Category Archives: Law

Education. Indoctrination. Whats the Difference?

Right Wing Child Indoctrination a video by Harmful Opinions has in my opinion a lot of appeal to emotions then arguments, like kids being used for an ad being cringe is emotional and not an argument. However I will make a few major points on it as below.

Taxation is theft. It seems the idea that when government takes money from its citizens is in a different category then a thief or mafia, however the deontological point of why these two are separated is something that I have not been able to find. I do find utilitarian arguments for it which seems to be sufficient for those who have no problem with paying their taxes.

First of all kids of today are much more critical of their parents then of previous generation especially with the internet that allows kids to view all kinds of stuff like cartoons and online games.

Placing books in schools is only indoctrination if they are only being taught just the Tuttle Twins and nothing else, hwich is not happeneing. What is happening is that the author is giving his books to be next to all the other books that kids are learning.

Teaching kids about libertarian values some of which are

  • Non initiation of force
  • freedom of association
  • freedom of speech
  • property rights

At the end of the video Harmful Opinions says something that I believe may have been going too far, parents are hoping that their kids would not be presented the counter view point.

At the end I’d like to say that Harmful Opinions made a few mistakes one of which is he called libertarian a right wing which I will let slide since many libertarians are also conservstive. the other mistake is that the main issue should have been around raising kids that are exposed to ideas as well as critical thinking being taught.

 

 

Justice and Vindictiveness [Quote]

“Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob” [Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, Chapter 1 The Foundations of Liberal Policy, Sub Chapter 13 The State and Antisocial Conduct]

I love this quote by Ludwig von Mises. It brings into the question what the objective of justice is. Justice is not revenge quenching. Justice is a form of penalizing bad behaviour and a deterrence for others from engaging in bad behaviour. Justice must be done without the lynch-thirsty mob which i take to mean that when justice is being dispensed the judge must look at the facts and not have to worry about the mob, so basically justice must be preformed by weighing evidence and not emotions.

 

 

Femin***s

Projection is perception. The title may make some mad.

Reading several blogposts by self-appointed saviours of other women I came accross a blog that started out good only to end in recomendations that would totally reverse the civilisation.

1. Innocent Until Proven Guilty

It’s not relevant outside of court of law.

People do things, and it is the community’s responsibility to hold members accountable for their actions and to protect themselves and their members from harm and to support those in need. That’s what a community is for.

Make them [accused] respond to accusations instead of making the victims hide in shame.

There is a fallacy that these self-appointed social justice warriors (or Social Justice Stormtroopers) have not looked into. They believe that rights come from the government, that rights are a privileges granted to you from above. This kind of reasoning leads to tyranny. Two things that the author clearly didn’t realise while writing, the writer talks about how innocnet until proven guilty is something that is only valid when inside the court and outside the court you can do the reverse, followed by demanding that the community enforce the punishment based on accusation. if the job of enforcing punishment goes to the community instead of a competent court you are asking for a mob-rule, call it whatever you want. The author’s reasoning is counter to the common understanding held by people and legal experts and that is that all our rights come from our humanity. According to the UN charter innocent until proven guilty is a human right.

3. No to Vigilante Justice

Again. We’re not talking about criminal cases here. We’re talking about social responsibility.

I don’t even want to go on what the social responsibility is, but a rape is a criminal case where the duty is to report it to the authorities and the duty of the people is to not jump to conclusions on the event but rather to provide her with any justified assistance to the victim, don’t let the case get contaminated by emotions of vindictivness. As a side there is a thing called the bond-vigilantes who are not wearing spandex doing their job.

5. Ruining a person’s life

Rape does ruin the life of a woman and we as society individuals need to have a debate about how best to provide the highest quality of couselling and legal service that will help the victims of rape get back on life and gwt the highest quality of justice. I can’t say much about rapists having an easy life and if the justice system is broken then as a society an individual we need to identify the specific areas and find a solution that is ethical and fix it as soon as possible.

6. People will just “cry rape” willy nilly

Under this heading the writer has made it clear that they are not interested in making a society a better place for all but rather because they are living in fear that everyone deserves to live in fear. This is mean-spirited and sadistic.

7. Right to privacy

Your privacy in society is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be taken away when you violate others’ rights, like by raping someone or by posting pictures of underage girls as “fop” material on Reddit. It is, by the way, an inalienable right to not be raped. Each of us OWNS our body. It’s ours, and it can only be entered with given and maintained consent. Period.

Privacy according to the US constitution is argued to be not a right and Late Antonin Scalia explains. However an individual can lose their right if there is evidence that a person has commited a crime and then they do lose rights either as part of investigation to be done by competent people or as punishment.

There was one feeling that I consistently felt through out reading the literature of the Feminist-Marxists and it was hoe morally bankrupt their arguments are at the heart of it. Farxists are so wrong wrong in their reasoning that they don’t realise how far removed they have descended downwards from the moral high ground. The second thing I began to understand is how convoluted their understanding of the Law is. I will have to write more on this.

By the way just because someone is a victim of a crime does not make them an expert in the crime.

Life’s not fair!

I always heard my younger brothers complain “That’s not fair!” every time I announced my decision after hearing their case. The funny thing about my decision was that we all knew I was wrong including myself but I justified myself by saying “Life’s not Fair!” Something that made the younger of the two brothers always get in trouble while the older one (but still younger then me) take advantage of the rules I implemented. That way the two brothers learned an important lesson that when justice is arbitrary then you learn the rule and live life accordingly. Which reminds me of the Melian Dialogue

“… the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.” [Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5, 89]

In short might makes right. That’s how the society has been since time immemorial. Those in power have decided what is right but every so often the powerful group makes enough people angry that there is a revolt and the old powers are liquidated. At the end of the Peloponnesian War the Athenians lost to Spartans but the Spartans didn’t last long either since the Athenian culture subverted the Spartan culture a kind of Pyrrhic victory or a cosmic justice to the two powers.

So what do people who knowingly or unknowingly commit injustice justify themselves? Well I pointed to the results of my policy with my brothers. I pointed to the decline in complaints as well as the two brothers learning a useful lesson. However I always managed to make sure that the two brothers didn’t fight too much and I also managed to catch the right culprit from time to time and giving them punishment by giving them time, each point was a minute on their favourite PC game. But I also instituted simple tasks that made them earn their points back. So my reasoning was utilitarian. I know its not honourable and its a slippery slope when used in global politics. In global politics I wish the politicians were deontological or to put it simply ethical principles. In global affairs the decision must be based on ethics before results.

In conclusion I’d like to say that we live in a universe full of anarchy where the rule is only the rule of physics and everything else goes. In this giant universe we are the only species so far that I know of that is conscious of ethical issues and can debate them. All of us have unique situation that has shaped each one of us. For me I believe that we should try to make decision that will balance the result with ethical concerned being met but I tilt towards ethics taking the prime concern because only that way we can ensure a long happy life.  Continue reading Life’s not fair!

That’s not Fair!

“… for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men, being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.”   John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, § 124. [Download Book]

“It is in the nature of men to rise against the injustice of which they are the victims.” Frédéric Bastiat, The Bastiat Collection, The Law [Download Book]

I chose these two quotes because these gentlemen wrote centuries ago and yet manage to be relevant after all the time. there we have in a nutshell why we hear individuals complain “That’s not fair” because on the one hand we are very selfish and on the other hand we have a sense to resist injustice. Being selfish is not wrong in itself in fact being selfish is a good thing as long as you remain in your limits.

One of the things that is puzzling is that how can putting thieves, rapists, murderers, terrorists and various serious criminals concentrated in one place suppose to achieve. Another thing is what is the objective of punishment? Is it to hurt or reform the criminal? But many law makers talk about stricter punishment as a form deterrent to future criminal which seems to remain since recorded history. So tougher punishments as deterrent seems not to work.

It seems that hurting the criminals does not produce the desired result in fact it makes the person commit crime since coming out of prison he has to carry the title of being in prison and reducing his employability and this prevents the criminal from setting a life even if the person is reformed. Which makes sense since most criminals make a re-entry into prison.

Up until this point it has been assumed that the way to deal with any criminal is to hurt the criminal because that is what he has done by committing crime. But if justice means hurting the criminal because they have hurt someone how better are we then the criminal for believing in this system.

I think its time to think outside the box when giving punishment.