6 ms·

I'm not saying that violence is legal -- which is definitely not. But it is part of the "packages" and totally depends on whether the one wants to use. Historic

I'm not saying that violence is legal -- which is definitely not. But it is part of the "packages" and totally depends on whether the one wants to use. Historically violence has been a very...effective tool. When people feel that law and order do not protect them, some eventually will go "the extra mile" (somehow managers always like this phrase). It's not something we can prevent. It is human nature. I guess super riches really like AI because this gives them extra protection.

Fricken 6mo ago
Of course violence is legal. Laws themselves carry no weight if they aren't backed by a credible threat of violence.
- krapp 6mo ago
  Violence by the state is legal. Violence otherwise tends not to be.
  - yfw 6mo ago
    See ICE murders.
    - krapp 6mo ago
      Or American police in general.
    - culi 6mo ago
      that's violence by the state though. That's exactly the kind of violence GP said are legal (in my reading, no moral stance was taken about this state of matters)
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - apothegm 6mo ago
    Not all violence by the state is legal. In a properly functioning democracy, the state cannot carry out arbitrary violence with impunity, only that which is consistent with the powers granted to it by the constitution and laws written and passed in accordance with that constitution. That was the case in the US for long stretches of its existence. But under an authoritarian regime, it doesn’t matter whether what the state does runs contrary to statute or constitution because there is no one who has both the will and the ability to enforce any restrictions against the state.
  - UncleMeat 6mo ago
    Corporations that pollute our air and water without penalty do violence against us.
    - bdangubic 6mo ago
      so basically every manufacturing corporation in existence?
      - UncleMeat 6mo ago
        Yes. Violence by capital is severe and constant but because it is diffuse it is not seen as such by many.
mmooss 6mo ago
> it is part of the "packages" and totally depends on whether the one wants to use. Could you explain what packages are and what depends on (what?)? > Historically violence has been a very...effective tool. This is dramatic sci-fi for anarchists of all political stripes. The critical reality to understand is that violence is the most ineffective tool, causing catastrophic harm for others and outcomes that the perpetrators rarely control or foresee. Revolutions can overthrow status quo power but what follows is rarely what the perpetrators aimed for. The same happens in warfare - the outcome is rarely what anyone envisioned at the start, a fundamental lessons that experts try to teach hot-headed amateurs that think warfare will solve their problems. It also establishes violence as legitimate - usable by everyone else too, a very bad outcome and the opposite of the rule of law, incompatible with freedom; it elevates violence and destruction over life and liberty. In contrast, the American Revolution was founded on principles of freedom and law (for example, in the Declaration of Independence), did not embrace violence as desireable, and laid it out for example in the Declaration of Independence. The most successful societies have freedom, the rule of law, and allow violence only as a last necessity to restore freedom and the rule of law.
- hnthrowaway0315 6mo ago
  I don't know, but just look at Iran and US. Where is "rule of law"? Who is going to give it magically? Packages = ways to "adapt" to the challenges of the world.
  - mmooss 6mo ago
    > look at Iran and US. Where is "rule of law"? Who is going to give it magically? Rule of law - in this case, international law - has governed the Strait of Hormuz and relations between the US and Iran for decades. It's not magical or fantasy at all, but a very well-established and effective mechanism that has been the foundation of the most peaceful world arguably in human history. There is no valid argument that it doesn't work (saying it hasn't worked 100% of the time is not valid). The Trump administration explicitly aims to destroy that rule of law. I think that's why they attacked Venezuala, Iran, civilian boats, etc. Stephen Miller advocates that power, not law, rules. You can see the outcome when international law was used, and the outcome when it is intentionally destroyed: Look simply at the Strait, which had free navigation under international law, despite the extreme emnity between Iran, and the US and its Mideast allies. And now, with international law under assault, free navigation has ended. To be clear, I don't only mean the US's and Israel's attack: Developing nuclear weapons would also violate international law, and maybe so does developing highly enriched fissile materials (e.g., uranium). I'm not sure about sponsoring insurgent proxies in other countries, but that has long been practiced by many countries, including the US and many in NATO. The rule of law allows societies to function. We don't want the world or our communities to function like failed states - those people are poor, starving, and brutally oppressed.
yfw 6mo ago
Seems like its legal if you can pay for it today.
cucumber3732842 6mo ago
> Historically violence has been a very...effective tool. What to you mean historically? Violence backs every government decree from speeding tickets to the maximum water flow rate of urinals. Overwhelming violence is something that people will go to amazing lengths and spend nearly all of their economic surplus to avoid.

Fricken 6mo ago

Of course violence is legal. Laws themselves carry no weight if they aren't backed by a credible threat of violence.

krapp 6mo ago
Violence by the state is legal. Violence otherwise tends not to be.
- yfw 6mo ago
  See ICE murders.
  - krapp 6mo ago
    Or American police in general.
  - culi 6mo ago
    that's violence by the state though. That's exactly the kind of violence GP said are legal (in my reading, no moral stance was taken about this state of matters)
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- apothegm 6mo ago
  Not all violence by the state is legal. In a properly functioning democracy, the state cannot carry out arbitrary violence with impunity, only that which is consistent with the powers granted to it by the constitution and laws written and passed in accordance with that constitution. That was the case in the US for long stretches of its existence. But under an authoritarian regime, it doesn’t matter whether what the state does runs contrary to statute or constitution because there is no one who has both the will and the ability to enforce any restrictions against the state.
- UncleMeat 6mo ago
  Corporations that pollute our air and water without penalty do violence against us.
  - bdangubic 6mo ago
    so basically every manufacturing corporation in existence?
    - UncleMeat 6mo ago
      Yes. Violence by capital is severe and constant but because it is diffuse it is not seen as such by many.

mmooss 6mo ago

> it is part of the "packages" and totally depends on whether the one wants to use. Could you explain what packages are and what depends on (what?)? > Historically violence has been a very...effective tool. This is dramatic sci-fi for anarchists of all political stripes. The critical reality to understand is that violence is the most ineffective tool, causing catastrophic harm for others and outcomes that the perpetrators rarely control or foresee. Revolutions can overthrow status quo power but what follows is rarely what the perpetrators aimed for. The same happens in warfare - the outcome is rarely what anyone envisioned at the start, a fundamental lessons that experts try to teach hot-headed amateurs that think warfare will solve their problems. It also establishes violence as legitimate - usable by everyone else too, a very bad outcome and the opposite of the rule of law, incompatible with freedom; it elevates violence and destruction over life and liberty. In contrast, the American Revolution was founded on principles of freedom and law (for example, in the Declaration of Independence), did not embrace violence as desireable, and laid it out for example in the Declaration of Independence. The most successful societies have freedom, the rule of law, and allow violence only as a last necessity to restore freedom and the rule of law.

hnthrowaway0315 6mo ago
I don't know, but just look at Iran and US. Where is "rule of law"? Who is going to give it magically? Packages = ways to "adapt" to the challenges of the world.
- mmooss 6mo ago
  > look at Iran and US. Where is "rule of law"? Who is going to give it magically? Rule of law - in this case, international law - has governed the Strait of Hormuz and relations between the US and Iran for decades. It's not magical or fantasy at all, but a very well-established and effective mechanism that has been the foundation of the most peaceful world arguably in human history. There is no valid argument that it doesn't work (saying it hasn't worked 100% of the time is not valid). The Trump administration explicitly aims to destroy that rule of law. I think that's why they attacked Venezuala, Iran, civilian boats, etc. Stephen Miller advocates that power, not law, rules. You can see the outcome when international law was used, and the outcome when it is intentionally destroyed: Look simply at the Strait, which had free navigation under international law, despite the extreme emnity between Iran, and the US and its Mideast allies. And now, with international law under assault, free navigation has ended. To be clear, I don't only mean the US's and Israel's attack: Developing nuclear weapons would also violate international law, and maybe so does developing highly enriched fissile materials (e.g., uranium). I'm not sure about sponsoring insurgent proxies in other countries, but that has long been practiced by many countries, including the US and many in NATO. The rule of law allows societies to function. We don't want the world or our communities to function like failed states - those people are poor, starving, and brutally oppressed.

yfw 6mo ago

Seems like its legal if you can pay for it today.

cucumber3732842 6mo ago

> Historically violence has been a very...effective tool. What to you mean historically? Violence backs every government decree from speeding tickets to the maximum water flow rate of urinals. Overwhelming violence is something that people will go to amazing lengths and spend nearly all of their economic surplus to avoid.