5 ms·

When legal systems fail, folks will turn to 'hard men' to get justice. Thus it has always been, thus it shall be. To avoid this a society should aim for just

When legal systems fail, folks will turn to 'hard men' to get justice. Thus it has always been, thus it shall be. To avoid this a society should aim for just laws, swift execution of those laws by law enforcement, and speedy trials by courts. If any of those three are failing, other avenues of justice will be sought by those who can afford it and that impacts the poor who can't 'afford' justice.

sneak 5y ago
I mean, it is just different "hard men" that show up to kick out the poor when you have fast and efficient eviction proceedings. It's the same violence, and the same outcome; one just uses neat uniforms. I also like the rule of law but let's not pretend that these two situations are really that much different.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  And since one of them isn't backed by the state, the people can neutralize them without risking their entire lives. There are a lot more people who don't own capital than there are people who do.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > There are a lot more people who don't own capital than there are people who do This attitude explains, at least in part, why they live in a place with the shoddy rule of law and a deficiency of capital. (The track record of revolutions which violently re-allocate property is terrible, mostly for the people who originally lacked capital, moreso in the last century.)
- manigandham 5y ago
  There's a major difference in fairness and safety when going through the law. In fact, that's the entire point.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    Is there really though?
    - manigandham 5y ago
      Are you seriously asking? Have you experienced life in a corrupt/lawless area?
      - aaomidi 5y ago
        I mean, yeah, like how the cops feel comfortable to do whatever they want to people like me without repressions. My worst experiences living in this country has been with cops, not with "lawless people". So yeah, I do believe state sanctioned violence is worse for the majority of people. Oh and if I try to defend myself from an attacking cop I go to prison for decades.
        manigandham 5y ago
        What do mean by "people like me"? What country are you referring to? If you're in the USA, then it's the one of the safest areas in the world. Do you realize the reason you don't deal with lawless people is because of the police? There's a lot of accountability and procedure in policing here. For every bad news story there are millions of daily encounters with some of the worst offenders that you're fortunate to never deal with. > "So yeah, I do believe state sanctioned violence is worse for the majority of people." This is beyond ridiculous, especially in the comments of an article describing people being beaten and thrown out of their homes with extrajudicial violence. Is your suggestion that they're better off this way without any protection or oversight and instead left on their own? Do you really think billions of people around the world agree with you? > "Oh and if I try to defend myself from an attacking cop I go to prison for decades." An attacking cop means you've started a fight with the police, so the advice is to not do that. But are you implying that you'll do better against some attacking gang instead? It's seems like you have not experienced any serious danger because you'll change your opinion very quickly in the face of unchecked criminal activity. It's easy to make sweeping statements from your safe and comfortable home but it's highly unlikely you would enjoy, let alone survive, in places with less rule of law.
xyzzy21 5y ago
Exactly. Words to remember today with the asymmetric application of the law. Eventually vigilante justice becomes the justice for those facing injustice.
MichaelGroves 5y ago
As I see it, people have a right to receive justice. The deal we have with governments is simple: the government handles justice, and in return, we don't handle it ourselves. This is a good deal, it leads to better outcomes because courts are more capable and less hot headed than victims. Vigilante justice is inferior to the sort of justice a government can provide. But when a government abdicates their side of the deal, what choice to people have? Does such a government really expect people to forego receiving justice at all when their government repeatedly and consistently refuses to provide it? When governments abdicate their duty to provide justice, vigilante justice becomes morally justifiable. This is not a good state of affairs, and is why a government must prioritize being an effective provider of justice. When a government abdicates their side of the bargain, the aftermath is blood on their hands.
- slothtrop 5y ago
  Indeed. This was the force behind the Me Too movement. Legal channels failed, and therefore were circumvented in favor of going straight to the media, with all the issues that entails.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    That one is slightly different because proving it is much harder. In the squatting case, it is just government (and all taxpayers) dumping the problem of homeless people onto a set of unfortunate property owners. It is simply much cheaper for the government (and hence taxpayers) to not address the root causes.
- curryst 5y ago
  > The deal we have with governments is simple: the government handles justice, and in return, we don't handle it ourselves. The deal is slightly longer: the government gets the right to handle justice, you forgo your right to pursue your personal justice, and you gain the right to not have other peoples' arbitrary sense of justice enforced upon you. And yes, the government bears responsibility for enforcement of personal justice. If the government abdicates its role, I agree you have the right to enforce your own personal justice. You have not, however, gotten everyone else to sign away their right to not be the target of your vigilante justice. Put another way, the subject of the "justice" may not feel that the government has abdicated their role and may be content with the way things are going. They have not agreed that the rules have changed, else I strongly suspect they would react differently. If vigilante justice is permissible, responding to vigilante justice with force is also permissible (as is their right to claim what they perceive as "justice"). I also find it a bit spurious to say that the government has abdicated their permission, but the laws are still in effect. If you and the other person have absolved your relationship with the government, the laws no longer apply, and your justification for forcibly removing someone becomes dramatically weaker. You say it's your property and they should leave, they say that was enabled by an unjust socioeconomic system and that reclaiming it was the more just thing to do, and we end up in a very subjective incarnation of justice.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
reccanti 5y ago
I’d argue that the injustice in this situation is the lack of housing that’s causing people to squat in the first place. These people want to sound like their just “hard men taking justice into their own hands” but they’re really just a bunch of low-level goons being hired to enforce the existing power structure (property and capital owners at the top and everyone else at the bottom)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
AlexandrB 5y ago
I agree completely. I think workers should organize and seek extralegal justice from bosses responsible for wage theft. Since this is a crime that's almost never prosecuted.

sneak 5y ago

I mean, it is just different "hard men" that show up to kick out the poor when you have fast and efficient eviction proceedings. It's the same violence, and the same outcome; one just uses neat uniforms. I also like the rule of law but let's not pretend that these two situations are really that much different.

aaomidi 5y ago
And since one of them isn't backed by the state, the people can neutralize them without risking their entire lives. There are a lot more people who don't own capital than there are people who do.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > There are a lot more people who don't own capital than there are people who do This attitude explains, at least in part, why they live in a place with the shoddy rule of law and a deficiency of capital. (The track record of revolutions which violently re-allocate property is terrible, mostly for the people who originally lacked capital, moreso in the last century.)
manigandham 5y ago
There's a major difference in fairness and safety when going through the law. In fact, that's the entire point.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  Is there really though?
  - manigandham 5y ago
    Are you seriously asking? Have you experienced life in a corrupt/lawless area?
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      I mean, yeah, like how the cops feel comfortable to do whatever they want to people like me without repressions. My worst experiences living in this country has been with cops, not with "lawless people". So yeah, I do believe state sanctioned violence is worse for the majority of people. Oh and if I try to defend myself from an attacking cop I go to prison for decades.
      - manigandham 5y ago
        What do mean by "people like me"? What country are you referring to? If you're in the USA, then it's the one of the safest areas in the world. Do you realize the reason you don't deal with lawless people is because of the police? There's a lot of accountability and procedure in policing here. For every bad news story there are millions of daily encounters with some of the worst offenders that you're fortunate to never deal with. > "So yeah, I do believe state sanctioned violence is worse for the majority of people." This is beyond ridiculous, especially in the comments of an article describing people being beaten and thrown out of their homes with extrajudicial violence. Is your suggestion that they're better off this way without any protection or oversight and instead left on their own? Do you really think billions of people around the world agree with you? > "Oh and if I try to defend myself from an attacking cop I go to prison for decades." An attacking cop means you've started a fight with the police, so the advice is to not do that. But are you implying that you'll do better against some attacking gang instead? It's seems like you have not experienced any serious danger because you'll change your opinion very quickly in the face of unchecked criminal activity. It's easy to make sweeping statements from your safe and comfortable home but it's highly unlikely you would enjoy, let alone survive, in places with less rule of law.

xyzzy21 5y ago

Exactly. Words to remember today with the asymmetric application of the law. Eventually vigilante justice becomes the justice for those facing injustice.

MichaelGroves 5y ago

As I see it, people have a right to receive justice. The deal we have with governments is simple: the government handles justice, and in return, we don't handle it ourselves. This is a good deal, it leads to better outcomes because courts are more capable and less hot headed than victims. Vigilante justice is inferior to the sort of justice a government can provide. But when a government abdicates their side of the deal, what choice to people have? Does such a government really expect people to forego receiving justice at all when their government repeatedly and consistently refuses to provide it? When governments abdicate their duty to provide justice, vigilante justice becomes morally justifiable. This is not a good state of affairs, and is why a government must prioritize being an effective provider of justice. When a government abdicates their side of the bargain, the aftermath is blood on their hands.

slothtrop 5y ago
Indeed. This was the force behind the Me Too movement. Legal channels failed, and therefore were circumvented in favor of going straight to the media, with all the issues that entails.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  That one is slightly different because proving it is much harder. In the squatting case, it is just government (and all taxpayers) dumping the problem of homeless people onto a set of unfortunate property owners. It is simply much cheaper for the government (and hence taxpayers) to not address the root causes.
curryst 5y ago
> The deal we have with governments is simple: the government handles justice, and in return, we don't handle it ourselves. The deal is slightly longer: the government gets the right to handle justice, you forgo your right to pursue your personal justice, and you gain the right to not have other peoples' arbitrary sense of justice enforced upon you. And yes, the government bears responsibility for enforcement of personal justice. If the government abdicates its role, I agree you have the right to enforce your own personal justice. You have not, however, gotten everyone else to sign away their right to not be the target of your vigilante justice. Put another way, the subject of the "justice" may not feel that the government has abdicated their role and may be content with the way things are going. They have not agreed that the rules have changed, else I strongly suspect they would react differently. If vigilante justice is permissible, responding to vigilante justice with force is also permissible (as is their right to claim what they perceive as "justice"). I also find it a bit spurious to say that the government has abdicated their permission, but the laws are still in effect. If you and the other person have absolved your relationship with the government, the laws no longer apply, and your justification for forcibly removing someone becomes dramatically weaker. You say it's your property and they should leave, they say that was enabled by an unjust socioeconomic system and that reclaiming it was the more just thing to do, and we end up in a very subjective incarnation of justice.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

reccanti 5y ago

I’d argue that the injustice in this situation is the lack of housing that’s causing people to squat in the first place. These people want to sound like their just “hard men taking justice into their own hands” but they’re really just a bunch of low-level goons being hired to enforce the existing power structure (property and capital owners at the top and everyone else at the bottom)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

AlexandrB 5y ago

I agree completely. I think workers should organize and seek extralegal justice from bosses responsible for wage theft. Since this is a crime that's almost never prosecuted.