5 ms·

I think it's pretty clear that the parent is accusing the state of using torture to coerce compliance, which is a strong indication that the state itself is no

I think it's pretty clear that the parent is accusing the state of using torture to coerce compliance, which is a strong indication that the state itself is no longer legitimate.

iopq 10y ago
The state cannot exist without violence to back it up. Why would anyone pay taxes if you couldn't be thrown in jail for non-compliance?
- diyorgasms 10y ago
  I think you make the mistake of thinking that people oppose all state violence. Many people approve of some state violence in the name of maintaining societal order, but oppose torture. And I would posit that coercive incarceration is a form of torture. It is a mistake to believe that people are ideologically consistent. And I would be hard pressed to believe that torture is not more extreme or less legitimate than other forms of violence.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    Thank you. That pretty much sums up what I was getting at. I understand the need for violence when one man attacks me or my family. And I understand the need for violence when one man attacks any human around me. These people break the Golden Rule and remove themselves from its binding contract of being treated equally. BUT, they still deserve to be treated fairly. Sometimes, even you can get them to see the error of their ways, and use their past to create a better future for others, and all without violence. But asking someone to give you a variable to a mathematical algorithm that he owns is absolute horse shit.
    - iopq 10y ago
      The thing is, the person that attacks your family already broke the rule, so you can use violence against him. You can be 100% peaceful and the state will still use violence against you based on its own criteria.
      - kakarot 10y ago
        I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      This is just a very abstract way to say that you don't like some of the things that the state has characterized as crimes. That's fine, and you can utilize the organs of representative democracy to make your will on that point known (though a world where only violent crimes are recognized, like you're suggesting, is not usually considered appealing). However, attempting to trivialize the issue by abstracting it out to "giving a variable to a mathematical algorithm" is not persuasive. Any sort of cooperation could be extrapolated to a similar point of abstraction that makes it sound absurd; in fact, furnishing a physical key to a physical lock could be described with no modification to your terms. In that case, you're ultimately asking for the pattern needed to actuate the pins such that they stick up in the lock mechanism and cause it to disengage. That's just "providing a variable to an algorithm"; the physical key itself is an implementation detail. If you do not believe the court should have the power to compel some types of individual cooperation with the police, you should take that up with your local legislator. The Fifth Amendment itself provides no such protection. It prohibits the government's usage of only a very specific tactic: mandatory testimonial self-incrimination. Allowing the police to execute warrants and complying with lawful orders pursuant to the state's interest in enforcing its laws is not testimony.
      - kakarot 10y ago
        No, this is not a very abstract way of saying that. You straw-manned my argument. I am stating my views on state violence, and what power the state should have over others. And the state should never use violence, physical or psychological, to "compel" people to do anything. If they are a danger to society, then they can be locked away, but if they are not provably a danger to society in an uncompromised court of law, then that's it. Indefinite incarceration without legitimate reason is torture. Are you telling me if I have a problem with the way my state is run I should call my local Republican state representatives and not discuss my views on a mature open forum? Gtfo with that shit, this isn't your forum my dude.
        cookiecaper 10y ago
        >I am stating my views on state violence, and what power the state should have over others. And the state should never use violence, physical or psychological, to "compel" people to do anything. This allows only for crimes of commission. Crimes of omission, like negligence, failure to pay taxes, etc., could not be prosecuted against this, because the state would be using its monopoly on violence to compel compliance with laws which impose affirmative requirements on individuals instead of merely enforcing laws that proscribe individual behavior. Are you arguing only against indefinite detention on contempt charges or are you arguing against deploying state force to compel any type of active compliance? >If they are a danger to society, then they can be locked away, but if they are not provably a danger to society in an uncompromised court of law, then that's it. Indefinite incarceration without legitimate reason is torture. This isn't indefinite detention without reason. Habaes corpus is fully satisfied here. The government has given the detainee a rationale for his detention and, in this case, they've provided a remedy that he can employ to end his incarceration at will. For the third time, I believe that the virtues of indefinite detention via contempt-of-court are dubious and that reforms are welcome. I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with here. >Are you telling me if I have a problem with the way my state is run I should call my local Republican state representatives and not discuss my views on a mature open forum? Gtfo with that shit, this isn't your forum my dude. Expressing your views to your state representative (not sure why the party of that representative is significant) is not mutually exclusive with expressing your views on HN. I was suggesting an option by which you could attempt to enact your views in order to clarify that those views do not reflect the current state of the law and would need legislative action to be realized. That has nothing to do with where you're allowed to express them.
closeparen 10y ago
It sounds like you believe the only legitimate state is one where a criminal suspect can say "no thanks" and walk away in response to a court summons or arrest warrant. What brings anyone to walk into a courtroom to face charges at all, other than the knowledge that they will be tied to a chair and wheeled in if they refuse? Of course the state uses violence to extract compliance with social norms. That's what it's for. The much more interesting questions are about which norms it should enforce (criminal codes) using how much force (sentencing, prison conditions, police rules of engagement, etc) and subject to what controls (due process, civil rights, etc).

I think it's pretty clear that the parent is accusing the state of using torture to coerce compliance, which is a strong indication that the state itself is no longer legitimate.

iopq 10y ago

The state cannot exist without violence to back it up. Why would anyone pay taxes if you couldn't be thrown in jail for non-compliance?

diyorgasms 10y ago
I think you make the mistake of thinking that people oppose all state violence. Many people approve of some state violence in the name of maintaining societal order, but oppose torture. And I would posit that coercive incarceration is a form of torture. It is a mistake to believe that people are ideologically consistent. And I would be hard pressed to believe that torture is not more extreme or less legitimate than other forms of violence.
- kakarot 10y ago
  Thank you. That pretty much sums up what I was getting at. I understand the need for violence when one man attacks me or my family. And I understand the need for violence when one man attacks any human around me. These people break the Golden Rule and remove themselves from its binding contract of being treated equally. BUT, they still deserve to be treated fairly. Sometimes, even you can get them to see the error of their ways, and use their past to create a better future for others, and all without violence. But asking someone to give you a variable to a mathematical algorithm that he owns is absolute horse shit.
  - iopq 10y ago
    The thing is, the person that attacks your family already broke the rule, so you can use violence against him. You can be 100% peaceful and the state will still use violence against you based on its own criteria.
    - kakarot 10y ago
      I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    This is just a very abstract way to say that you don't like some of the things that the state has characterized as crimes. That's fine, and you can utilize the organs of representative democracy to make your will on that point known (though a world where only violent crimes are recognized, like you're suggesting, is not usually considered appealing). However, attempting to trivialize the issue by abstracting it out to "giving a variable to a mathematical algorithm" is not persuasive. Any sort of cooperation could be extrapolated to a similar point of abstraction that makes it sound absurd; in fact, furnishing a physical key to a physical lock could be described with no modification to your terms. In that case, you're ultimately asking for the pattern needed to actuate the pins such that they stick up in the lock mechanism and cause it to disengage. That's just "providing a variable to an algorithm"; the physical key itself is an implementation detail. If you do not believe the court should have the power to compel some types of individual cooperation with the police, you should take that up with your local legislator. The Fifth Amendment itself provides no such protection. It prohibits the government's usage of only a very specific tactic: mandatory testimonial self-incrimination. Allowing the police to execute warrants and complying with lawful orders pursuant to the state's interest in enforcing its laws is not testimony.
    - kakarot 10y ago
      No, this is not a very abstract way of saying that. You straw-manned my argument. I am stating my views on state violence, and what power the state should have over others. And the state should never use violence, physical or psychological, to "compel" people to do anything. If they are a danger to society, then they can be locked away, but if they are not provably a danger to society in an uncompromised court of law, then that's it. Indefinite incarceration without legitimate reason is torture. Are you telling me if I have a problem with the way my state is run I should call my local Republican state representatives and not discuss my views on a mature open forum? Gtfo with that shit, this isn't your forum my dude.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        >I am stating my views on state violence, and what power the state should have over others. And the state should never use violence, physical or psychological, to "compel" people to do anything. This allows only for crimes of commission. Crimes of omission, like negligence, failure to pay taxes, etc., could not be prosecuted against this, because the state would be using its monopoly on violence to compel compliance with laws which impose affirmative requirements on individuals instead of merely enforcing laws that proscribe individual behavior. Are you arguing only against indefinite detention on contempt charges or are you arguing against deploying state force to compel any type of active compliance? >If they are a danger to society, then they can be locked away, but if they are not provably a danger to society in an uncompromised court of law, then that's it. Indefinite incarceration without legitimate reason is torture. This isn't indefinite detention without reason. Habaes corpus is fully satisfied here. The government has given the detainee a rationale for his detention and, in this case, they've provided a remedy that he can employ to end his incarceration at will. For the third time, I believe that the virtues of indefinite detention via contempt-of-court are dubious and that reforms are welcome. I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with here. >Are you telling me if I have a problem with the way my state is run I should call my local Republican state representatives and not discuss my views on a mature open forum? Gtfo with that shit, this isn't your forum my dude. Expressing your views to your state representative (not sure why the party of that representative is significant) is not mutually exclusive with expressing your views on HN. I was suggesting an option by which you could attempt to enact your views in order to clarify that those views do not reflect the current state of the law and would need legislative action to be realized. That has nothing to do with where you're allowed to express them.

closeparen 10y ago

It sounds like you believe the only legitimate state is one where a criminal suspect can say "no thanks" and walk away in response to a court summons or arrest warrant. What brings anyone to walk into a courtroom to face charges at all, other than the knowledge that they will be tied to a chair and wheeled in if they refuse? Of course the state uses violence to extract compliance with social norms. That's what it's for. The much more interesting questions are about which norms it should enforce (criminal codes) using how much force (sentencing, prison conditions, police rules of engagement, etc) and subject to what controls (due process, civil rights, etc).