US 'justice' system - paging karl.

[Karl]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:05 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:

> 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.
>

Ok I guess


>
>
> > > >
> > > >         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.


The difference is the human goals held by the people designing and using
it.  They think of different things when they focus and act: they act with
different underlying reasons.

> > > 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.


Sounds pretty doublethinky to me.  You're handing a behavior profile to the
arpanet with me, like a firehose.  It uses this to make power and money off
you and anybody similar.

> Not everything is cut and dry.
> >
>
>         and many things are. This one is.
>

I'll imagine splitting everything so tiny that "cut and dry" applies on a
very very small scale.

> 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"


Maybe I'll try to copy paste this into my next reply.  Hard to remember, I
remember based on what I see a lot in things like this.

It's in my clipboard now.

> 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.


Eh defensiveness just makes you vulnerable in the real world (the one with
serious threats).  But ... when I say that, I am just being defensive.  I
rarely defend myself effectively.

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 5946 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210705/b7e67267/attachment.txt>