You May Be An Authoritarian If...

[rucky]

...you favor law over justice.


discuss.

[Mythsaje]

1. This is very reminiscent of something

Frank Herbert said in his Dune series.

Sometimes law and justice are mutually exclusive.

[darkmaestro019]

5. I am utterly not surprised you know Frank Herbert.

How I increasingly love you : )

And how it sucked to read the prequels--not BAD, but the attempts at the mindblowing little quotes and stuff were so very lame. I have read the Dune books dozens of times and STILL I find myself stricken, moved, staring at the quote and letting it filter into my mind, sometimes for much longer than it takes to read the chapter that follows it.

Sorry to threadjack. (Did you ever read Soulcatcher?)

[Mythsaje]

7. Brian is not his father...

He's a talented writer in his own way, but I think Frank was a true genius. I too have read the series multiple times, and gain something new damn near every time I do. His explanation of the workings of politics, religion, and the human psyche were extremely insightful, in my opinion. I couldn't begin to describe everything I've learned from that series in general.

And it's funny...Soulcatcher is one of the only other Herbert works I've read. Only once, however, and I remember almost nothing about it.

[darkmaestro019]

12. It's the only other one I've read, too....

I keep finding the White Plague but not the prequel...I may just read it anyway. The Frank Herbert bio made me cry and cry in places.

He is not his father, he doesn't have that kind of pure genius, but he's a decent sci-fi writer and the prequels are entertaining. He's slightly BETTER at letting you "see" what's going on--but he has a different objective than his father did, I'd say, whether he knows it or not.

I did get things out of them--Serena Butler was the first thing that came to mind when Cindy Sheehan first hit the news. Sadly, too obscure for most people to get anything out of that parallel.

PS: The audiobook of one of the prequels has an interview with Brian and I believe the other author whose name I still can't remember. Quite worth the library trip. They found tapes of Frank reading parts of Dune and corrected their pronunciation of certain terms accordingly for the audio. Everything that could be done to stay true to FH's vision was done, with deep respect.

[Mythsaje]

17. Kevin J. Anderson, I believe...

He's one of the many author's who's put his own spin on the Star Wars universe.

I've enjoyed the prequels myself. But a part of me would like to have seen it continue forward as well.

[darkmaestro019]

22. Thank you. Had the Kevin but the rest escaped me : ) nt

[Solly Mack]

9. He said "Justice is the fickled mistress of the law"

He said it through the Basher Miles Teg

People who want justice really mean they want what's fair and right.

Law isn't fair

[Mythsaje]

11. Miles Teg said that

but the God-Emperor said something similar at some point as well. Either him or his Major Domo (forgetting the name at the moment), when explaining something to Siona about why he tolerated rebels.

Hmmm. Methinks it's about time to read the series again.

[darkmaestro019]

14. The God Emperor is my favorite one. I cry every time. (nt)

[Mythsaje]

24. My two faves are the last two...

Mostly because I find the BG so fascinating. Simulflow, Other Memories, and the Missionaria Protectiva.

I consider Frank Herbert to be one of my major influences, though I'm nowhere in his league, along with Spider Robinson and Heinlein. Herbert for his scope and insight, Robinson for his empathic personal touches, and Heinlein for his dialogue.

[darkmaestro019]

28. Marry me, lol.

Spider Robinson is amazing. I've only read Telempath--I'm addicted to picking up old used paperback scifi, as my overflowing house proves. I must check out more. Only just getting into Heinlein, and wary of "greats" after finding out what Bradbury is like on the other side of the page.

EDIT: I suspect it is Bradbury that Stephen King won't name when he says there's a writer he desperately admired that turned out to be a horrible troll-like creature in person.

[Mythsaje]

Oh, you HAVE to read

the Callahan's Crosstime Saloon books. I just listened to the omnibus edition of the first three books in audio and was struck anew by how wonderful they are. I laughed and cried all the through it.

[darkmaestro019]

56. (notes to self) running out of books, will seek at the lib. thanx. eom

[Solly Mack]

15. It was during the "heretics make the best bureaucrats" speech

I believe, when Leto, the GE, was telling Moneo why he tolerated Siona's rebellion.


Also
Shaddam IV had a sign over his door that said "Law is the ultimate science"...the theme of law as an abusive/controling force - though necessary and ever changing - was a huge theme of the books.

I love Dune. I'm always happy to know others that do as well. :)

[Mythsaje]

19. That sounds about right...

It also relates to his "laws are about enforcement power," meme, where he's talking about how laws that aren't or can't be enforced are useless and self-defeating.

I'm a major fan of the books. My favorites are probably the last two--Heretics and Chapterhouse, because I find the Bene Gesserit fascinating and the insight into their universe was extremely intriguing.

[Solly Mack]

23. Yes! CHD and HoD- my favs too!!!!!!

I re-read the series every year but I most look forward to getting to books 5 and 6.

I've read Brian's work but...

I'm prone to saying Dune is my bible...and it is.

[Mythsaje]

29. It's funny...

Herbert was a conservative, yet in many ways this series is what prompts my liberal political stance. Or at least my anti-authoritarian stance, which, in my mind, is pretty damned liberal.

[Solly Mack]

32. I grok

"Noble purpose" has been a defining part of my life.

[Mythsaje]

34. That promoted a

:D

Leto's message to the BG. At least there were two of them who understood what he was talking about. Those two Heretics, Tar and Dar.

[Solly Mack]

43. Cause "real boats rock" and "mustn't forget the manure"

The "new" - always strive for the "new" - rigidity causes stagnation which causes "rot at the core" (which spreads outward) and humans become less than human....but the "new", the "unexpected" brings survival.

I always wanted to know how Murabella adapted the sisterhood. sigh...

[Mythsaje]

45. "Real boats rock" is one of my favorite short quotes of all time...

I also wish I knew how Murabella affected the sisterhood as well.

That rigidity line is a great one too.

[darkmaestro019]

52. "rigidity causes stagnation"

Exactly. My personal definition of evil is something like--that which seeks to stop "the wheel" (the progression of life, the cycle, etc)

Any ideology that seeks to cause any totality--utterly anti-violence, say, or anti-new, or "we must stick to tradition" could only lead to stagnation. Growth without limits is called cancer. Without destruction (of ideas, or sometimes even of people or ways of life) there will be no room for creation.

I suspect the natural flow of life (in the sense of "the universe and everything") is a cycle. Inflexible, classical art led to the rebellions of Baroque and Cubism, and the excesses of those led to the minimalism of a lot of modern art. The pendulum must swing. Those who seek to stop it are anti-life in the most fundamental (and evil) of ways.

Only change is constant. (wishes he could do Greek characters, to state that as lambda=delta=lambda=...)

[Mythsaje]

54. Did he not say to be wary of extremism?

That extremism in itself is a form of tyranny?

[darkmaestro019]

58. I think so...

I'm probably expressing it badly in the above, but that's essentially the same thing I meant--any extreme is evil. Even if it's an extreme that we might "like" at first. I could easily see progressivism becoming a horrible thing if there were no dissenting voices to rein it in. Some of how PC language has gotten IMO utterly out of control is a small example. It's not WHICH ideology is too extreme, it's how many there are thriving and pushing against one another to keep that wheel turning.

Extremes and radicalism are inevitable, but it's when they become exclusive and permanent, institutionalized, that I'd have my evil-alarms going berzerk. Not in the sense of some people being radical, but the sense of EVERYONE being the same kind of radical.

EDIT: I'm dancing around "All things in moderation, including moderation" I think, lol

[Mythsaje]

61. Absolutely..

That's something I've said myself on occasion. One should be very careful when one espouses a certain point of view in exclusion to all others. It's a Taoist thought that by striving to hard against something, we also lend it energy.

Moderation has value in and of itself.

[Solly Mack]

63. Ok. I see what you're saying now

I think

extremes can lead to disaster of epic proportions... the effects are felt by future generations to come...what's done now will mark the future...and extremes are like rubber...once you hit it, you bounce back the other way...which can be just as disasterous. act/react instead of act-think-then respond

[Solly Mack]

60. Yes

entrenched ideas are fixed..making them rigid..when survival demands we not be rigid.

you can't adapt if you can't think beyond what you think you know

[darkmaestro019]

42. If you go in a circle far enough around toward the Progressive

wedge (I view it kinda like a continuum, a yin-yang) you'd arrive at what I'd call conservative, in the classical, non-neocon sense. In my humble, long out of school opinion.

I noticed a bit of a slant like that, Herbert peeking through his characters, particularly in Idaho's reaction to the Fish Speakers' lesbianism. I admired him for dealing in his art with what was probably only one of many issues he was working out in his own head.

[Mythsaje]

46. You see the same thing with Heinlein occasionally as well...

Herbert definitely had a whole "leave others their otherness" meme going, didn't he?

[darkmaestro019]

50. I would say so.

In particular in God Emperor--I love the fact that you really MUST read these books over and over, and as someone (maybe you) said, I get something more out of them every time. Possibly the best books in the sense of return-for-your-time that I have ever read.

I read it as an extrapolation of what WOULD happen under an utterly repressive regime--and as the ultimate act of love, that Leto would give them what they thought they wanted in order to hopefully ensure that humanity would lose the childlike wish for a fascist-authoritarian Daddy to control them once and for all. That's why I cry when they fall into the river--the Christ metaphor, and what he really gave up (EVERYTHING, a normal life, and a probably endless future) (no, I'm not an Xtian, but one can appreciate truth in any mythos) and the fact that he'd made himself, the Devil, because the fear of one might be the only thing that could save humankind.

And because it's sad and I loved Hwi and I thought Leto and Hwi deserved just a little happiness. And because plenty of books make me cry, but very few make me cry EVERY SINGLE TIME. I have a firm rule about that; if art in any form moves me to tears I go ahead and bawl. Work breakroom, movie theater, museum. Don't care. To do otherwise is an insult to the awesome power the artist has just demonstrated to move someone to such emotion.

[Mythsaje]

51. I can't say that's made me cry personally, but

I can see how it could. There are a few other books that give me that reaction...Spider's Callahan series can make me laugh and cry at the same time, and there's a book entitled "Strands of Starlight" which makes me cry every time I read it. It's the first in a series, but pretty much the only book in that series worth reading. IMO.

[darkmaestro019]

62. (more notes, lol) eom

[file83]

2. Law is objective - Justice is subjective...

and so it follows that Law is cold - Justice is human.

[rucky]

4. law only pretends to be objective

often it's a rock solid excuse for systematic injustice.

[darkmaestro019]

8. A-men. Ask someone poor, darker beige, or with weird hair

how objective the law really is. : )

[file83]

55. Yes, but the Law is just something written in down....

...but it's Justice (or the lack there of) that choses to APPLY the law in some very twisted ways.

[Syrinx]

3. it would be cool if laws were just

Just saying...

[darkmaestro019]

10. I think it's possible to APPROACH just laws

but that no system will ever be perfect and the nature of the universe is that there is continual new information, technology, situations...the question is do we want rules, or do we want justice? To even hope to arrive at just decisions most of the time would require a code of ethics, not a list of rules. This concept is too fluid for people raised to feel safe in an authoritarian system, and they are convinced that the fluidity will spare OTHER PEOPLE and not themselves.

Also, sadly, no system of ethics or rules will be any better than those administering it. Human prejudice and error is inescapable. Just watch Judge Judy to see what I mean. I hate that woman. She's the least objective mediator I can imagine. She decides when they walk in who she LIKES and who she doesn't and is utterly direspectful. Then she finds ways in the list of rules to do what she wants to do anyway--side with the one she prefers.

[Syrinx]

13. this is why (if I understand) I could engage in jury nullification

If I were on a jury, and the accused was being charged with selling illegal sex toys, or having marijuana in their possession, I would vote "not guilty" regardless of the evidence. I'm not going to be a party to sending a person to prison for violating stupid laws.

Hey, maybe that'll get me out of jury duty! :think:

[rucky]

16. Howard Zinn discusses jury nullification

pick up the Zinn Reader for instructions (since the Judge won't tell you of that option).

[Syrinx]

18. I'll try to do that

But aren't the instructions just to vote "not guilty?"

[rucky]

21. Nullification speaks directly to the law...not just that case.

I don't remember the specifics, but I'm definately going to read up on it.

[Syrinx]

25. ok

Thanks for the tip! :thumbsup:

[darkmaestro019]

26. Exactly!

I had to bow out of my first jury duty due to a wedding (they were very nice about it, I sent a Xerox of the invitation and had no problems at all) but I really wanted to do it. I still do. I am sure they'd take one look and vote me out, but I hold my ethics as more important than externally inflicted rules. (Which makes me quite the heretic, and yes, I'm damn proud of it)

I'd be very glad to have you on my jury if I ever got caught at any of the harmless rulebreaking I do. : )

And yes, if you expressed that as your intention you would be sent home so fast your ethically-sound head would spin.

[Syrinx]

35. I'd be honored to serve on your jury

But be warned, I take a very dim view of starting illegal wars, revealing the identities of covert CIA agents, illegally spying on American citizens, and shooting old men in the face. Just so you know. ;)

[darkmaestro019]

40. Erg, nope.

So do I. My internal ethics are steered by "an it harm none, do as thou wilt." If I'm ever busted it'll be for something harmless and pleasant I did in my house, probably to do with certain plant matter or the aforementioned sex toys, lol. Or for my heretic-ness itself. : )

[Behind the Aegis]

33. and what if it was this...

"If I were on a jury, and the accused was being charged with "killing a pedophile," or "destroying a drunk driver's car," I would vote "not guilty" regardless of the evidence. I'm not going to be a party to sending a person to prison for violating stupid laws."

People here have advocated killing pedophiles. People here have advocated retribution on drunk drivers. So, are "murder" and "vandalism" stupid laws too? Do keep in mind, I never said that the juror had a child who was violated or a family/friend injured by a drunk driver.

Sometimes, laws are unjust. They should be challenged and changed. However, laws are created for a reason. They may not always be the correct reason and those are the ones up for debate. There is now a law that says it is illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in federal jobs. What happens when a juror is selected that thinks it is "unjust" for "perverts" to have rights?

What about the death penalty? Some see that as 'justice,' others see it as 'revenge.' Should a person be given the death penalty because they took the life of another?

Justice is as objective, on occasion, as law. And, law, sometimes, is just as subjective as justice.

[Syrinx]

37. I guess it's up to the conscience of the juror

I don't equate murder and vandalism with sex and pot.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Interesting.

The issue is not, '...equat(ing) murder and vandalism with sex and pot" but rather, "I'm not going to be a party to sending a person to prison for violating stupid laws.

[Syrinx]

48. I'm not going to do that. I stand by my statement.

If I were on a jury here in Alabama in which the defendant was charged with operating a dildo store (there's a law against that here, though it's not really enforced much), I would vote "not guilty," regardless of the evidence. I promise you I would.

If the alleged crime was "killing a pedophile" or destroying someone's car, I'd listen carefully to the evidence, and try my best to determine if the defendant was guilty or not.

[Behind the Aegis]

53. Therefore...

...you determine which laws are "silly" (unjust) and which ones are not. What is to prevent others from doing the same?

[Syrinx]

59. Nothing

That's the great thing about unanimous juries in America. All twelve of them have to aqree you're an asshole before they can take away your freedom.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. But you weren't talking about unanimous juries...

...you said; "...I would vote "not guilty" regardless of the evidence. I'm not going to be a party to sending a person to prison for violating stupid laws.

So, basically, you are saying, you'd create a 'hung jury' based on your determination of what was "silly" and what was not.

[Syrinx]

66. I would not unjustly send a person to prison. Period.

[Behind the Aegis]

71. I never said you would.

But what happens when someone takes your position of "I would vote "not guilty," regardless of the evidence." and that "vote" is "unjust?"

Taking on an "unjust" law, while on a jury, is "unjust." It is a violation of the principles of justice or fairness. When you agree to be on a jury, you agree to uphold the law, not the fairness of it!

[darkmaestro019]

47. In such a case (either drunken driving or pedophilia) I'd have to excuse

myself. I lost someone I was madly in love with to a drunk driver who has STILL not been brought to justice. And I'm a survivor of what I'd call a mild molestation. I could not be objective in a case like this and I'd feel I had no business being on a jury if I couldn't.

I think your entire reply points up that same problem: the rules are only as just as those administering them. Experiencing LIFE is subjective, so being objective in any real sense may very well be utterly impossible, but some are better at it than others.

I have no suggested solution to personal prejudices versus "justice" as a presumably concrete ideal. I wish like Hell I did.

[Behind the Aegis]

57. That would be the responsible (just and lawful) response.

"I think your entire reply points up that same problem: the rules are only as just as those administering them. Experiencing LIFE is subjective, so being objective in any real sense may very well be utterly impossible, but some are better at it than others.

I have no suggested solution to personal prejudices versus "justice" as a presumably concrete ideal. I wish like Hell I did.

There are no easy answers. Justice is never easy, nor simplistic. Think of the legend of Solomon and the baby. As I said before, law and justice are both, subjective and objective. Justice used to be "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Should we really return to those days?

[darkmaestro019]

64. I think we can only do the best we can do.

Someone thought up those laws to begin with, and that someone was no better or worse or more qualified at it than you and me, really.

However, back to "and it harm none, do as thou wilt" (and yes, people argue about harm) I'd say it'd be pretty easy to agree on the harm of damaging someone else's property or forcing them to have sex with you without consent.

The argument comes in when people argue that pot or sex toys are harmful; scientific evidence seems to suggest the contrary, but there's no convincing some people, and there's no getting some of them to realize that things they do not want to engage in are not necessarily wrong, and should not necessarily be illegal. And on the other side you have people like NAMBLA arguing that sex with minors is not ALWAYS harmful (probably true--I had sex with people too old for me consensually and I don't think I was harmed, but that's no reason IMO to decide that it's harmLESS....)


All this boils down to the lack of absolutes again, and my sad but true Star Trek assertion that we can only do the best we can do--try to look at each situation and consider all viewpoints, and decide where and if harm has taken place. The best person to do that would be one that did NOT have a personal stake in the issue, yet knew enough about it to make an informed decision. Conundrum, but there it is--gray sucks, but we're surrounded.

EDIT: A comment below about mercy is probably exactly what I'm trying to get at (and likely failing) Mercy is the opposite of absolutism and the cure for authoritarianism.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. More thoughts...

Someone thought up those laws to begin with, and that someone was no better or worse or more qualified at it than you and me, really.

I agree with you. Times change, people change.

However, back to "and it harm none, do as thou wilt" (and yes, people argue about harm) I'd say it'd be pretty easy to agree on the harm of damaging someone else's property or forcing them to have sex with you without consent.

Your quote is very similar to many philosophies, including the Wiccan Rede. The argument, as you clearly point out, is what is "harm?" I agree that damaging another's property or forcing sex without consent is harm, others would not agree. So, do we "harm" them by making them stand up to our beliefs?

The argument comes in when people argue that pot or sex toys are harmful; scientific evidence seems to suggest the contrary, but there's no convincing some people, and there's no getting some of them to realize that things they do not want to engage in are not necessarily wrong, and should not necessarily be illegal. And on the other side you have people like NAMBLA arguing that sex with minors is not ALWAYS harmful (probably true--I had sex with people too old for me consensually and I don't think I was harmed, but that's no reason IMO to decide that it's harmLESS....)

This is the best paragraph! It boils down to what the "majority" decides is "best." Is pot harmful? For some, yes, and science backs that up (although it is minuscule). So why should the failings of the 'minuscule' apply to the 'majority?' Well, therein lies laws. The other thing your paragraph deals in is "absolutes." It is that issue that creates laws, more often than not. Absolute laws are usually "justice-free."

All this boils down to the lack of absolutes again, and my sad but true Star Trek assertion that we can only do the best we can do--try to look at each situation and consider all viewpoints, and decide where and if harm has taken place. The best person to do that would be one that did NOT have a personal stake in the issue, yet knew enough about it to make an informed decision. Conundrum, but there it is--gray sucks, but we're surrounded.

GEEK! :) I like Star Trek too...espcially, "The New Generation." So, what is our "Prime Directive," and is it always absolute? Do we condemn a world (people) to destruction because of "non-interference" or "do we take a stand?" Do we get to decide what is best? If so, who made us judge?

"Gray" may suck, but it is what is reality!

[darkmaestro019]

72. "Do as thou wilt" predates what I'd personally consider Wicca

Though people argue that and I don't think I have the right to tell people who follow a philosophy I do not what is "true" about theirs.....

I'd trace "Do as you wilt" to Rabelais, and I would cheerfully admit and thank Wicca for adding "And it harm none."

As I read it, it's redundant--harm is basically interfering with someone ELSE's right to do as they wilt--but humankind needs very clear rules and adding the "and it harm none" is very helpful : )

And I have no idea how to get people to grasp that being offended or unhappy is not the same as being harmed. Or who should be the final arbiter of what is and isn't harm. More gray.

It boils down to what the "majority" decides is "best." Is pot harmful? For some, yes, and science backs that up (although it is minuscule). So why should the failings of the 'minuscule' apply to the 'majority?' Well, therein lies laws. The other thing your paragraph deals in is "absolutes." It is that issue that creates laws, more often than not. Absolute laws are usually "justice-free."

Here, I'd have to clarify this that if what YOU wilt harms YOU, it's your business. Right to swing your fist versus my right not to get my nose bashed in.

Do we condemn a world (people) to destruction because of "non-interference" or "do we take a stand?" Do we get to decide what is best? If so, who made us judge?

Nobody has made us judge, but sadly there's no supervisor to send it to. Again, the best we can do. If a world, or a people, or a subculture's will destroys them, then we have no right to interfere.

I believe that that we are born with senses and reason and memory because we are here to experience things and learn from them. This is simply a larger "person" than our person who wants to harm none OTHER than himself, by smoking pot, or getting tattoos, or what have you. There's a trade off--yes, they sustain what could be argued as harm, but that is the price for the experiences they choose to have. (Eschewing modern medicine, for a random example)

I'd say that we offer help if asked, and asylum to those who do not wish to share in the practices of the group, but that we have no right to interfere in their lives so long as they do not interfere in ours. The messes come when the children of this hypothetical no-medicine group become sick.

There are never easy answers, and realizing that is probably the first step to any chance at justice, or fairness, or a society that offers the most freedom and best chance for all.

Perhaps we can make the Rede even more unwieldy "And it harm none other, do as thou wilt..." and this, my friends, like how seashells grow, is how we go from something that seems as simple and as universally useful as that Rede and wind up with laws that fill libraries.

PS: Next Generation, I believe you mean. That's my favorite too. They really had what Roddenberry did in the very best of the old series--social commentary and very radical/progressive ideas, hidden in sci-fi so that The Rabble either didn't notice or couldn't really scream too loudly, because you could say "It's just a story!" And yet the progressive memes were out there, settling into young minds.... : )

[darkmaestro019]

73. ha. Look what I did to myself.

"Humankind needs very clear rules."

Perhaps in this context "explanations" would be better all around than "rules" I think of "And it harm none, do as thou wilt" as the heart of a code of ethics, not as a RULE the way most people mean that term--as the inflexible, "but it says right here" that we are basically trying to shoot down in this thread.


And I did not meant to imply "Rabelais thought of that, not the Wiccans!" Rabelais is the first place in literature/philosophy that was written clearly and popularized, and I would say that reference predates what I'd consider to be Wicca (though surely not the threads that have evolved into what we call Wicca now)

But the idea is not his either, and has recurred in many many cultures throughout history. I don't think that idea is ANYONE's, unless you want to ascribe it to the (G)god(s)(ess)(es) (TM, ha, that took some squinting to work out) of your understanding--or for the more secular, the gleaming potential of what I am convinced is the best possible future of human nature.

Maybe some things are not done BY us, but THROUGH us. We're imperfect however one looks at it and we often get it wrong--but no manuscript is ever flawless but that doesn't make trying to edit it perfectly a pointless exercise.


Sorry, Wiccans, and others. Peace, fun, yummy dinners, soft cats,


XIX

[Mythsaje]

20. That woman drives me NUTS.

Why anyone would subject themselves to that kind of abuse just to be on TV completely escapes me.

[Syrinx]

27. Nancy Grace Is Even Worse

Because she's commenting on "real" people. And she has never heard of a defendant that wasn't guilty.

[Mythsaje]

41. I've never had the urge to watch her show.

Glad to know my instincts were on in this.

[Syrinx]

44. I've never watched her show either

But I saw her plenty on the tube before she got her own show. And I hate her guts. It was even revealed recently that her entire backstory had been, uh, "enhanced" to get her gigs. She's an opportunistic pig that is profiting from a fictionalized version of her fiance's murder. Sick bastard. (I say "bastard", because some here hate the more obvious term "bitch.")

[Mythsaje]

49. My dad always said that an asshole can be

male or female. That works for me.

This reminds me, however, of something else.

I have a line in my most recently completed story, in which an antagonist announces "We came for the bitch!"

To which the vampire Rio, who's standing in defense of the woman they're after, remarks "if you're looking for a female dog, I recommend the Humane Society."

The story is meant as a bit of a tribute to Spider Robinson's Callahan series, set in my own unique universe. I'm working on a second story in the same setting right now.

[darkmaestro019]

30. Judge Alex is growing on me....

and the People's Court woman with the red hair--they'll both throw down when the person deserves it, but they are clear, objective, fair, and never needlessly hostile or disrespectful.

I admit I was firmly anti-Alex the first time I saw that show, due to him being an ex-cop. That'll teach me not to pre-judge, I hope.

I can't stand Judge Maybelline (sp?) either. She's respectful and I think tries to be objective, but she's flatly ignorant about a lot of modern technology "That Internet!" and things like that. Still, any one of them could legislate circles around that harridan Judy.

[Mythsaje]

31. The red-haired lady has a good sense of humor...

I have only watched a few minutes of her show now and again.

[darkmaestro019]

36. Our discussion of various TV judges seems to be in line with my point

about the rules only being as good as those who administer them. Not only their own prejudices, but their knowledge of the world at large and their ability to apply it to the law. All using the same rules (well, with state by state variations) but their people skills and methods of using those rules vary a great deal.

[Mythsaje]

38. I think I wrote somewhere here on DU

that when strict adherance to law harms the very people it's intended to protect, it becomes a tool of injustice rather than justice.

It was back when some little girl was being charged with assault for throwing rocks at bullies in an attempt to defend herself from them.

[darkmaestro019]

68. Absolutism again.

Never ever a good idea. Same thing as kids getting expelled for bringing butter knives to school to eat chicken with.

I was threatened with expulsion because they grabbed EVERYONE at our school and searched all their stuff (I'm firmly against this) and in my stuff found--

A GUN FACSIMILE! EXPULSION! YOU COULD POINT THAT AT A COP AND TAKE HIM HOSTAGE OR GET SHOT OR SOMETHING!

Except that the gun was pink, with a flag sticking out of it that said BANG and a clear handle so you could see how much water was still inside it.

Any cop who would shoot me for this shouldn't have a gun of his own, I'd say. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together could see that this wasn't a gun facsimile unless you're in Flash Gordon or something, but because they had a RULE that said "Possession of a gun facsimile is forbidden and punishable by expulsion" they got to gleefully threaten me with ruining my highschool career for having a hot pink water pistol.

(They took it. They said I could apply to get it back at the end of the day. I went in and told them I was not leaving until they gave it back or presented me with a weapons expert who could tell me what workable gun this resembled. They gave it back. Morons.)

EDIT: You should've SEEN this--a bunch of tables set up long with someone in a chair on one side and some inmate--uh, student--forced to empty ALL THEIR STUFF in front of this stranger. The lady had put the gun aside without a word when a classically piggy pig grabbed it and began frothing and spewing about "gun facsimile" And all the authoritiarians up and down the table craning their necks and nodding with that self-righteous fundy sort of satisfied glee. Ugh. One more nail in the coffin of ANY faith I EVER had in "The System" to keep anyone safe from anything.

EDIT: Not that it matters, but I was as gothyfreak then as I am now and I looked like trouble, of course, to Establishment eyes--except that I had mostly As and Bs and NOT ONE issue, ever, of discipline in highschool. Never. Not a detention, suspension, referral--nothing. Not one.

[darkmaestro019]

6. Law over justice, sound to me

like what results in potsmokers getting their lives ruined, like what causes consenting couples (of any gender) to get their lives ruined over consensual sex because the boy is on the wrong side of eighteen, even if Mom and Dad know and approve and permit.

Authoritarianism is the opposite of critical thinking and the opposition to situational ethics. At its core I would call it lazy. And cowardly. It's so much work to figure out what is right when you can just open the rulebook and say that EVERY TIME THIS HAPPENS X is wrong and Y is right, period. Accepting that there are no absolutes is a terrifying idea to someone who has been told that there most certainly ARE absolutes and that without them we'll have automatic, immediate chaos.

The world is not black and white, no matter how we wish it was. And writing down that so-and-so is wrong or right does not make it so. I'm continually infuriated by the human insistence that writing something on paper makes it true. Sometimes I think this is leftover tendency/memory from writing magickal spells or prayers on paper, in the assumption that declaring something so in the "right words" would MAKE it so. Legalese is just the modern version of magic words or incantations.

EDIT: Had to add cowardice to that paragraph.

[meow2u3]

67. You definitely ARE an authoritarian...

if you believe in justice without mercy. Mercy is what tempers justice. Law and justice can be cold creatures; mercy is what warms the soul.

Justice without mercy is tyranny.

[darkmaestro019]

70. I'm out for awhile. Brain hurts, lol, but in a good way....

like the day after a good workout.

Thanks very much to all posters and OP for this thread--I enjoyed myself immensely. I haven't had a good coffee-shop debate in eons. I don't think I've EVER had one as mannerly, enlightening, and pleasant as this one.

It's very good for you, I think, to try to express what you think about issues as large as this. It helps you work out why you believe what you believe, and the words of others tend to light up neurons you never knew you had.


Peace all, have fun, sweet dreams :toast: