In Texas an Sri Lanken-American named Rajan Moonsinghe got a gun to protect his home. Suspecting a burglar he stood on his front porch. Cops arrived unannounced & shot him dead in less than 1 sec. And the NRA is silent. This is a trend.
Before Rajan, when cops killed Tamir Rice for a toy gun in an open carry state—NRA was 🤐. When cops killed legal gun owner Philando Castille, NRA was 🤐. But when Rittenhouse killed 2 people, NRA called him " a warrior for gun owners!”
2A doesn't apply to BIPOC.
@SocialistStan @Kitchi @QasimRashid
Unfortunately society needs people to (police).enforce the law. What we don't need are police unions that blackmail communities to keep cops from legitimate accountability.
@joedamiani Law implies some decision imposed on a population by a lawgiver, and law enforcement are the boots on the ground that keep people in line with it through violence, the fear of which creates the order in society that the lawgiver wants.
If you glorify "law and order" you're glorifying the imposition of a lawgiver's will on a population through violence, and implicitly saying that their 'order' is superior to any the people would have chosen for themselves.
@joedamiani Yes, I'm an anarchist. An-Archos, no rulers.
An anarchist conception of 'law' is very different than what the police do. It relies on the principle of free association as a basis, meaning that no body is born into the dominion of a legal system and people are free to choose communities with norms that match their own. The need for enforcement of those norms is minimal when people have self-selected to follow them.
Kinda the way this platform works.
Getting rid of wage slavery would definitely go a very very long way to reducing the incentive for people to prey on one another.
If you're ok with different laws for each country, why not for each county or city? That's just an arbitrary line intended to keep nationalist formations intact, federated or not. You seem to be arguing that laws would be unnecessary (or less necessary) under socialism, but also that there should be one set of laws imposed?
@PensiveTM A diversity of 'laws' is just as important as diversity in anything else. Why should people live under a legal system they haven't consented to?
And if they have consented to it, then it's not really a legal system in the proper sense of the word imo.
@SocialistStan
If you are born in the US, then US laws apply to you.
I just believe there should be no state laws, especially ones that break the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
We are never going to agree here.
I would suggest walking from Tennessee to Virginia by crossing Main St. and see what real freedom looks like.
The below is illegal by most state laws. But not for me.
@PensiveTM So you believe there should be no state laws (even though you espoused federalism earlier), that people should be born into systems they can't consent to, and a document written by 18th century slave-owners is what that system should be based on?
Yah, we are never going to agree, you're an authoritarian nationalist.
BTW, if you had your way that pot would be illegal.
@PensiveTM You might be interested to know that globally significant cities are organized into networks that act unilaterally.
https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/
Not too different from the Hansiatic League, which was a network of city states in the 14th century (not 5BCE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League
This isn't to say city states can't be authoritarian internally, but they are certainly viable.
The origins of constitutional sheriff ideology lie in the two concepts of the county supremacy movement: The county – not the state or federal governments – should control all land within its borders, and the county sheriff should be the ultimate law enforcement authority in the U.S. These ideas were pioneered by Christian Identity minister William Potter Gale in the 1970s and described as “Posse Comitatus.”
@joedamiani Anarchist 'legal theory' (quotes cause it's not really the same thing as what a government imposes) also debates between actions which are malum in se and malum prohibitum.
The first kind of action is one which is wrong in itself, like racism or murder, the second category are actions which are wrong only because someone has agreed under principles of free association that they are, like a Muslim eating pork.
If you begin analyzing the 45K+ laws that exist in the US you will find the vast majority are just some old dead guy's opinion on what should be wrong imposed on everyone else. Only a handful deal with malum in se matters.
But the pigs will kill you over any of them. so #AbolishThePolice
Qasim Rashid, Esq.
WTF
SocialistStan
Joe Damiani
Pensive™️