Central Council of Anarchy

[Innocent]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 October 2009 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1256014485' post='1988236']
I look at it this way: is someone committing a spiritual sin against God, a spiritual sin against God and another man, or is the sin actually resulting in direct physical harm against a non-aggressor? The only legitimate use of physical force is to stop a physical threat, because intangibles cannot actually be defended with physical force. You cannot defend your honor with your fists. You cannot justly attempt to make someone moral or good by means of coercion of the will. Any attempt to coerce the free will is a contradiction of human nature.

You cannot protect your belief in God with violence. You cannot protect any idea with violence. You can protect physical things with physical violence. Unless someone is actually initiating or threatening to initiate direct, immediate physical harm, one may not use physical violence against him.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

As an extreme hypothetical situation, suppose someone set up a large screen in front of a primary school and projected pornographic or extremely violent films onto that when the children come out of school, would it be justified to imprison such a person?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 October 2009 - 01:12 AM' timestamp='1256015520' post='1988254']
So what about in the case of stealing from giant corporations who really won't miss the money? Say a guy embezzles a million dollars from a fifty billion dollar company. Could he be incarcerated? More basically, did this man do wrong? Since that money wasn't necessary for anybody's survival?
[/quote]

Would he have to be incarcerated? Will he be in a position to embezzle money again?

He initiated aggression against others. That is wrong. He should remunerate the victim insofar as he is able. If it reasonably appears that he no longer poses a threat to others, there is no reason for him to not be out in society and being productive.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Innocent' date='20 October 2009 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1256015859' post='1988260']
As an extreme hypothetical situation, suppose someone set up a large screen in front of a primary school and projected pornographic or extremely violent films onto that when the children come out of school, would it be justified to imprison such a person?
[/quote]

No. One may not protect virtue with physical violence. It is, however, absolutely acceptable (and eminently likely) that the individuals in a neighborhood/town participate in a mass shunning of such a person, peacefully exiling him. "Don't have any economic or personal dealings with the pervert" would become the order of the day. He would likely be fired from his job, as well.

There are so many non-violent ways to deal with such a pervert.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 20, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 October 2009 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1256016073' post='1988264']
Would he have to be incarcerated? Will he be in a position to embezzle money again?

He initiated aggression against others. That is wrong. He should remunerate the victim insofar as he is able. If it reasonably appears that he no longer poses a threat to others, there is no reason for him to not be out in society and being productive.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Ok, so a couple objections.
1) Let's pretend that all the money is gone. Should there be restitution?
2) How can you ever trust that man to be productive in society? Personally I'd always be worried about him, considering he's proven that he's not above stealing from his employer. Obviously we can't trust him in a position of any power in a company, so do we force him into menial jobs?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 October 2009 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1256016322' post='1988269']
Ok, so a couple objections.
1) Let's pretend that all the money is gone. Should there be restitution?[/quote]

There should be restitution. But keep in mind that in a fallen world, society cannot exist without forgiveness, either. Justice and mercy should exist together.

[quote]2) How can you ever trust that man to be productive in society? Personally I'd always be worried about him, considering he's proven that he's not above stealing from his employer. Obviously we can't trust him in a position of any power in a company, so do we force him into menial jobs?
[/quote]

Why do we need to force him into anything? If his name and face have been broadcast everywhere, do we need to use force to keep him out of trouble? Would you hire a financial adviser named Bernie Madoff or Charles Ponzi?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 20, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 October 2009 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1256016642' post='1988277']
There should be restitution. But keep in mind that in a fallen world, society cannot exist without forgiveness, either. Justice and mercy should exist together.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
There should be restitution, but what if there's simply no money to take back? Would he just... be sent on his way?

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 October 2009 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1256016642' post='1988277']
Why do we need to force him into anything? If his name and face have been broadcast everywhere, do we need to use force to keep him out of trouble? Would you hire a financial adviser named Bernie Madoff or Charles Ponzi?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]I guess I can accept this. Something feels wrong about it though. I dunno, maybe I'm biassed, but it feels like something is missing in the equation.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 October 2009 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1256017141' post='1988281']
There should be restitution, but what if there's simply no money to take back? Would he just... be sent on his way?[/quote]
Is not the rich man supposed to forgive the wicked servant?

[quote]I guess I can accept this. Something feels wrong about it though. I dunno, maybe I'm biassed, but it feels like something is missing in the equation.
[/quote]

I know what you're feeling. I understand that you have the best of intentions, as did I, but the part of the equation you are missing is "using violence to make everything right again." You'll get used to the absence of that desire. And you'll rejoice in the presence of peace. As a wise man once said, "There is no way to peace. Peace [i]is[/i] the way."

~Sternhauser

Edited October 20, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 October 2009 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1256017393' post='1988286']
Is not the rich man supposed to forgive the wicked servant?



I know what you're feeling. I understand that you have the best of intentions, as did I, but the part of the equation you are missing is "using violence to make everything right again." You'll get used to the absence of that desire. And you'll rejoice in the presence of peace. As a wise man once said, "There is no way to peace. Peace [i]is[/i] the way."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You have to concede though, that violence as you define it, is not inherently evil. Your position, if I'm not completely mistaken, is that we don't have the authority to apply violence, but of course you and I both can recall different instances in the Bible where various types of violence are used legitimately. The one that's popping into my head right this second is the story of the wedding feast, where the man who had not put on his wedding garment was thrown outside where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[Innocent]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 October 2009 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1256016642' post='1988277'][quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 October 2009 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1256016322' post='1988269']
Ok, so a couple objections.
1) Let's pretend that all the money is gone. Should there be restitution?

[/quote]

There should be restitution. But keep in mind that in a fallen world, society cannot exist without forgiveness, either. Justice and mercy should exist together.
[/quote]

Translated into practical steps, how is this principle you have given (demanding restitution, but mercifully) to be implemented in the situation Nihil suggested?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Innocent

[Winchester]

Your disposition I'll remember when I'm letting go.


I tried being CG, but I'm LG, according to Don-John.

[Innocent]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 October 2009 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1256015081' post='1988247']
The only purpose for which one may intend to incarcerate (or execute) someone is to protect other individuals from someone who poses a grave physical threat to other people. If someone can only be stopped from stealing property necessary to survival by incarcerating him, it is legitimate to do so.

Protection from physical harm and remuneration. That is the scope of justice among humans.

The problem is, no "justice" system can ever make perfect sense, because injustice [i]itself[/i] does not make sense. It is a mystery, and it is confusing. The question of how to deal with it will always confuse mankind.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

So if I understand you right, what you are saying is this: In case someone does [b]physical harm[/b] to someone else, you, [b]personally, [i]do have[/i][/b] a right to punish him with violence, (or death penalty, if the case is severe enough) and it is that right which you possess that you choose to give to someone (who will then administer the punishment) whom you along with other members of your community have chosen to follow.

Do I understand you right?

But you already said, "One may not protect virtue with physical violence." So in such a case, too, you don't see yourself as protecting civic virtue. (Perhaps you don't even accept that something as civic virtue exists, and hold that only individual virtue does.) So what, exactly do you see yourself as doing when you punish a violent and non-innocent person?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Innocent' date='20 October 2009 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1256049338' post='1988423']
So if I understand you right, what you are saying is this: In case someone does [b]physical harm[/b] to someone else, you, [b]personally, [i]do have[/i][/b] a right to punish him with violence, (or death penalty, if the case is severe enough) and it is that right which you possess that you choose to give to someone (who will then administer the punishment) whom you along with other members of your community have chosen to follow.

Do I understand you right?[/quote]

No, you're not correctly stating my position. I never said anything about anyone having a right to "punish" anyone with violence. When you shoot a rabid dog, are you "punishing" him for being rabid, or killing him for being a "bad dog?" No. You are shooting him to stop him from harming other people.

"Vengeance is mine," saith the Lord. Not, "Vengeance is mine, and whatever State exists, because every State was created by me, and has my approbation to punish the spiritual evil of an act."

[quote]But you already said, "One may not protect virtue with physical violence." So in such a case, too, you don't see yourself as protecting civic virtue. (Perhaps you don't even accept that something as civic virtue exists, and hold that only individual virtue does.) So what, exactly do you see yourself as doing when you punish a violent and non-innocent person?
[/quote]

Yes, virtue does belong solely to the individual. Cities are only as virtuous as the individuals who live therein. I understand what you mean by "civic virtue," however.

Can you protect virtue with physical violence? I'm not speaking "morally," I'm speaking ontologically. Can one defend virtue in itself with physical violence? Can you actually defend your immaterial soul with a material sword? What does it mean to use violence in order to promote an idea? Such is an idea that belongs in the demonic cult of Mahomet. (I say it is demonic because Mahomet did not receive his contradictory statements from God.) Because Jesus, when asked by his disciples whether he wanted them to call down fire and destroy a town for refusing to receive their teachings, he [i]rebuked[/i] them, saying, "you do not know of what spirit you are."

The response of Jesus accurately sums up my view of using violence to uphold "civic virtue."

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Innocent' date='20 October 2009 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1256020450' post='1988338']
Translated into practical steps, how is this principle you have given (demanding restitution, but mercifully) to be implemented in the situation Nihil suggested?
[/quote]

Mercy cannot be implemented by decree of statute. It is implemented by the human heart. It is not always necessary to demand restitution at all. Justice and mercy should exist together, but one may give full forgiveness of the debt of restitution. A lack of restitution would not be unjust if the victim did not demand restitution.

You should be asking : "how does the [i]current[/i] system work?" Someone is thrown in prison, and seldom is [i]any[/i] restitution done. They accomplish nothing in prison. A huge fine may be levied by the State, but not a dime of it goes to the actual victim of a real crime.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 20, 2009 by Sternhauser

[JimR-OCDS]

With Anarchy, the strong end up eating the weak.

If you want to see how well anarchy ends up, read the book Andersonville. The confederate commander of the prison camp, a German officer, created an anarchist society. The strong ended up eating the weak.


Jim

Edited October 21, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 October 2009 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1256150093' post='1989093']
With Anarchy, the strong end up eating the weak.

If you want to see how well anarchy ends up, read the book Andersonville. The confederate commander of the prison camp, a German officer, created an anarchist society. The strong ended up eating the weak.


Jim
[/quote]
Gross. You'd think that they would have more food than that.