From commenter "Naftali"
"Also, vigilantism in practice never, ultimately, adheres to the moralistic standards of deterrence held to by modern men.
So if you wish the people not to descend into tribalism and lawlessness, you would have to stop advocating ‘take care of it yourself’ for an official government law enforcement policy"
Another commenter "Mary Madigan" takes on this idiocy."Oh for pity’s sake. Is it ‘vigilantism’ when a kid punches a bully in the nose? Is it vigilantism when a customer who has been cheated goes to a store and demands his money back (and gets it)
Functioning human beings have the right to defend themselves and take care of their needs without the constant intervention of authorities. If we rely on authorities to protect us in every situation, our ability to provide for our own needs will fade. Pretty soon, we’ll lack the survival skills of a simple ameoba. We’ll be Europeans. You don’t want that to happen, do you?"
"Naftali" responds....“Is it ‘vigilantism’ when kid punches a bully in the nose?
Yes, of course.
In my school we seek to ensure that he does not have to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm probably one of the most non-confrontational people you'll ever meet. In my 22 years on this earth I can't say I've ever been in a fight, and I've only ever hit someone once. The kid had been bullying me for a while and I was sick and tired of it. One swift punch to the jaw was all it took and he never bothered me again.Of course back when I was a kid if there was a fight at school it was investigated. If one party was obviously acting in self-defense they were not punished. Now schools have "zero-tolerance" and will suspend both kids with equal punishments. What this teaches kids is that fighting back against unprovoked violence is bad. Such a policy clearly encourages bullying and victimization.
Naftali says it is "vigilantism" if a kid punches a bully in the nose. "in my school we seek to ensure that he does not have to do so," he says. This is typical leftist speak. Naftali believes that "the system" will ensure that no child will ever be victimized by a bully. He ignores the "what if?" What if his school cannot ensure that a child will never be bullied? (and of course they cannot)
In his world, in the leftist world the answer is "tough luck kid." Self-defense is wrong regardless of the circumstances. The only legitimate actions are those carried out by the state/establishment and its actors. The State can have a monopoly on force and punishment, but individuals can't be entrusted to take action on their own behalf. If an authorized agent of the state (I.E. cop) uses force in self-defense that's perfectly acceptable, because he/she is no more than an extension of the State.
Take the recent shooting at a Fresno high school as an example. The student attacks a cop, hitting him in the head with a bat. The officer draws his back-up weapon and shoots the kid as he is preparing to take another swing at him.
Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer commented,
"The officer was fortunate that he was able to defend himself."
Right, because if you are violently attacked you have a natural right to defend yourself. This right is never questioned by Chief Dyer in this case because the man shooting in self-defense is an "only one." He is an agent of the State, authorized to use force, and he carries a sidearm because it is the most effective way for him to stop a violent attack. Had your average citizen been in the same situation he would have been disarmed by the State. The State would have said "tough luck" and the citizen would be dead.
If lethal self-defense is acceptable for those who "serve and protect us" why is it unacceptable for the rest of us who actually need protection? Why? because to a leftist like Naftali, use of force is only acceptable or legitimate if it occurs under the explicit authority of the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment