US 'justice' system - paging karl.

[Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 19:44:03 -0400
Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > True enough, different people have different opinions; some define crime
> > in
> > > terms of the state.
> >
> >         yeah well. That's what the position of barrett and any other
> > government agent amounts to.  According to them "a crime is whatever we say
> > it is", and if you don't agree, they will murder you.
> 
> 
> I'm actually used to some anarchists using it that way, maybe my memories
> are confused.

	Not sure what "it" replaces, and "what way" you're referring to.

	The very basic nature of anarchism is to reject the 'authority' of the state and reject the absurd claim that the state(a collection of criminals!) gets to define what crime is.
	
	I don't think there's anything else to add here. 




> > >
> > >         3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime and are
> > > > morally responsible for US crimes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Doesn't quite follow.  They can support the legal system without supporting
> > > the violation of personal rights,
> >
> >
> >         No they can't, because the US legal system is explicitly designed
> > to violate rights.
> >
> 
> I'd say it's explicitly designed in a way that violates rights.


	Sounds like a distinction without a difference? The end result is the same. Its very nature is pro-crime. 


> 
> 
> > > like a conceptual filter where they only  support the times they think
> > it isn't doing that.
> >
> >
> >         That 'conceptual filter' doesn't exist in reality. What you're
> > calling 'conceptual filter' is actually called intelectual dishonesty.
> > "Doublethink" in 1984.
> 
> 
> Sounds similar to using the arpanet while deriding it.  

	It may sound similar but it's not. 


> Not everything is cut and dry.
> 

	and many things are. This one is.




> The legal system is not functioning how David says it is.  We have
> extensive clear evidence that usually produces injustice.
> 
> It's hard to remember when replying.  Everything david says assumes the
> legal system is right, 


	yes, as mentioned above, the whole non-argument of the statists is just this laughable circular idea :  "we are right because we define reality, and if you don't obey us then we kill you" 



> and then he accuses me using that as one of his
> assumptions, I get defensive ...  hrm
> 


	well, you certainly should get defensive because barrett is the worst kind of threat you could face.