Dutch human rights activist, Olax Outis had no “lawful defence” and was stopped from give a closing speech – but was acquitted by the jury in a verdict seen as a snub to a system complicit in Genocide.
Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.
would indeed be unjust
It wouldn’t be “correct” in the application of the law. That wouldn’t make it unjust necessarily. Law is not the same as justice, it’s just our best effort.
The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example. Why do you think they always want their industries deregulated, E.g when it comes to safety regulations.
Doesn’t get much better under communism either since party elites are allowed to do anything they want and enrich themselves in the process.
The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example
This only limits certain actions, not killing in general. There are ways that capitalists legally kill people all the time, like by enforcing car-centric infrastructure or with climate change or by refusing necessary healthcare in privatized healthcare systems or by evicting tenants.
Yes, but under libertarianism that would all be legal. So I’m not sure life without laws would be all that much better than life with laws. Would give even more power to the elites.
I’m just saying that the legal system is not here to protect the working class against capitalists, it’s there to (1) protect capitalists from the working class, (2) moderate conflicts between capitalists. This means that some particularly gruesome activities are moderated to prevent outright revolts, but less visible killings are permitted.
If we want to make a legal system that actually protects the working class, the first thing it needs to do is prohibit private property over means of production to prevent unlimited capital accumulation.
Those laws are always temporary under capitalism, just look at the deregulation happening now in the US. Meanwhile China has gradually been improving its worker protections for almost a century, with almost no setbacks.
And speaking of China, if you are a senior party member of the CPC and you use it to enrich yourself, you get executed. As usual, accusations of communist misdeeds by capitalists are just confessions.
No, I have no examples of a successful transition from to communism because it can’t really happen at scale with humans in charge. The “vanguard” will never relinquish control. Why would they? Someone else would take the role anyway.
Okay, can YOU name a single large scale communist country that did away with the vanguard?
Depends on what you mean by AI. No, I don’t think LLMs will ever be sentient. I also just know that under human leadership it’s impossible for true equality to exist. Those in power will always want more.
But it is our best effort. I don’t think even an abstract concept of justice is served by taking into account political motivation for your actions unless you apply the principle blindly. Do you think someone spraying right-wing slogans like “deport all migrants” or “traitors” or just “fuck you” on RNLI buildings should be off the hook because they think there’s an existential threat to the country from a trickle of refugees? Do you think they should be allowed to bring up those beliefs in court?
Besides assigning consequences to bad actions, justice must in the first instance be fair. I see no fair way to privilege motivations that I sympathise with (anti-Israeli-genocide) but not ones that I find detestable (anti-immigrant).
Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.
It wouldn’t be “correct” in the application of the law. That wouldn’t make it unjust necessarily. Law is not the same as justice, it’s just our best effort.
Law in capitalist countries is not an effort towards justice, it is an effort towards protecting private property and the rights of capitalists.
The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example. Why do you think they always want their industries deregulated, E.g when it comes to safety regulations.
Doesn’t get much better under communism either since party elites are allowed to do anything they want and enrich themselves in the process.
This only limits certain actions, not killing in general. There are ways that capitalists legally kill people all the time, like by enforcing car-centric infrastructure or with climate change or by refusing necessary healthcare in privatized healthcare systems or by evicting tenants.
Yes, but under libertarianism that would all be legal. So I’m not sure life without laws would be all that much better than life with laws. Would give even more power to the elites.
I’m just saying that the legal system is not here to protect the working class against capitalists, it’s there to (1) protect capitalists from the working class, (2) moderate conflicts between capitalists. This means that some particularly gruesome activities are moderated to prevent outright revolts, but less visible killings are permitted.
If we want to make a legal system that actually protects the working class, the first thing it needs to do is prohibit private property over means of production to prevent unlimited capital accumulation.
Who went to jail for PFOA’s?
Who went to jail after the 2008 debacle that almost crashed the world economy?
Laws in capitalistic countries protect capital. You are a fool for not understanding this.
Safety regulations are there to protect capital as well because without healthy safe workers you will not be able to run your business.
Ask yourself why safety is routed through HR in your company.
Those laws are always temporary under capitalism, just look at the deregulation happening now in the US. Meanwhile China has gradually been improving its worker protections for almost a century, with almost no setbacks.
And speaking of China, if you are a senior party member of the CPC and you use it to enrich yourself, you get executed. As usual, accusations of communist misdeeds by capitalists are just confessions.
Surely you have examples of a successful transition from socialism to communism and then it’s failure, then?
Are you stalking me now?
No, I have no examples of a successful transition from to communism because it can’t really happen at scale with humans in charge. The “vanguard” will never relinquish control. Why would they? Someone else would take the role anyway.
Maybe one day we’ll have real AGI to handle it.
So you’ve got no examples of what happens under capitalism happening under communism, yet seem very sure about it being an inevitable outcome.
Oh God you’re an AI enthusiast?
Okay, can YOU name a single large scale communist country that did away with the vanguard?
Depends on what you mean by AI. No, I don’t think LLMs will ever be sentient. I also just know that under human leadership it’s impossible for true equality to exist. Those in power will always want more.
No, because communism is classless, moneyless, and stateless.
Words have definitions, lol.
But it is our best effort. I don’t think even an abstract concept of justice is served by taking into account political motivation for your actions unless you apply the principle blindly. Do you think someone spraying right-wing slogans like “deport all migrants” or “traitors” or just “fuck you” on RNLI buildings should be off the hook because they think there’s an existential threat to the country from a trickle of refugees? Do you think they should be allowed to bring up those beliefs in court?
Besides assigning consequences to bad actions, justice must in the first instance be fair. I see no fair way to privilege motivations that I sympathise with (anti-Israeli-genocide) but not ones that I find detestable (anti-immigrant).
If this is y’alls best effort y’all kinda suck at this ngl
Wow, incisive argument.