477
Video: ICE agents drive SUV through protesters at S.F. immigration court (missionlocal.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/usa@ponder.cat
125 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

There's a deeper debate to be had, here. I get why this guy is being down voted, but he's making a point in a very unpalatable way. The real underlying question is 'are those that violate social contacts due the protections of said social contracts'? How do we, as a society, correct for this? Are we still bound by the rules of a contract that another party actively violated, in regards to that party? If you answer yes, this leads to the 'paradox of tolerance.' How do we come to terms with that? Until we either realize this, and come to terms with this, or create an infallible system, how do we create a system that is resistant to this? That it's presented in the worst way possible notwithstanding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't think the privilege of the social contract applies here, because we first have to confirm that they violated the social contract. If they're caught in the act, sure go ahead. But if we start excluding people from the social contract without knowing they are the ones who violated it, it becomes very easy to eject anyone for any reason.

    Due process isn't for the benefit of the guilty, but for the safety of the innocent accused.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sure, I agree, but how does this or will this function when we're actively being denied the right to due process? That's the point of the masks, right? Are we seriously under the illusion that justice will prevail first and foremost and someone will just hand us a list with the names and records of the secret police operating against their own people? Don't get me confused, better 100 criminals and one innocent walk free, vice 100 criminals and one innocent are put to justice. I mean, we agree on this, there's no argument here.
    I guess now that I really think about it, my real issue is that people still seem to believe that this will magically happen and we just have to wait and have faith that justice will prevail and a new system will save us. I don't believe there's a system where what you describe -- due process -- is a realistic expectation until we make one, until then I'm not content believing in civilities that I'm uncertain we can afford because there's no mandate, or right, to perform them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, breaking from norms is always difficult, because everyone can point out all the new problems, and very few have any solutions.

    Paintballs might work, giving strong leads on home location. This might be turned around on protesters though, and using a weapon near ICE is risky especially once they know why.

    I'm not sure the courts could even follow through on a suite at this point though. Acting while ICE is acting might be the best method, which is just escalation. An important thing to prepare for, but is there a smarter way?

    Air tags on vehicles? Reading the MAC address of cell phones and looking for them at local shops? Hacking google location data? Following agents with drones?

    The bigger problem is an effective movement requires some organisation, and USers are so segregated by cars that they only socialize outside their friend circle on moderated social media. A movement of this nature would be stamped out before reaching enough eyes to begin. Non-surveillance messaging is becomming more common, but building a group is still difficult.

    It's not an easy question...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Excellent response and I share your sentiments. I think you're doing more thought than most people and we need more of this. It's difficult and nuanced, but the only sensible way. I'd just be echoing your thoughts by responding further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    "I don't want this guy setting fire to our shared apartment building. That's a violation of the social contract. So I'm going to set fire to our shared apartment building. That'll show him."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You're conflating my questions with a defense for the one you're disagreeing with. They were honest questions. I would understand if you didn't wish to opine upon them, but at least don't straw-man my honest questions.. I'd really rather have honest debates and thoughts, even if I didn't necessarily agree with them. Not thought-terminating arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm addressing what you said, in a succinct way. If it's a little too unclear, then:

    The real underlying question is ‘are those that violate social contacts due the protections of said social contracts’?

    No, they're not. But, you have no idea who has violated the social contract unless you have due process.

    Those that you're not sure yet have violated the social contract, because it hasn't been proven, are due the protections of said social contracts. Yes. That's the trial phase. Then, after that, we decide they might not be due the protection of the same social contract. That's the punishment phase. They're different. It is extremely popular in times of crisis to start to skip ahead to punishment without trial, as part of the official process, because things are so dire, and that's explicitly what this person was advocating for. That is wrong. Because you'll wind up punishing people who haven't violated any social contract at all.

    Are we still bound by the rules of a contract that another party actively violated, in regards to that party?

    No. But once it gets to a broad scale, and due process breaks down on all sides as people start a big melee for their own safety against their enemies, things can get very very bad.

    Sometimes there's no way around that, of course. That's what we call a war. Maybe that's where we are headed. But deciding ahead of time that you're going to abandon due process within a civil society, because of how dangerous it is that your opponents want to abandon due process, is just hastening the phase of "might makes right." It's pretty hard to come back from that once it happens. A lot of people have had to grapple with this, notably the allies after World War 2 trying to figure out how to punish the guilty. If they'd gone with this "they're SO bad that they don't deserve due process" type of thing, Oskar Schindler would probably be dead.

    If you answer yes, this leads to the ‘paradox of tolerance.’

    No. Not having the trial and doing nothing, or having the trial and then not doing the punishment, is tolerance. Having the trial and then punishing is justice. Not having the trial and doing the punishment anyway is terror. I'm not aware of a time when that was the solution that didn't go horribly sideways almost instantly.

    There are times when there was some massive crime against humanity and the paradox of tolerance prevented effective resolution, and it was very bad. Reconstruction is a good example. But just doing arbitrary punishment for anyone some random person decides is guilty is ten times worse. Even if you get it right 100% of the time, which you won't, it sets a precedent that is horrifyingly hard to stop once people have gotten in the habit.

    Seems a little more clear spelled out that way?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Thank you, and upvoted!

    No. Not having the trial and doing nothing, or having the trial and then not doing the punishment, is tolerance. Having the trial and then punishing is justice. Not having the trial and doing the punishment anyway is terror. I'm not aware of a time when that was the solution that didn't go horribly sideways almost instantly.

    This is well said, and satisfies as an answer. As well as your break down of trial and punishment phases and how they fit into the social contact model. This gives a great deal of missing insights and helps me round out my world view where my thought process was sorely lacking. Your view has helped shape my own, I wish I got to say that more from my online interactions.

    Sometimes there's no way around that, of course. That's what we call a war.

    This is where my real concern lies, the suspension AND partial application of habeas corpus is essentially -- in my view -- a casus belli due the public. Habeas corpus must be universal in its application by the state, or the federal-state must be seen as a direct threat to the civilian public. They've tested the waters on this already in prior protests. At what point do we admit that it's no longer being honored by the federal-state and realize that we've been stripped of our right to accuse those who have wronged us -- also part of due process -- and take matters into our own hands to restore our rights?

    At what point is tolerance indistinguishable from cowardice in the name of tolerance?

    Perhaps I'm being rhetorical. The issue I have is that I don't see a meaningful way forward to even exercise due process, and even if we did have one, how that prevents catastrophic social consequences happening meanwhile. Due process is a reactive measure, after all.

    I don't believe the state, whether federal or not, will prosecute agents of the state that violate my rights -- human or constitutional. Therefore, as important as discussions about habeas corpus/due process are, for me it's putting the cart before the horse. Nothing you suggest prevents state-agents from murdering people -- due process or not. (After review, it wasn't a failure to address this point -- it was just outside the scope of the point you were making).

    Apologies for the long winded response, apparently I had more to say on this than I realized. TL;DR we agree, apparently -- as I've just come to realize -- the only difference is that I believe that we're already at war, just not entirely de facto. Might does not make right, but it can correct a wrong and the people can be mighty.

    Seems a little more clear spelled out that way?

    Much more so, I thank you for taking the time and effort to respond as well as you did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    This is where my real concern lies, the suspension AND partial application of habeas corpus is essentially – in my view – a casus belli due the public. Habeas corpus must be universal in its application by the state, or the federal-state must be seen as a direct threat to the civilian public. They’ve tested the waters on this already in prior protests. At what point do we admit that it’s no longer being honored by the federal-state and realize that we’ve been stripped of our right to accuse those who have wronged us – also part of due process – and take matters into our own hands to restore our rights?

    Yeah. The entire concept of American governance was that the people in the country fight to maintain control of their own government, and then take responsibility for it running properly. We’ve wandered pretty far from that at this point. To a large degree because the tools that we might use to coordinate and organize the fight have been co-opted by people who want to run the government on their own behalf.

    Apologies for the long winded response, apparently I had more to say on this than I realized. TL;DR we agree, apparently – as I’ve just come to realize – the only difference is that I believe that we’re already at war, just not entirely de facto.

    Agreed. Yeah, I was talking just about what the desired end state should be once democracy is reestablished, not saying we shouldn’t be vigorously defending ourselves right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent