The problem with your judgement is that it presumes that law is a limit rather than weapon, that it protects rather than attacks, and that the law can interpret and enforce itself. This is a form of privilege because you grew up under conditions where those were mostly true because those in power generally followed the law, so you've never had to question many of your base assumptions about what law is, how it is enforced, or what legitimacy/illegitimacy means. Decisions made have mostly been decisions you can tolerate even if you disagree. You've probably never taken the time to understand America's founding philosophy, which states there is truth that supersedes law, specifically that rights are even more fundamental than law and completely supersede it. You owe yourself a reading of the declaration of independence.
You likely haven't been on the receiving end of blatantly unjust law or "law" enforcement nor do you likely identify with those who have been on the receiving end. You've probably never had to bribe a police officer, something that happens on this planet. You probably haven't experienced law enforcers robbing you of your dignity with the force of courts behind them. You've probably never been subject to law that says you are someone else's property.
Unfortunately for your argument, law can be used to consolidate power to update the law. You can update the law so that only you are able to update the law. When the system of legitimacy for the use of force becomes a tool for power consolidation, "consensus" becomes irrelevant. Consent becomes irrelevant. This is in many ways communicated by OP's managed democracy. What happens when you disagree with management? What does it mean for democracy to be managed. It obviously is because politicians ask for money, not time, not votes, but money. That implies that those with money can influence election results loosely proportional to their money.
You should really read about political philosophy, specifically the "state of nature" which even conservative NYT columnist David Brooks has said we are in. Generally when people say that it means that we are effectively lawless and subject only to systems of power. There is no law to follow because it is arbitrary and unpredictable or everything is criminalized to the point where everyone is guilty allowing enforcement to punish who they choose while technically enforcing the law.
How do you get people who have consolidated systems of power to the negotiating table? How should Ukraine get Russia to the negotiating table? Russia is claiming it is Ukraine's government and therefore Ukrainians are "protected" by Russian law. Gazans are "protected" by Israeli law too. China claims that it's laws "protect" Hong Kong citizens and Taiwanese. Their militaries are technically acting as police if you accept their framing.
Multiple second in commands of the US military have said trump is trying to divide and conquer America. Think about that. Think about what it means for a president to divide the country. It means that they see themselves as president of only half of the people. What does that mean for the other half, do they actually have a government? Are they protected by law?
This country was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, and it's not clear you've read it or understand it, because it doesn't say shoot whoever you disagree with (although that is something that happens in the state of nature), but it also doesn't rely on magical thinking about "building consensus to update the law" which is something that makes sense to think about under a constitutional democratic government, but doesn't make any sense in a monarchy or government aspiring to have a "unitary executive."
You're original false dichotomy is also condescending getting you a condescending tone. There is nobody who believes in shooting whoever you disagree with. There is nobody who supports random shootings. The post you were responding to was one almost directly laying out American founding philosophy, that we live under a consent based government.
The person you were responding to was laying down an argument that would defend the civil rights movement, that frequently acted in violation in of the law, threatened violence, and even became violent, before the descendants of people who were literally slaves (under law) were given protection by the law, protection that is still violated to this day which the black lives matter protests and contemporary driving/walking while black cases show. It took riots to see consequences for one cop extra-judicially killing a man.
Say what you want about the case in new york, but it is building consensus that we have a 2 tiered legal system that exists to protect the rich and impose order (not justice) on the poor.
Change doesn't happen only from the carrot or only from the stick, but the carrot and the stick working together. Where you are right is that destruction and being against alone will not lead to good outcomes, you have to create and be for something to have good outcomes.
If I reflect on this in relation to the national situation, you're de facto defending what is happening right now and choosing beliefs that defend this repeatedly new normal as inevitable and using magical thinking to describe how change should happen. It's magical because its easy to say what you say, but if you were to write an algorithm for what real physical humans do in real life to create change, you will quickly find out how much magic is required and how many functions you have to implement later or how many impossible things you need to be true. Russia has elections too. Believing that American elections could not be like Russian elections is pure American exceptionalism.
People with agency vote based on information, but there is an entire information economy controlled by the very rich that you deny in your other posts. Money influences votes, you have to confront the depth of what that means and you're not. You should read the dissent of citizens united.
You're right I don't know your background, but you don't seem to have internalized the founding philosophy because if you had you couldn't argue the way you argue which means either you don't have a philosophical framework to support you or you haven't really deeply thought about the things you say yourself and given them any philosophical rigor.
And yeah, I agree, there is an extremely strong analogy to the national situation, and you should reflect on which "side" you are on.
By calling the post obnoxious you haven't made me feel obnoxious, you've created the conditions to confirm my own beliefs and made yourself appear to be in denial. You haven't given me anything to critically think about my own beliefs, you've only told me that being told you're wrong and uninformed feels bad, but much like the half of America who feels condescended and chooses to be strong and wrong rather than question themselves, you will get exactly the government you deserve.
I think you see the target on your back (based on your profile) as someone who could be seen as contributing to the downfall of America and directly harming those who participate in our for profit healthcare system, and want laws to protect you while failing to realize that laws are not defending those our for profit healthcare system victimizes. Since you profit from a system that victimizes people, I can certainly see how you would see the attack as "random" since the very same logic that applied, and that some are even celebrating, could reasonably be applied to you based on your titles alone giving you a sense of insecurity that those who need healthcare feel.
I think the actor acted with conscience and since I also act in conscience I don't feel at risk. I feel more at risk from people who follow the law but don't care about justice than I do from people who care about justice but don't follow the law. America was literally built by the latter. There is no explicit relationship between justice and law other than law without justice de-legitimizes law until people reject it and choose to act on their own, meaning they choose the state of nature.
I am as white and as American as you get. I am descended from people who fought in the revolutionary war, all 16 of my great great grandparents were born here, and I would feel much much safer sitting next to the person in question than an ICE agent, and I would prefer to be in a country made of the former than the latter, and if you want to live in a free country, you should start contemplating why you must support people who hold justice in higher esteem than the law.
I am not defending the current situation, I am opposing people acting as judge jury and executioner, in the name of their own justice. Individuals going out and shooting people on the street is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society, or one that seeks to prevent sliding deeper into dysfunction. What I reject is the idea that anyone who doesn't accept your definition of justice should have a target on their back. That is not a power I will grant, even under veiled threats of death and national destruction.
I have never voted republican in my life, am appalled by the current lawlessness, and generally support healthcare reform. We should be allies with many mutual interests, but here you are making an enemy.
> Individuals going out and shooting people on the street is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society
I absolutely 100% completely agree, however you added "in a functional society" which is why that statement is true. We are not in a functional society, we are in a rapidly deteriorating one.
So why did you add in a functional society? Is it true in a non functioning society? How should people act in a non functioning society? What determines whether a society is functioning or not? Who gets to make that choice whether society is functioning or not? Was the confederacy a functioning society? Was it a functioning society for chattel slaves? Would they have been justified in using "sticks"? Are Ukrainians justified in using sticks? Why or why not?
> is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society
> am appalled by the current lawlessness
Don't you see your own denial even a little, or how someone in good faith could interpret it that way?
> We should be allies with many mutual interests, but here you are making an enemy.
I could accuse you of the same, but I don't think you're an enemy at all, I think you're ignorant, privileged, and haven't really given your own point of view a thorough shakedown. I am not angry at you, nor do I see you as an enemy. If I did, I would treat you like rayiner, I might accidentally respond, but otherwise I would downvote flag and move on. I am sad that you are too scared to accept what is true because it makes you personally responsible for participating in building a future we want to be a part of and nobody wants to be told they are responsible especially when that message comes with personal cost. Anger is a result of feeling threatened, but sadness is a result of understanding, and I am deeply sad about the current state of things and people who should be ideological allies choosing comfort over truth.
Everyone wants a functioning government, but "nobody" wants to pay taxes or take a pay cut do be a part of it. Everyone wants labor rights and higher wages, but nobody wants to risk their job, their pay, or their "permanent record." Everyone wants to sit in the shade of the tree of liberty, but nobody wants to water it. You'll only want to fight for liberty once it's gone and by then the fight will be much much harder.
I asked so many questions and almost none of them are rhetorical. I think if you took the time to answer any of them, you would quickly run into trouble maintaining internal consistency, and I think the core of it is that you have no conception of what it takes to go from the state of nature to a consensus based lawful government because you think Locke and Jefferson were "edgelords".
The problem with your judgement is that it presumes that law is a limit rather than weapon, that it protects rather than attacks, and that the law can interpret and enforce itself. This is a form of privilege because you grew up under conditions where those were mostly true because those in power generally followed the law, so you've never had to question many of your base assumptions about what law is, how it is enforced, or what legitimacy/illegitimacy means. Decisions made have mostly been decisions you can tolerate even if you disagree. You've probably never taken the time to understand America's founding philosophy, which states there is truth that supersedes law, specifically that rights are even more fundamental than law and completely supersede it. You owe yourself a reading of the declaration of independence.
You likely haven't been on the receiving end of blatantly unjust law or "law" enforcement nor do you likely identify with those who have been on the receiving end. You've probably never had to bribe a police officer, something that happens on this planet. You probably haven't experienced law enforcers robbing you of your dignity with the force of courts behind them. You've probably never been subject to law that says you are someone else's property.
Unfortunately for your argument, law can be used to consolidate power to update the law. You can update the law so that only you are able to update the law. When the system of legitimacy for the use of force becomes a tool for power consolidation, "consensus" becomes irrelevant. Consent becomes irrelevant. This is in many ways communicated by OP's managed democracy. What happens when you disagree with management? What does it mean for democracy to be managed. It obviously is because politicians ask for money, not time, not votes, but money. That implies that those with money can influence election results loosely proportional to their money.
You should really read about political philosophy, specifically the "state of nature" which even conservative NYT columnist David Brooks has said we are in. Generally when people say that it means that we are effectively lawless and subject only to systems of power. There is no law to follow because it is arbitrary and unpredictable or everything is criminalized to the point where everyone is guilty allowing enforcement to punish who they choose while technically enforcing the law.
How do you get people who have consolidated systems of power to the negotiating table? How should Ukraine get Russia to the negotiating table? Russia is claiming it is Ukraine's government and therefore Ukrainians are "protected" by Russian law. Gazans are "protected" by Israeli law too. China claims that it's laws "protect" Hong Kong citizens and Taiwanese. Their militaries are technically acting as police if you accept their framing.
Multiple second in commands of the US military have said trump is trying to divide and conquer America. Think about that. Think about what it means for a president to divide the country. It means that they see themselves as president of only half of the people. What does that mean for the other half, do they actually have a government? Are they protected by law?
This country was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, and it's not clear you've read it or understand it, because it doesn't say shoot whoever you disagree with (although that is something that happens in the state of nature), but it also doesn't rely on magical thinking about "building consensus to update the law" which is something that makes sense to think about under a constitutional democratic government, but doesn't make any sense in a monarchy or government aspiring to have a "unitary executive."