[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1596515152797.jpg (90.15 KB, 777x980, 111:140, Asriel_as_a_teenager_with_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What piece of music can you say is legitimately the "greatest ever"?

What about if we just restrict things to modern, non-classical music?


Can you have a greatest ever?  What would the criteria be for that?

 No.5957[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1596044749833.jpg (86.41 KB, 600x600, 1:1, T142577329704.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Now that the creator of Harry Potter has outed herself as a terrible person, can we all finally agree that Harry Potter was never good? That you were all just easily-impressionable kids and that with the hindsight of adults the whole franchise kinda sucks? Can we make this the official stance going forward? It would really hinder J.K. Rowling's ability to say bigoted stuff AND be listened to.
176 posts and 39 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


J.J. Abrams problem is that his Star Wars movies sucked, not that they were too much like Star Wars.

As for Harry Potter's story being derivative, I mean... yeah? It's for literal children. Most things for children are. But it also sucks.


So when you were young, you hung out with older men the entire time?
That's messed up.


File: 1596558151396.png (19.46 KB, 544x408, 4:3, 268520__UNOPT__safe_artist….png) ImgOps Google


Is it that weird?


As you've probably heard by now, a Minneapolis police officer kept his knee on George Floyd's neck until Floyd died (and didn't remove his knee until well after Floyd was dead).  Was it murder?  I'll await the autopsy report, but it sure as hell looks like murder from what I've seen.  What do you all think?

To quote from another site:
This is a police officer laying his knee on this guys neck until he dies. It’s so fucking obvious that he’s going to die. And the cop still doesn’t move. It’s so obvious that the man has stopped breathing and is clearly not a threat because he’s literally a corpse.

Yet the officer still keeps his knee in the guys neck.

The people are begging these officers to just check his pulse. But he’s still just keeping his knee in his neck.
53 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



This is really important.  "All Cops Are Bad" is a nice slogan, but people aren't chanting that because literally everyone who ever wanted to become a police officer is inherently a bad person.  What's bad is "cops".  Their training, their motivations and incentives, and sometimes even their goals.  We don't need to play detective and root out which cops are corrupt, we need to completely overhaul the organization, and possibly the justice system in general.



While the training and culture are problematic, that can never be an excuse for the individual.

There is simply no police training that says to hold a knee on a neck for twice as many minutes as it takes for the brain to die.  That's a false fact and no good-faith reasoning can be based on it.


Im Emu, gess ip changed.

If you want to change police culture then begin by placing the life of perps where it belongs: among human beings whose rights including life are your duty to protect.

Not whose murder its your duty to dismiss/coverup.  When cops get as upset by homicide of ANYONE without exception including seeing the george floyd cop as the murderer he is and the others as the accomplices they are, then this sort of thing wouldn't happen so much.

In short quit hiring sociopaths and quit covering up murders.  Thatd be a good cultural improvement goal.

Im self banning.  This gets me worked up for nothing.  Thx for the chats.


File: 1596001971877.png (411.68 KB, 900x675, 4:3, this game again.png) ImgOps Google

Is 5.56mm adequate for humans?
9 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1596341830344.png (77.85 KB, 370x320, 37:32, 1596242702846.png) ImgOps Google

The US actually isn't a signatory to that provision of the Hague Convention.  

But the US and other countries do generally take it seriously.  When the US issued hollow-points to Air Force personnel for the purpose of taking small game, the ammo was marked "not be used against enemy soldiers" or something like that.

I'm pretty sure Tender Crocodile is right about penetration.  The US started using 5.56mm bullets with steel cores (for some uses) specifically to get better penetration.


It literally is though.


Don't get your education from Wikipedia.


<Ctrl+F "bullet"
<Ctrl+F "expanding"
<Zero results
That's a different part of the Hague Convention that the US did sign.

 No.6125[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1596131446549.png (177.01 KB, 640x319, 640:319, qupRvcb_d_1.png) ImgOps Google

How do you judge a person? Do you believe in sorting people into strict categories such as good and bad? When trying to understand a person's negative traits, how much leniency can we give them? How do you balance a person's good actions with their bad actions?
88 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1596266532130.jpeg (37.93 KB, 680x467, 680:467, cat-filter-canada-drawing.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Perhaps there should be more legal protection for employees against shitty behavior by their employers, especially if the employer is a large corporation run by MBAs focusing on quarterly earnings.


Not against it. Though, I imagine it's something that'd be difficult to pass for legislation.
Where would you really start?


File: 1596267749304.png (1.18 MB, 1200x900, 4:3, sleepy.png) ImgOps Google

It is a hard problem.  I think California has some employee protections for political activity.

But now my brain is shutting down its logical reasoning centers; it is time for me to head to bed and get some sleep.  Goodnight!


Let me ask you a seemingly simple question: In an election with more than two candidates, if one candidate always wins against any other candidate in a head to head battle, should they be considered the winner?

This is known as a Condorcet winner, and it has caused a major paradoxical issue in today's voting systems. Largely because a Condorcet winner does not always exist. Anyone who has ever played a three-way game of Rock Paper Scissors should recognize the possibility of a no-win condition. But many people instinctively believe that any voting system should always choose the Condorcet winner if one does exist.

I was shown a wonderful article recently showing the flaws in different voting systems, and how ranked voting can have wildly different results depending on what system you use to count the tallies.
Additionally, all of these ranked voting systems introduce a measure of strategic voting, which always pushes voting toward a two party system where voters vote against the candidate they hate, instead of for the candidate they want.

Cardinal voting is often proposed as a solution to this problem, because it preserves independence of irrelevant factors, which many ranked systems do not. there is no penalty for voting up your favorite candidate, so this feels like a more fair system for finding a popular candidate.

Interestingly, none of the four most popular ranked voting methods today choose the Condorcet winner, or the winner who would win against any other candidate in a head to head battle, when using the proposed sample ballots in the linked article. Nor does cardinal voting under most conditions. and even more interesting, not all ballot conditions produce a Condorcet winner

This proposes an interesting philosophical dilemma. If crafting a voting system that always chooses the Condorcet winner if one exists is impossible, how important is it to always choose the Condorcet winner? Should this be our primary concern, or should we focus more on the most popular winner overall? This is a largely undecided philosophical dilemma, so all opinions are welcome in addition to facts and figures.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1596143559970.jpg (102.65 KB, 850x1200, 17:24, 1596060181820.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Another good thing about Condorcet methods is that they can dispense with the party primaries.  Primaries sometimes have a tendency of selecting extreme candidates (e.g., Trump).  If voters in the general election had the option of voting for a more moderate and well-behaved Republican over Trump, I think the odds of Trump winning in November would fall a lot.

>Is there even necessarily always a Condorcet winner to promote?
No.  That is how the various Condorcet methods differ, in how they pick a winner when no candidate beats all the other candidates head-to-head.

>be able to voice the extent of that impact in some way
That sounds really hard to do in a way that isn't extremely susceptible to tactical voting.  


>That sounds really hard to do in a way that isn't extremely susceptible to tactical voting.  



if only two candidates ever ran, you'd be correct, but in any system more than 2 running candidates, First-past-the-post voting nearly always forces a non Condorcet winner who more than half the population hates, and in some cases it grants victory to the Condorcet loser.

And yes, the minority should be able to have a voice, which is why ranked voting or even range voting would be better than plurality votes.

 No.5815[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1594181114017.png (30.97 KB, 400x244, 100:61, chomsky-freedom-of-speech.png) ImgOps Google

In the past, it was often conservatives who tried to suppress viewpoints that they disagreed with, but now it seems that the left/SJWs are the worst offenders.  What can we do to ensure a culture where people feel free to speak their opinions openly and engage in honest debate without fear of attacks (kinetic or otherwise) from angry mobs?



(mirror: http://archive.is/kQ0I3)
84 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I mean. You can just look up the text of the bill online and skip the professional opinion-havers... it's kind of terrible? I mean. It is weirdly bipartisan, but it's also totally pointless. It's the kind of vapid feel good nonsense you usually get from the left.

Like. The bill discourages the formal training of choke holds in police academies, it discourages filing false police reports to cover up murder and constitutional violations, it suggests creating a 12 member senate sub committee to explore what it would be like if they were black, and the attorney general will talk to other attorney generals in the states to talk about how it would be neat if there was a training program or something for police that taught them policing and they will report back with their findings that police academies exist.

In the second part the bill swears to make a pamphlet summarizing their findings on what if they were black and is there training for broad distribution, and also to make it illegal for police to rape people in their custody authorizes the attorney general to offer a grant to states that discourage raping people under police custody.

... actually looking through the amendments the only things that even mention anything plausibly meaningful are amendments that Rand Paul added. There is some minor grant reform. Some additional paperwork added to civil forfeitures that looks like it was struck down since it isn't in the body of the finalized bill unlike the other amendments, but that might just be a bureaucratic thing.


My trouble is, all that could've been brought up in a debate on the bill.
Blocking even the debate doesn't address these issues. It's just cowardice.


File: 1595299111788.jpg (20.45 KB, 320x320, 1:1, Star-Vs-The-Forces-Of-Evil….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is my first time here.

So.... Hi! Nice to meet you!
35 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


True. But, again, there's no cause to be. No advantage to be gained.

>It was not my intention at all to be dismissive or belittling. I am literally just calling things how I see them, I don't really have the time or energy to waste on pettiness.
Fair enough. Like I said, as long as you wouldn't take offense in the example I gave you, I am not ultimately justified and expecting my standards to supercede your own, especially without you knowing mine to begin with.
That's on me.

>except that the mod doesn't insult you which is something you care enough to criticize me for.
I care that anyone does so. It doesn't matter to me if you are a moderator. I am inclined to treat you as I would any other poster.
The most you given that regard is the unfortunate tie of that particular groups' issues and histories, which I admit do influence me in regards to my presumptions.

As to whether or not I am bad at explaining things, possibly. Probably.
I blame it on being very direct and very literal.
Unfortunate reality is that most people aren't, and so this causes communication issues. Difficult to unlearn, and I'm not entirely sure I want to, as I don't see that rigidity as inherently bad.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1595468246688.png (13.62 KB, 268x310, 134:155, lola38.png) ImgOps Google

Cool, well I'm legitimately glad to clear that up. I'm sorry if I was being short with you, I have a very very long history of dealing with people who are out to pick apart fucking every innocuous thing I have to say with a mod tag on. Which, you don't even give a shit that I am a mod, that's kinda wonderful to me, haha.

I think you still are breaking the rules of the board in this thread, whether you care about that or not, but you're alright with me otherwise. Thanks for putting in the time to be understood, I don't like the feeling that I'm not hearing a person who wants to be heard.


No worries. Like I said, it's kind of on me for jumping to conclusions and all.
Whole point of language is to facilitate understanding, yet despite that it does a rather sorry job at times.
Thanks for staying on until that point was reached


File: 1591244383943.png (208.38 KB, 964x434, 482:217, pokemon-334-1463491774-7_w….png) ImgOps Google

What is an optimum diet for typical humans?

Personally, I think that the government-recommended diet is too high on carbs.  And naturally occurring saturated fats have been wrongly maligned.

Also, check my quads!
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Checks out for a gazelle.


File: 1593642406874.png (51.77 KB, 671x282, 671:282, what-do-hedgehogs-eat.png) ImgOps Google

>I think the optimal diet for humans is: Food.
I guess I can't argue with that.


I think OP may have something.

The US government dietary recommendations have always been very long on starch.  I am old enough to remember "four servings of breads and cereals, four servings of fruits and vegetables, three servings of dairy products, two servings of meat" from the 70s and the "Four Four Three Two" song schoolchildren of the time were encouraged to learn.  No, really.

And there are some people who can be very healthy on a diet where they get most of their calories from various forms of refined white starch, which have been the centerpiece of the Western diet for centuries if not thousands of years.  There were dietary and metabolic experiments done in the 1920s with athletes and people who did very heavy physical labor, like lumberjacks in the era before chainsaws and tractors became common, who worked brutal sixteen-hour days and did everything with axes and hatchets and then load the logs onto mule-drawn wagons to take them in for processing.  Some of those men were eating four and five thousand calories a day and using it all.  Those workers and athletes had no problems with obesity or diabetes or high blood pressure.

But in the 21st Century, most Americans don't live that kind of life.  We don't work brutal sixteen hour shifts climbing trees to lop the limbs off before we shimmy down to chop it down with an axe, then chop it into uniform lengths with an axe, then pick up the logs and carry them to a wagon and stack them up.  The men who do work in the timber industry now have all manner of tools to assist them today that didn't exist a hundred years ago and don't work those insane shifts either.

And there is something, I think, to be said for the idea that our ancestors came down from the trees three and a half million years ago, and learned to eat fruit and roots and anything they could catch and kill that was smaller than they were.  In modern terms, what I'm talking about is called "keto."  Millions of years passed and our ancestors evolved, their bodies evolving to adapt to this diet of protein and vegetable matter.  Agriculture has only existed on this planet for ten thousand years, if that.  The modern diet of mostly starch and not much of anything else is not something we've had millions of years to adapt to.  It isn't really perfectly suited to us, though there are national economies that revolve around industrial agriculture and expPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1592628872099.jpg (87.06 KB, 750x1000, 3:4, IMG_3854.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This came across my dash today. worth a read

This is what I wore to work today. On my way to get a burrito before work, I was detained by the police.

I noticed the police car in the public lot behind Centre Street.  As I was walking away from my car, the cruiser followed me.  I walked down Centre Street and was about to cross over to the burrito place and the officer got out of the car.

"Hey my man," he said.

He unsnapped the holster of his gun.

I took my hands out of my pockets.

"Yes?"  I said.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
12 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Vigilantism very often results in mistakes. It's why it's not preferred. Better to have a system in place where, ideally anyway, you have an unbiased party judge on the matter with a proportional punishment if they are proven to be guilty.

Leaving it to vigilantism means you get cases where someone says "I bet Frank did this. The bastard was always jealous of me!".


>Vigilantism very often results in mistakes.
The court system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better at getting to the truth than people deciding to take justice into their own hands.



Is it?  Do you have statistic for that?

 No.5437[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1591077416589.jpg (45.42 KB, 817x613, 817:613, untitled.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

would have posted on /pony/ but I'm pretty sure this is a political issue.

I recently came across the following article https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234
And among the 75 items it lists that white people can do to actively support anti-discrimination, it mentions starting a book club, and reading a few recommended books. I would love to try this with all of you.

I once had a friend who spoke out violently about this issue, but he hurt me to the point that we had to end our friendship. Still, the issues he faced are real, and I am glad to have found something I can do to help support his plight. I would love if you could join me in actively reading and discussing books on racial prejudice, as recommended by this article.
144 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Edit:  if im wrong and you arent deliberately provoking me with deliberate sophistry, then i apologize for my tone because it really feels like you are trying to piss me off on purpose with the misstatements if my words and willfully false reasoning.  Probably me tho, iunno.

Now you are strawmanning me hard.

Concluding that a perception is why they fail to invest in their own human capital directly blames them for not helping themselves.

>darwin not eugenics cuz no hitler yet

Your logic is impeccable.  NO ONE was ever a despiccable Nazi before hitler made up the name.  Not Teddy Roosevelt, not Thomas Jefferson.

Go ahead, cling to your lies that you cannot deal are false.

I especially like the way you cast me as attacking or disparaging ypu just becauas i point out your cited material is victim-shaming.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1593647529415.jpg (270.54 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, holo-1524346953193.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Now you are strawmanning me hard.
I apologize if I misrepresented your position.  But it was not intentional.  I guess I just don't fully understand what you're trying to say.

>NO ONE was ever a despiccable Nazi before hitler made up the name.  Not Teddy Roosevelt, not Thomas Jefferson.
Correct.  "Nazi" means something specific.  And Jefferson's philosophy is about as far from Naziism as possible.

>trying to avoid defending the position
What position?

>attacking me directly rather than my reasoning.
I don't think I committed any ad hominem fallacies.  Where do you think I did?

>That tactic strongly suggests that you do think its reasonable to say black people don't participate in improving themselves.  
I wouldn't say "black people don't participate in improving themselves" categorically.  Some people (both black people and white people) fail to improve themselves.


See my edit.  Im sorry.

Im really pissed off at what Jefferson REALLY said.  Its not just the bits we're told but straight eugenics.  Watch my last video, or don't.

Have a good day.


File: 1592455046944.jpg (14.26 KB, 254x254, 1:1, Uncle-Ben.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So apparently racists on 4chan /pol/ have started a campaign to erase famous images of black people from popular products.  And the sad part is that they're actually succeeding, and major companies are doing this!  It started with Aunt Jemima, and now Uncle Ben is getting targeted.  What is wrong with our country???
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


>What did 4chan hope to gain from doing this?
Apparently the racist /pol/ users want only white people to be on product advertising?

>What proof do you have that this was a 4chan plot?
I saw a thread on 4chan where someone was gloating about it.  Or maybe that was a double false flag and I got bamboozled?


I'm pretty sure that it's a joke. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because this all seems pretty factious, but...

Figures like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben have been a controversial for many years now. Their depictions are similar to depctions of slaves in the American south before the civil war. These depictions were unrealistic, showing the slaves as being happy in their position of servitude and glossing over the abuse they received at the hands of their white masters. Because figures like Aunt Jemimima and Uncle Ben are so similar to these, people have been seeking to have them removed from from these products.

If anything, I'd believe that the recent racial unrest is the cause of the removal of these characters and not 4chan. But if 4chan did in fact help to get them removed, then it would seem antithetical to their usual antics and stance on these kind of social issues. Mostly because it is a GOOD thing these characters are being removed because of their connection to racist stereotypes.


I know Aunt Jemima is an enslaved Mami taking care of white children, but i didnt know that as a kid.

To me it was just a respectable upstanding citizen who happened to be black, offering part of my breakfast alongside whatever other colors of people were at my breakfast table.

I know a lot of lamentation is out there about portraying everyone as white meaning that black kids dont have any self-insert role models etc.  Maybe, if there had been a little paragraph on the bottom of the label mentioning the history of mamis, i would have not only had more respect for how capable and reliable (edit: in spite of lies like "lazy" "dumb" etc that i heard kids parrot from their parents at school) black people have been in society in our history, but also i would have had a lot more to think about regarding fairness and the real world i was finding myself in.

(Edit my point is that imagery like responsible matrons helped form my world view that black people and white people are basically just people the same as anyone else)

I also remember what happened to Little Sambo.  A little black kid in an African jungle setting, but its racist to portray a non-white person even in a context where such a person would just happen to be black.  Sambos little stories on the menu etc were no more racist or inappropriate than the Brer Rabbit stories i read at home, and now i wonder what happens when other white kids have never seen anyone not white portrayed in their coloring activity set at their family's breakfast restaurant.

I fear that stripping away Aunt Jemima only deepens the problem by further misrepresenting the truth until simply being black will be racist in and of itself, which is the inevitable absurdity of whitewashing and making it all so clean and tidy.


File: 1592545356205.png (58.3 KB, 693x571, 693:571, 118-1188390_my-little-pony….png) ImgOps Google

Does the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" include the power to completely prohibit non-commercial growth and possession of marijuana for personal consumption?  Was Gonzales v. Raich (2005) wrongly decided?
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The high court has too many stakes in the things that would come unhinged if the overapplication of the commerce clause was seriously challenged.

No one in Congress would confirm your appointment, you homewrecker.


File: 1593301108218.jpg (215.99 KB, 660x720, 11:12, 1473274354227.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>The high court has too many stakes in the things that would come unhinged if the overapplication of the commerce clause was seriously challenged.
The Supreme Court already struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.  And Gonzales v. Raich wasn't a unanimous opinion; 3 justices dissented.  I say it's high time for the Supreme Court to get back in the business of actually enforcing the full Bill of Rights, including the 10th Amendment.  If they're too worried that chaos might result if they invalidate most of the unconstitutional federal laws, maybe they can compromise and just allow states to specifically override federal encroachments of intra-state commerce.


> back in the business of actually enforcing the full Bill of Rights,

See, this shows me that you have as much to unlearn as i do.  You do, i hope, realize that the high court was never about enforcing the bill of rights?  That the people's rights at all were only an illusion, and that what we have right now is actually as close as we've ever been to the country we imagine was once actually real but has somehow been lost?

Its like slavery ending on schedule, which it didnt, example Plessy.  Many decades following the high court AT LAST following the bill of right in Brown v Bd of Education, and we still have segregated schools and effective slavery of the vast majority of our disenfranchised black population.

Im just sayin.


File: 1591834578412.png (524.9 KB, 745x1024, 745:1024, aaf.png) ImgOps Google

By changing the laws and sentencing, changing how much the state scrutinizes citizens, and changing how the state uses discretion, the state can basically set the proportion of citizens that will end up in prison.

Authorities use force to make subjects more moral than they could be as individuals.  It might follow that the more force used -- in this case, the more subjects put in correctional control, the more moral a society, the logical end being a totalitarian state where the whole nation is basically a prison.

On the other hand, I think when people say "Law and Order," they assume some will not need punishment.  You could even imagine a perfect state of law and order where police do nothing, citizens obey out of self-discipline, or obedience is common because the laws are tolerant of diverse behaviors.  You could disband police.  You could dissolve authoritarian power.

Something keeps things between these extremes for the most part.  How is it decided how much enforcement is best?
12 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1592181451061.jpg (251.71 KB, 1000x1291, 1000:1291, flag_rainbow.JPG) ImgOps Exif Google

>It is in [individual's] hands as much as it would be in any single person's hand.  Government is a tool as any other tool. It is not guaranteed to create what is desired on its own.
I have to think on this a bit more.  If an individual is sent to prison, and they feel it is not justice, they may say they are being treated unfairly.  But they are still in prison, and most people will say, "Do the crime, do the time!" or such.  But maybe you do get group agreement with the prison sentence being unfair -- some saintly grandma serving 30 years in prison because kids were found smoking pot in her yard.  Social media is full of denouncements.  Opinions pieces in major newspapers say it is unjust.  And finally, the sentence is overturned, maybe the law changed.

You can say there's some platonic principle of justice that the state is being held accountable to, I do think there's some truth to that.  On the other hand, the state is still the one that decides to overturn the sentence and change the law.  Unless it's going to be anarchy, the state still holds authority.  But there are meta-forces that restrict the state, I'll agree to that.


File: 1592197651293.jpg (64.58 KB, 800x533, 800:533, precinct-burn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>On the other hand, the state is still the one that decides to overturn the sentence and change the law.
Or the citizens tell the police to go to hell and burn down their precinct building.  


File: 1592269304028.jpeg (201.04 KB, 1184x1024, 37:32, ana.jpeg) ImgOps Google

We can't deny that states can decay into anarchy.  The situation for people living through that is generally not so good, but you could argue it's the forces that caused the state to decay that made conditions bad, rather than the dissolution of state authority itself.  I can observe most in modern times (really most all talked about in recorded history) do not live under anarchy.

Some of the problem is entropy.  When I think of happy anarchy, I think of an equality that comes from no one acting as an authority over me -- no police offer forcing me to do what I don't think is appropriate because they have a gun, for example.  The problem becomes that there are many more kinds of inequality than equality, and even worse inequality tends to feed on itself.  So (happy) anarchy is a kind of razor edge.

Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]