yep, that's exactly how it works in a society totaling 6 amorphous people-things.
You got a permit for that thing?
Thinking like this is like libertarianism, it's something you're supposed to grow out of.
Preferably before someone breaks into your house and steals your stereo because fuck the law.
A small chance of my stereo getting illegally stolen (leaving open the possibility that I might get it back) by a disenfranchised individual who probably needs the money a lot more than I do, is in my opinion far better than a definite chance of my stereo getting legally stolen (thus precluding any chance of restitution) by a suit-wearing asshole who claims to have my best interests at heart, but really is only interested in spying on me, shooting black teenagers, and starting an oil war against Russia.
So SolRol is saying the wealthy don't write the laws and govern when/how they're enforced?
I'd like to introduce him to the Bush era Federal Reserve and its policy of "if it's making money, don't stop it, who's Bernie Madoff," the Koch Brothers and the EPA, British Petroleum, pretty much every bank that got its ass bailed out, and all the record-profit corporations that pay (at best) a fraction of the taxes any lesser entity would pay.
Is this a simplified version? Yes, it's a cartoon. But holy shit, just about every effing law everywhere that could possibly affect billionaires in the slightest gets deluged in money to stop it.
meh, I cannot help it if you're too stupid to see that even though some laws help the rich (because of corruption), the vast majority of them keep the rich from just hiring a private army, stealing your home/wife/children and setting up their own fiefdom.
if the system is even half as bad as your anarchistic tendencies tell you, then you should rise up and overthrow it, or rally a democratic revolution, or something. But the system works well enough that you're content with not risking the personal comfort it allows you.
I didn't tell you to stop sucking my cock, retard.
think you got lost.
xbox live is down two blocks on the right.
The Great Hippo
Laws are a means by which law-makers stay in power. That can be both a good thing and a bad thing -- depending on who the law-makers are. Ideally, it's everyone, so laws are a means by which *everyone* gets to stay in power -- that's democracy at its best. But in practice, that's not how democracy works.
It is often said that the measure of justice is how we treat the most vulnerable. To that end, look at how our (US) laws treat criminals -- we live in a society that believes in punishment, not rehabilitation. I don't think it's at all an unusual coincidence that in most states, committing a felony prevents you from getting a say on what constitutes a felony (IE, no voting). You broke the law, so you don't get a say in making laws -- is it any wonder that laws almost never empower criminals?
Politically, I strongly associate with anarchists, because I see the system as being so warped and corrupted that starting over seems to be the only reasonable course of action. However, I'm also a pacifist, which means violent upheaval isn't something I'd like to see. So instead, I post on websites like this and try to convince people that the systems by which we govern people's lives are inherently broken, and must either be fixed -- or abolished, and rewritten from scratch.
It is a largely futile endeavor -- but on the plus side, I *do* like hearing myself type, so...
eh, hippo, you sure about criminals being the most vulnerable in society?
Could have sworn it was the homeless, but I guess not.
The Great Hippo
Seeing how in many places in the US, we criminalize homelessness, I see the two issues as overlapping. In many ways, we address the homeless crisis in the US -- and welfare in general -- by using our prison system.
Either way, I don't think it's helpful to think in hierarchies of 'most vulnerable' to 'least vulnerable'; we can both agree that both homeless people and criminals are *among* the most vulnerable, and that the US has laws that treat both groups terribly (particularly in cases where those two groups intersect).
Because the law wasn't constructed to protect or empower people like them. How could it? It's not *written* by people like them. They're not part of the dialogue.
|Spaceman Africa |
This show is still on?
I absolutely loved the first season. It was imaginative, had great surreal gags, and humor that anyone of any age could appreciate.
The 2nd season was a drastic dive in quality, so much so that the show became a fan fiction shell of its former self. Every self centered riot grrrl tumblrite saw themselves in Marceline and the writing lost any awareness that she was an awful person.
I'd actually say the second season was the high watermark for the series but hey whatever excuse to complain about women, eh Nominal?
You guys are squinting really hard to see those dragons.
Imagine if they stopped regularly punching the Ice King and gave him a fedora, how FURIOUS you would be.
I think the most brilliant moments were things like the chain of thefts in the City of Thieves, the Rube Goldberg rough housing solution, or the entire surreal gung ho vibe of the Enchiridion episode.
Never saw anything that measured up to that in the 2nd season. It all felt like it was farmed out to people who tried to imitate the magic but didn't quite get it. Then there was the fan fictiony aspect where every other episode was about characters being sad over relationships.
So, we all hate adventure time now?
You fuckin losers get sand.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|