1112: King Arthur's Court

[repolho]

What about Keith's Justice? Shouldn't Keith be killed for peeing in the street?

[Junkenstein]

This is a question that has been asked multiple times.

Yes, if he was caught red-handed he should've been killed. But if the Justice was active he wouldnt have done it.

There should be a FAQ section on these things.

[repolho]

He mentioned he knew he was risking spending the weekend in jail, but he had no choice, he just had to pee. How is it obvious that if the punishment was death he would have peed his pants or done something similar?

And he was caught by one of the building's residents, who could have had a camera or been a police officer or something. But that's not the point. The point is the world would not be better if Keith had been killed back then.

[Junkenstein]

He mentioned repeatedly that the main point of his justice was to make people aware of an extreme consequence for their actions. The law would have been made public, and wouldnt be retroactive. There would've been a determined period of time for people to absorb the conept, THEN if anyone was caught red-handed doin any crime they would've been killed.

He admitted that he did many things that could've granted him or many loved ones death, but the idea of immediate execution for any crime would've been a deterrent for doing such things.

Keith's Justice is a concept. Keith says extreme things and pushes buttons but you have to read the reasoning behind what he's saying. He's extremely intelligent. Behind every punchline thewre's a clear headed and morally strong idea. Dont take things litterally, you'll miss the best part of his points.

[repolho]

I get that, but it still wouldn't work. Don't you agree that being arrested for peeing is pretty extreme already? And yet people still do it, because sometimes they are walking down the street and they just have to pee. Keith's Justice wouldn't prevent people from doing that, or from littering, doing drugs, downloading movies, and so on; it would just kill anyone the police cares enough to watch.

I guess the issue is that I really don't get the idea behind Keith's Justice. Is it that people who live in fear behave well? That it's okay for the ruling class to impose their morals on everyone else? That the police is always right? That the lawmakers are always right? I don't get it.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by repolho

I guess the issue is that I really don't get the idea behind Keith's Justice. Is it that people who live in fear behave well? That it's okay for the ruling class to impose their morals on everyone else? That the police is always right? That the lawmakers are always right? I don't get it.

People who live in fear of consequences behave accordingly to rules.

And, yeah, it's ok for a ruling class (that is ruling because it was elected to do so) to impose commonly accepted morals on the majority.

And, where chaos and out-of-control people do what they want, a police force is right and must impose what the lawmakers have decided.

The alternative is hoping that sooner or later people will learn to behave. Which isnt likely to happen because that's not how people work.

Those are my thoughts of course, and because of those thoughts i agree with Keith's point. He's probably not as harsh as i am, but i am much less smart than he is.

[repolho]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

People who live in fear of consequences behave accordingly to rules.

They do, but is that a good thing? Think concentration camps.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

And, yeah, it's ok for a ruling class (that is ruling because it was elected to do so) to impose commonly accepted morals on the majority.

They are not imposed on the majority, but on the totality. Also, they are not commonly accepted. Think drugs, filesharing, driving habits (e.g. wearing a seatbelt, wearing a helmet, etc). Think sex.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

And, where chaos and out-of-control people do what they want, a police force is right and must impose what the lawmakers have decided.

Who says what's chaos and what's people going out of control? Think the SS.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

The alternative is hoping that sooner or later people will learn to behave. Which isnt likely to happen because that's not how people work.

You mean it isn't likely that they'll behave the way you want them to. Of course they'll learn to behave, it's what happened through the last hundreds of thousands of years, before the police was there and even before the law was there.

BTW, it's very easy to take away everyone's freedom while keeping your own. You should remember that we don't know who the ruling class will be tomorrow.

[RELEASEtheHOUNDS]

could Keith's Arthur impression top the Samantha? that should be the poll

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by repolho

They do, but is that a good thing? Think concentration camps.

Cooncentration camps were built to kill people. The rules made inside those places were just an excuse for mass execution. The idea is making clear to people that they're going to be punished if they make a mistake, and they're not going to get away with it. It's not about exterminating people, it's about setting things straight

Originally Posted by repolho

They are not imposed on the majority, but on the totality. Also, they are not commonly accepted. Think drugs, filesharing, driving habits (e.g. wearing a seatbelt, wearing a helmet, etc). Think sex..

Vice laws are always a grey area. I have no problems with letting people use drugs (it's mostly a self inflicted punishment). Filesharing is stealing and it should be punished as such. On driving habits the law must be as strict as possible because they not only affect the driver but also other people. What's sex has to do about it?

Originally Posted by repolho

Who says what's chaos and what's people going out of control? Think the SS...

The SS came out in a moment where Germany was in shambles, mostly economically. Hitler (and in slightly different situations Mussolini or Stalin) exploited the desperation of German people to obtain power and satisfy his delirium of grandeur. And he used the Jews, the gays and so on as a scapegoat.
In the case we're discussin, the elected state should simply set some rules against the misconducts of people (Murder, Rape, Theft and acts that make life impossible in a civilized society.

Originally Posted by repolho

You mean it isn't likely that they'll behave the way you want them to. Of course they'll learn to behave, it's what happened through the last hundreds of thousands of years, before the police was there and even before the law was there..

I want them to behave as nice, decent, people towards each other. Without control, laws and police, it's impossible to obtain this, since people are inherently prone to be selfish and abusive. Also Check your History. Every civilixed society since the dawn of men had some form of control.

I dont want to take away people's freedom to do what they want, i want to get back my right to live a life where me or members of my family dont have to fear to be robbed, assaulted, killed or raped

[Keith]

You're not allowed to pee on the street - butterfly affect - a systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews.