, this is a more limited version of the jungle, where different sides are still fighting over power, and doing harmful (from the perspective of society generally) things to secure it.



I have no idea where you think I said anything like that.

So which of these would you agree or disagree with:

a) If something is not fair for a group or individual, it’s OK for a government to intervene to make it fair.

b) If something is not fair for a group or individual, it’s NOT OK for government to intervene, because we are mammals and we will figure out a way ourselves to make things work out for the best and have justice and fairness prevail.

c) Justice is whatever the strong say it is. Government has no business making judgments or intervening.intervening.
 
So which of these would you agree or disagree with:

a) If something is not fair for a group or individual, it’s OK for a government to intervene to make it fair.

b) If something is not fair for a group or individual, it’s NOT OK for government to intervene, because we are mammals and we will figure out a way ourselves to make things work out for the best and have justice and fairness prevail.

c) Justice is whatever the strong say it is. Government has no business making judgments or intervening.intervening.

As it holds a monopoly on force, the government can act for any purpose it chooses. Of course, sane governments will generally act in a rational and predictable manner.

The government is "the strong". So if the government chooses to grant special legal privileges to a certain class of society, for example by discriminating in their favor, letting large gatherings of them loot and burn down whatever they please, and letting them form armed organizations with coercive control over large parts of major cities, then that class of society are de facto "the strong", whatever their natural abilities.

As mentioned, a sane government would be unlikely to grant such extensive privileges to anyone, or to allow any privileges to vest in people prone to such behavior, but our government hasn't been sane in a long time.
 
As it holds a monopoly on force, the government can act for any purpose it chooses. Of course, sane governments will generally act in a rational and predictable manner.

The government is "the strong". So if the government chooses to grant special legal privileges to a certain class of society, for example by discriminating in their favor, letting large gatherings of them loot and burn down whatever they please, and letting them form armed organizations with coercive control over large parts of major cities, then that class of society are de facto "the strong", whatever their natural abilities.

As mentioned, a sane government would be unlikely to grant such extensive privileges to anyone, or to allow any privileges to vest in people prone to such behavior, but our government hasn't been sane in a long time.

I would like to stay away from specifics. We could talk about specific situations later. But it seems like everyone has their own interests and opinions in terms of where our government should intervene and where people should be free. Getting into the specifics of those gets into politics and special interests.

It seems to me that when you have certain situations in mind, you are happy with government intervening. And in other situations, you want government to leave everyone free.

That’s why I was trying to keep it abstract with the above statements. I noticed you didn’t choose.
 
In this case he got the cops called on him for not returning the cigarettes that he bought with what the cashier thought was a counterfeit bill.

But the key point, and really the only point:



No, obviously not.

I think the cops were actually called not because he bought anything, but because when the store clerk told him no because the bill looked fake, he left and the the clerk was unsure if they were supposed to confiscate the bill, so they called the cops after the fact.

I dont believe he ever actually made the purchase.
 
I would like to stay away from specifics. We could talk about specific situations later. But it seems like everyone has their own interests and opinions in terms of where our government should intervene and where people should be free. Getting into the specifics of those gets into politics and special interests.

It seems to me that when you have certain situations in mind, you are happy with government intervening. And in other situations, you want government to leave everyone free.

That’s why I was trying to keep it abstract with the above statements. I noticed you didn’t choose.

I'm not sure what "it's okay for a government to intervene" is supposed to mean. The state just is a monopoly of force, it intervenes by simply existing. It is not possible for the state to be neutral in any matter touching the society it governs.

As for whether the state should act for the purpose of abolishing inequality, it can. It can also act to abolish gravity. Neither would be rational.
 
I'm not sure what "it's okay for a government to intervene" is supposed to mean. The state just is a monopoly of force, it intervenes by simply existing. It is not possible for the state to be neutral in any matter touching the society it governs.

As for whether the state should act for the purpose of abolishing inequality, it can. It can also act to abolish gravity. Neither would be rational.

I am not sure what that means. The state may or may not allow women to vote. It may make it legal or illegal for people with certain skin tones to be able to use the same public restrooms as others. We all have, as you say, a sense of when something is fair or unfair, IOW, just or unjust. We just need a "monopoly of force" to convince those who are more interested in their own interests than what is fair.

Why is this irrational?
 
I think the cops were actually called not because he bought anything, but because when the store clerk told him no because the bill looked fake, he left and the the clerk was unsure if they were supposed to confiscate the bill, so they called the cops after the fact.

I dont believe he ever actually made the purchase.

The story I read had him already having bought some cigarettes and the teller telling him to give them back.
 
In general, conflicts have two sides. There may be more, there may be complicated details regarding why a conflict exists, there may be lots of nuance, but the essence of a conflict is that two sides have a problem with each other. Non-neutral third parties usually align with one or the other, though they may have reservations or their own problems with the side they support.

The news of late is essentially about the conflict between police and criminals. Conservatives generally support the police, while liberals generally support the criminals. Yes there is nuance, conservatives don't agree with everything every policeman does and liberals don't agree with everything every criminal does. But as a general matter, it's clear who's on who's side.

By all means, support the police against this "criminal": Peaceful protester is pepper sprayed and shot in the face with a gas canister. - GIF on Imgur

That's a video of cops pepperspraying and then attempting to murder an unarmed protestor. The fact that no cops stepped in to arrest their comrade that just shot a civilian in the head with a tear gas canister makes them complicit in his crime.
 
I am not sure what that means. The state may or may not allow women to vote. It may make it legal or illegal for people with certain skin tones to be able to use the same public restrooms as others. We all have, as you say, a sense of when something is fair or unfair, IOW, just or unjust. We just need a "monopoly of force" to convince those who are more interested in their own interests than what is fair.

Why is this irrational?

The irrationality comes in when you have a false concept of justice. For example, the view that abstract moral principles dictate how civil, political, and/or economic rights should be concretely distributed, is in my view irrational. It's also casually implicated in most of the 20th century's mass killings.
 
By all means, support the police against this "criminal": Peaceful protester is pepper sprayed and shot in the face with a gas canister. - GIF on Imgur

That's a video of cops pepperspraying and then attempting to murder an unarmed protestor. The fact that no cops stepped in to arrest their comrade that just shot a civilian in the head with a tear gas canister makes them complicit in his crime.

This is a great case in point. You see police using force in a video deliberately stripped of sound, and assume that the force must be unjustified, because the people wielding it were police officers and the subject was an anti-police demonstrator. I assume that it was probably justified, for the same reasons.
 
This is a great case in point. You see police using force in a video deliberately stripped of sound, and assume that the force must be unjustified, because the people wielding it were police officers and the subject was an anti-police demonstrator. I assume that it was probably justified, for the same reasons.

Interesting, so you believe words alone justify shooting someone in the face with a lethal weapon?
 
Back
Top Bottom