Constructively, when people are out of reach of regulation or seeing consequences for their clearly unethical actions, how do you suggest solving that problem, particularly without an angry mob?
How do you propose bringing corrupt politicans or billionaires to the bargaining table? What would they be bargaining for, if not peace?
Do you think violence is always wrong? When is violence justified?
If the state is to have the only morally justified use of violence, what can be done when a state uses violence to oppress, enslave, or promote only the interests of the wealthy class?
>Constructively, when people are out of reach of regulation or seeing consequences for their clearly unethical actions, how do you suggest solving that problem, particularly without an angry mob? How do you propose bringing corrupt politicans or billionaires to the bargaining table? What would they be bargaining for, if not peace?
Speaking as a former K Street policy wonk: they have been brought to the table (did you not hear about the insurrection?), and no one is out of reach of consequences -- the elites are just lucky folks are obsessed with murdering the president rather than targeting folks whose deaths could actually change things. I've seen a literal supreme court justice nearly get their head clipped off by an incoming WMATA because they were too impatient to check their phone, but we spend so much money protecting the president when the entire system is designed so that person is replaceable. Imagine what would happen if folks like that got... nudged... instead of having morons trying to jump the White House fence?
The main issue with your logic is that a meltdown like the insurrection occurs and someone who is corrupt and entitled double down on the eternal September 11th that has been chipping away civil liberties since Columbine without groking that's exactly the kind of behavior that led to the riot (and the general trend of populism that elected Trump in the first place)
>Do you think violence is always wrong? When is violence justified?
I only think violence is justified in self defense and it's better to use nonviolent means unless you are in imminent mortal danger, and even then, you should consider retreat rather than take a life for the sake of pride. You don't "fight" people -- you attempt kill anyone who puts you in fear of your life in a place you have no duty to retreat.
That subtle distinction is why one of my last initiatives at my old NGO was to sit down with one of the staffers who had joined me in putting a letter opener on her desk after Charlie Hebdo, and warned her that she should be more fearful of free expression lest a literal mob form on the mall, then moved back to Appalachia in a Ryder truck like a cyberpunk Timothy McVeigh. I was sipping a cute little cortado after having smoked my morning joint behind a biker bar when the insurrection happened, no one can cry about my behavior. (I tipped.)
All my life, folks like those dipshit FBI agents from the Pittsburgh field office who ran up on the Capitol have created false concern to oppress others and enrich themselves, while allowing true threats to the homeland to flourish.
You haven't truly utilized the first amendment until someone who victimized you calls you up in utter terror on the Signal you gave them to use in case of iminent civil war... and then gave them your email and told them to never contact you again unless it's to set up a consulting agreement because you aren't a communist and won't free, then blocked them on every comms platform under the threat of having them arrested by the same law enforcement officers who had rioted past their office if they ever contact you again for some Tom Sawyer bullshit.
(That's not hyperbole -- I literally dropped Mike Godwin's business card in the tip jar because I'd run out of two dollar bills, that's how unrepentantly fearless and adversarial my communications are. They should start printing them again and put Woz's face on the back above however you say "Fuck around, find out" in Latin, because dear lord, I'm tired of someone calling the secret service every time I try to buy a quad espresso.)
>If the state is to have the only morally justified use of violence, what can be done when a state uses violence to oppress, enslave, or promote only the interests of the wealthy class?
The solution there is to "Yes and" the capitalists (capitalism is an economic system, not a political system) by withholding your labor until said wealthy class acts out in ways that allow you to use the same laws and norms of neoliberalism they used to abuse others against them.
The above condensed and fictionalized example paints a good picture of how you accomplish that -- forgive me if I stick to creative nonfiction, but I'll need to commute home from here so I can't be as... specific... as I'd like... but I cannot emphasize enough that folks who think they can coerce others deserve to have their lives look like that one Phil Collins song about not saving a guy from drowning should be playing in the movie trailer for their life.
Anyways... thanks for posting parent. I'm off to pound some orange juice, I've got a terrible head cold and had too much Sudafed. Feel free to reply if any of the above requires clarification... but I'll need to get someplace where I can use my laptop -- I've had to start posting over Tor for opsec or whatever.
That and collective withholding of the labor power of the working class (strikes) are the only 2 ways any national ruling class has ever been meaningfully opposed. Take your pick and do everything you can to make it happen first.
Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057162. (This is not a response to the content of your comment here. I'm just adding a reply to your most recent post since the previous comment is already a day or two old. It doesn't seem fair to do that if you don't see it.)
That is a very shallow angry view of the modern world which leaves out so many methods the people have successfully used to exercise their power.
Voting, for example.
I, for one, will likely never be in a position where it makes sense to go on strike and you won’t find me with a pitchfork and torch at the home of the latest social target. There are other methods, and much more needed ones than strife and violence in the 21st century.
Game theory says otherwise. If there's a substantive distinction between the rich and the poor, then the interests that align them need to be greater than their own individual interests for any sort of peace to work. As it stands, the rich frequently engage in bottom-of-the-barrel, self-interested machinations, so it makes 0 sense from a game perspective for the poor to refrain from doing the same.
The obvious answer is to make the distinction not substantive, i.e. have a middle class; unfortunately the U.S. seems too preoccupied with other things to enact this solution
In a certain sense this is true. Giving to charity is a self-interested machination because the giver gets something out of the transaction: satisfaction, a belief in their own goodness and self-worth, the esteem of others, maybe a ticket to heaven. But in a more useful sense this is false. We use "self-interested machinations" to describe things that are deceptive and harmful to others, not adopting puppies. Even people who apply the nihilistic self-interest-all-the-way down argument to neutralize criticism in one case will tend to abandon it in another and become the critic.
In the fight between the rich and poor, voting is not very effective when both parties have been captured by the wealthy.
However there are effective non-violent means of change, like organizing labor power, mutual aid, and supporting legal funds to help get the laws changed.
A significant amount of money transferred for political purposes falls within campaign finance reporting which includes contact information for the transaction. I'm sure this is used broadly for folks to make funding pitches to donors but cold calling is a tough way to start fundraising.
>We like to point the finger here in the US about how corrupt Russia, Ukraine or any other country is but we’re no Saints.
Our finger-pointing is not due to coincidence; it's due to conflict. Specifically, the conflict is between the inherent interests of competing national ruling classes.
>The executives of these companies should have their addresses listed as well as all the politicians on the take and let the people do with them what they will.
The executives of these companies answer to the company owners (corporate boards) who collectively control the state by leverage of capital. Because we are a capitalist society, the owners of the capital have the power. Any apparent exceptions will always be withheld from accumulating meaningful influence, short of revolution by the working class.
In other words, this is not a matter of faulty policy. It is a conflict of power. Let's discuss it as such.
