United States Politics Thread 46

[Nortaneous]

I think it's only reasonable to expect that if you send your children to state schools then the state has final say there.

How do you say that in Italian? Republics have a different idea about the relation between the citizenry and the state.

Did you just laud what sounds like an act of threatening lethal violence against children?

Against teenagers who almost hit some guy's kids in daddy's Lambo, yes. Traffic laws haven't been enforced here since before the plague - someone's got to do it.

A few weeks ago I was late to work because the guy in front of me - a grown man who drove like a shithead kid - hit a truck at three digits and got turned into cat chow. It's a miracle no one else was hurt. You don't fuck around with cars.

At any rate, they have open carry there, and nobody pointed a gun at the shitheads.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Did you just laud what sounds like an act of threatening lethal violence against children?

Against teenagers who almost hit some guy's kids in daddy's Lambo, yes. Traffic laws haven't been enforced here since before the plague - someone's got to do it.
...
At any rate, they have open carry there, and nobody pointed a gun at the shitheads.

So yes, you did. There are many ways that society could handle this — did they even try to talk to the parents civilly before threatening the kids, for one? — that aren't some randoms threatening kids with guns. Sounds like everybody sucks here. So much for law and order and two wrongs not making a right.

[Nortaneous]

So yes, you did. There are many ways that society could handle this — did they even try to talk to the parents civilly before threatening the kids, for one? — that aren't some randoms threatening kids with guns. Sounds like everybody sucks here. So much for law and order and two wrongs not making a right.

The parents? Who are the parents? How do you find the parents? Do you think anyone can run plates?

Assuming you can find the parents, do they care? What are they going to do? Is the plural even correct?

The police don't enforce noise violations either. What are you supposed to do about loud music at night? Talk civilly to the new neighbors? That you don't like it is part of the point - they're trying to mark their territory. If you have any ideas as to how my cousin in the suburbs can get a full night's sleep that don't involve being mean...

[bradrn]

I think it's only reasonable to expect that if you send your children to state schools then the state has final say there.

How do you say that in Italian? Republics have a different idea about the relation between the citizenry and the state.

Elaborate, please?

Did you just laud what sounds like an act of threatening lethal violence against children?

Against teenagers who almost hit some guy's kids in daddy's Lambo, yes. Traffic laws haven't been enforced here since before the plague - someone's got to do it.

Wow, just when I thought the US couldn’t get more dystopic… you have minimal law enforcement even against drivers who are literally killing people, and random people feel it appropriate to go around threatening young people with lethal weapons. From an Australian perspective, this is absolutely, horrifically insane — it feels like a failed state.

What are you supposed to do about loud music at night? Talk civilly to the new neighbors? That you don't like it is part of the point - they're trying to mark their territory. If you have any ideas as to how my cousin in the suburbs can get a full night's sleep that don't involve being mean...

Over here? Go lodge a noise complaint to the local police. (Or the council or whoever is the responsible authority; I’ve never needed to go through the process myself.) The law enforcement system should be responsible for this stuff.

[Nortaneous]

I think it's only reasonable to expect that if you send your children to state schools then the state has final say there.

How do you say that in Italian? Republics have a different idea about the relation between the citizenry and the state.

Elaborate, please?

In the American civic mythology, the state, like, is the citizenry, delegating its right to rule to representatives. This is a little confused for various reasons - liberal protections and the doctrine of rights, the existence of class, "scientific governance", etc. - but that's the basic idea. The state can't be above that which it proceeds from.

Wow, just when I thought the US couldn’t get more dystopic… you have minimal law enforcement even against drivers who are literally killing people, and random people feel it appropriate to go around threatening young people with lethal weapons. From an Australian perspective, this is absolutely, horrifically insane — it feels like a failed state.

Yeah, it gets worse. The reason the asshole was doing three digits in rush hour is that he hit someone else and was trying to run. Got what he deserved.

Another one of those American ideas is that the state shouldn't have to be so big, because republican virtue will lead the people to govern themselves to some degree. This also has complications - health insurance and Medicare displaced fraternal societies, which were an actual thing that actually served that role, for example - but it's still an idea.

Over here? Go lodge a noise complaint to the local police. (Or the council or whoever is the responsible authority; I’ve never needed to go through the process myself.) The law enforcement system should be responsible for this stuff.

Cops don't respond to noise complaints. What would they do if they did? Give the homeowner a stern talking to?

I actually saw that happen once when I was young - our obnoxious neighbors once actually violated the noise code (which only comes into effect at, like, midnight), and some cop had nothing better to do. So he showed up and gave them a stern talking to. This accomplished nothing. The problem was only solved when the housing crash hit and half the block emptied. We didn't have real recourse because nice middle-class people who've assimilated to the nice middle-class American mainstream don't have community or the ability to project force.

This is the problem with outsourcing governance to the government! The Pakistani gun guy doesn't have such problems.

Nowadays, it's also impolite to suggest that nice middle-class people should call the cops at all. The idea of raising the manpower and funding of police departments enough that they can respond to noise complaints and ticket reckless drivers is, like, far-right extremism, or something.

(When traffic laws were still enforced worth a damn, it was a rare but known practice for people to get pro-police bumper stickers so the cops would let them off easy, so it's complicated.)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

So yes, you did. There are many ways that society could handle this — did they even try to talk to the parents civilly before threatening the kids, for one? — that aren't some randoms threatening kids with guns. Sounds like everybody sucks here. So much for law and order and two wrongs not making a right.

The parents? Who are the parents? How do you find the parents? Do you think anyone can run plates?

Assuming you can find the parents, do they care? What are they going to do? Is the plural even correct?

Your original wording suggested that they lived in his neighbourhood; if this is not actually the case (which your reply implies), you should say so, without implication that it is my responsibility to understand you if you ambiguously word a statement, and not your responsibility to communicate your meaning clearly, and to clarify politely when you do not communicate yourself well enough.

To return to topic, given the context implied by the original message (said teenagers being residents of the neighbourhood, which is a reasonable, and probably even default, interpretation of the original wording), I should think they would look to see in which driveway they saw the car once it was parked for the evening, knock on the door without carrying a threat of lethal force and actually talk about the problem before, again, making threats of extrajudicial lethal force against minors.

Also, the extra information you pulled on Brandrn is not an instant-win card. Poor contextualisation does not mean you argue well, and neither does it make threats of extrajudicial violence against minors justified. And the answer to my original question is, yes, you do apparently condone threats of extrajudicial violence against children, or at least minors, though the distinction is rather moot, since it's an endorsement of threats of lethal extrajudicial violence.

The police don't enforce noise violations either. What are you supposed to do about loud music at night? Talk civilly to the new neighbors? That you don't like it is part of the point - they're trying to mark their territory. If you have any ideas as to how my cousin in the suburbs can get a full night's sleep that don't involve being mean...

"Being mean" and "threatening lethal violence" are not necessarily mutually inclusive, though I feel like you already ought to know this.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Did you just laud what sounds like an act of threatening lethal violence against children?

Against teenagers who almost hit some guy's kids in daddy's Lambo, yes. Traffic laws haven't been enforced here since before the plague - someone's got to do it.

Wow, just when I thought the US couldn’t get more dystopic… you have minimal law enforcement even against drivers who are literally killing people, and random people feel it appropriate to go around threatening young people with lethal weapons. From an Australian perspective, this is absolutely, horrifically insane — it feels like a failed state.

Australia does look pretty good from this side of the Pacific, incidentally.

[bradrn]

In the American civic mythology, the state, like, is the citizenry, delegating its right to rule to representatives.

This agrees with my understanding.

The state can't be above that which it proceeds from.

This doesn’t. We have delegated our authority to the state; that is to say, the state must be de facto above us, by our own choice.

Another one of those American ideas is that the state shouldn't have to be so big, because republican virtue will lead the people to govern themselves to some degree.

Ah yes, the famous libertarianism. (Or is it anarchism?) This actually does work in practice, assuming of course that you have an entirely sane, ethical and reasonable population with no substantial differences in opinion.

Over here? Go lodge a noise complaint to the local police. (Or the council or whoever is the responsible authority; I’ve never needed to go through the process myself.) The law enforcement system should be responsible for this stuff.

Cops don't respond to noise complaints. What would they do if they did? Give the homeowner a stern talking to?

At first, yes. Then escalate to fines, larger fines, and eventually confiscation of noise-making apparatus. Or something along these lines. It’s not like the cops are powerless, after all.

This is the problem with outsourcing governance to the government! The Pakistani gun guy doesn't have such problems.

Yes, he most certainly doesn’t have that problem. He can just go kill whoever he wants. Which, as I said, is fine as long as everyone across the world agrees with his moral code, and he himself is 100% perfect at judging violations. Otherwise, it doesn’t work.

Also, the extra information you pulled on Brandrn is not an instant-win card.

Huh, I haven’t seen that particular misspelling of my name before. I should start collecting them.

[Ares Land]

A sense of community is effective against crime. Probably more so than police.

It's known in urban planning than just having people around has a serious effect on crime.

There's an interesting bit in Jane Jacobs on how some neighborhoods in Boston or NYC looked terrible but actually had very low crime rate. There just was an healthy community, and people kind of watching while minding their own business.
If you live in the suburbs or the countryside, I assume you know all about having a neighbour watching for burglars when you're on vacation.

Leaving the gun thing aside (that's another can of worms), in many cases, scaring half-delinquent kids a bit is both more effective and nicer to them than just sending the cops. (And there are plenty of neighborhoods where, for various reasons, calling the police isn't even an option.)

[Ares Land]

Oh, on education: in principle I'm all in favor of parents getting a lot more involved in schools.
In practice the only time people show any sort of interest, it's over some damn stupid moral panic. How about worrying about schools teaching the scientific method, or actually teaching kids about history instead of propaganda slash historical fiction?

[Nortaneous]

Your original wording suggested that they lived in his neighbourhood; if this is not actually the case (which your reply implies), you should say so, without implication that it is my responsibility to understand you if you ambiguously word a statement, and not your responsibility to communicate your meaning clearly, and to clarify politely when you do not communicate yourself well enough.

As far as I know, they didn't, but what difference does it make? If they live in the neighborhood, maybe the parents need to move.

Also, the extra information you pulled on Brandrn is not an instant-win card. Poor contextualisation does not mean you argue well, and neither does it make threats of extrajudicial violence against minors justified. And the answer to my original question is, yes, you do apparently condone threats of extrajudicial violence against children, or at least minors, though the distinction is rather moot, since it's an endorsement of threats of lethal extrajudicial violence.

Yes.

If someone's old enough to dish it out, they're old enough to take it. If someone's kid gets run over, what does it matter whether the driver was 16 or 60?

"Being mean" and "threatening lethal violence" are not necessarily mutually inclusive, though I feel like you already ought to know this.

If I could field a posse to show up carrying and politely suggest that the jackass neighbors turn their shit down, why would I rule it out?

In the American civic mythology, the state, like, is the citizenry, delegating its right to rule to representatives.

This agrees with my understanding.

The state can't be above that which it proceeds from.

This doesn’t. We have delegated our authority to the state; that is to say, the state must be de facto above us, by our own choice.

We have delegated certain specific authorities to the states, and retain all others not so delegated. The states then delegated certain of their specific authorities to the federal government, and retain all others not so delegated.

This is complicated by the doctrine of incorporation, but that pushes in the exact opposite direction from the one you want - and the overall trend in constitutional interpretation has been toward total philosophical incoherence. (Griswold is good policy but bad law; Wickard is irredeemable by any metric.)

Ah yes, the famous libertarianism. (Or is it anarchism?) This actually does work in practice, assuming of course that you have an entirely sane, ethical and reasonable population with no substantial differences in opinion.

Even assuming substantial differences in opinion! Early America had no shortage of weird sects.

At first, yes. Then escalate to fines, larger fines, and eventually confiscation of noise-making apparatus. Or something along these lines. It’s not like the cops are powerless, after all.

That's not how it works. You call the cops ten times across as many months and they'll show up once. Once they show up, they aren't more likely to show up again. There's no shortage of laws on the books that are rarely or never enforced.

Yes, he most certainly doesn’t have that problem. He can just go kill whoever he wants. Which, as I said, is fine as long as everyone across the world agrees with his moral code, and he himself is 100% perfect at judging violations. Otherwise, it doesn’t work.

Most dominance contests among other animals don't result in a fight, much less a death. Why do you expect humans to be so different? You don't need to kill anyone; you just need to win a dominance contest and scare the other guy off, and sometimes scaring the other guy into following the local norms will work just as well.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Your original wording suggested that they lived in his neighbourhood; if this is not actually the case (which your reply implies), you should say so, without implication that it is my responsibility to understand you if you ambiguously word a statement, and not your responsibility to communicate your meaning clearly, and to clarify politely when you do not communicate yourself well enough.

As far as I know, they didn't, but what difference does it make? If they live in the neighborhood, maybe the parents need to move.

The difference that they can talk to the parents about it, and that there is an immediately accessible and nonviolent potential solution (other than actually watching where their kids are playing) staring them in the face, and which they chose not to take.

And the answer to my original question is, yes, you do apparently condone threats of extrajudicial violence against children, or at least minors, though the distinction is rather moot, since it's an endorsement of threats of lethal extrajudicial violence.

Yes.

If someone's old enough to dish it out, they're old enough to take it. If someone's kid gets run over, what does it matter whether the driver was 16 or 60?

Ignoring the fact that, in the situation you mentioned, nobody died — and if they did, extrajudicial execution is not justifiable (neither, I would argue, is the State having power of life and death in itself, but that's another discussion) — someone's kid could get "run over" for a variety of reasons, and what the consequences are are certainly not to be decided with the threat, or actual application, of lethal force by persons too close to the situation emotionally to make a clear-headed judgement on the matter, but all this delving into pointless minutiae is rather, well, pointless. The central point is that, in a situation where nobody apparently actually got hurt, a group of armed persons threatened minors with lethal violence, apparently without trying to do anything to remedy the situation without said threat of lethal violence (their being minors is not the central factor, just an aggravating one; if the posse in question threatened a 30- or 40-something with extrajudicial lethal violence, this would also be unjustifiable).

"Being mean" and "threatening lethal violence" are not necessarily mutually inclusive, though I feel like you already ought to know this.

If I could field a posse to show up carrying and politely suggest that the jackass neighbors turn their shit down, why would I rule it out?

Given the character you've evidenced (and which you appear proud to evidence), you, personally, presumably wouldn't; the question I would ask is whether or not it ought to be legally permissible for you to do so. Given that this is a source of potential violence, which could lead to serious harm or death, the answer to that question would be, of course, "No, because loud music does not constitute a greater societal problem than escalating a situation with the threat of lethal violence over a relatively petty matter." A reasonable person who understands that initial resorts to violence, while very effective when they are effective, are not guaranteed to be so, and can consequently result in injury or death — you do not know what weapons the others happen to possess, after all, nor if you might not be on the receiving end of them coming as an armed posse onto their property uninvited — would presumably rule it out, however.

Most dominance contests among other animals don't result in a fight, much less a death. Why do you expect humans to be so different? You don't need to kill anyone; you just need to win a dominance contest and scare the other guy off, and sometimes scaring the other guy into following the local norms will work just as well.

Other than the fact that humans have a tendency to resentment, the force here potentially displayed, and of which humans are capable with the right tools, is far in excess of anything of which any other animal (of which we know, at least) is capable. A gun is not a claw. A gun is not a display of plumage. A gun is an object designed by humans with the express purpose of killing. To present yourself to somebody in the possession of a firearm is to assert that you have the potential to kill them, and on some level that you are willing to. This does not create a "dominance contest", it creates a potential life-or-death situation.

Humans also have a tendency to escalate in the face of escalation (more aggressive law enforcement can make criminals more violent rather than cowing them, as more brutal treatment of prisoners appears to increase the rate of recidivism). Human memory can also be corrupted by extreme emotion — such as the resentment already mentioned, especially if it continues to be nursed (a not improbable outcome). If one side is unarmed at first confrontation, but is armed, and resentful, and angry, at the second, somebody is quite a bit more likely to end up dead.

(Not to mention that, rather than running around with guns with which they clearly aren't being responsible, these people could be actually taking civic actions to improve society where it needs it rather than pretending that they somehow have divinely-bestowed authority to threaten whomever they please with extrajudicial lethal violence. It sounds like a lot of these problems are the result of a lot of inaction, probably in part because people are exhausted by Capitalism, and so on and so on. But if you have time to form a posse, you have time to form a pressure group to actually help get society back to functioning.)

[Nortaneous]

The difference that they can talk to the parents about it, and that there is an immediately accessible and nonviolent potential solution (other than actually watching where their kids are playing) staring them in the face, and which they chose not to take.

You can talk to the parents all you want, but you can't expect them to do anything effective - or to do anything at all.

The only car accident I've been in involved a drunk driver. The guy was in his 30s and lived with his mom, who owned the car and did not share his surname. The car was a better one than I've ever had, and they lived in a better neighborhood than I ever have. What can you do? You can hope the guy learned his lesson when he wakes up in the hospital - but ideally it wouldn't get to that point, and the government doesn't do much to stop it.

He hit two people, went through his mom's windshield, and got a fucking citation.

Ignoring the fact that, in the situation you mentioned, nobody died — and if they did, extrajudicial execution is not justifiable (neither, I would argue, is the State having power of life and death in itself, but that's another discussion) — someone's kid could get "run over" for a variety of reasons, and what the consequences are are certainly not to be decided with the threat, or actual application, of lethal force by persons too close to the situation emotionally to make a clear-headed judgement on the matter, but all this delving into pointless minutiae is rather, well, pointless. The central point is that, in a situation where nobody apparently actually got hurt, a group of armed persons threatened minors with lethal violence, apparently without trying to do anything to remedy the situation without said threat of lethal violence (their being minors is not the central factor, just an aggravating one; if the posse in question threatened a 30- or 40-something with extrajudicial lethal violence, this would also be unjustifiable).

It's even odds that a teenager who can drive is a minor in the United States, but I don't see anything wrong with extrajudicial giving a polite warning to an out-of-towner engaging in physically dangerous antisocial behavior with a Lambo, nor with "extrajudicially" exercising one's Second Amendment rights while doing so.

"Being mean" and "threatening lethal violence" are not necessarily mutually inclusive, though I feel like you already ought to know this.

If I could field a posse to show up carrying and politely suggest that the jackass neighbors turn their shit down, why would I rule it out?

Given the character you've evidenced (and which you appear proud to evidence), you, personally, presumably wouldn't; the question I would ask is whether or not it ought to be legally permissible for you to do so. Given that this is a source of potential violence, which could lead to serious harm or death, the answer to that question would be, of course, "No, because loud music does not constitute a greater societal problem than escalating a situation with the threat of lethal violence over a relatively petty matter."

Once people start considering selling their house and moving to a different county, it's no longer petty. Either my cousin in the suburbs moves or her asshole neighbors do. Why should the party not at fault suffer?

Most dominance contests among other animals don't result in a fight, much less a death. Why do you expect humans to be so different? You don't need to kill anyone; you just need to win a dominance contest and scare the other guy off, and sometimes scaring the other guy into following the local norms will work just as well.

Other than the fact that humans have a tendency to resentment, the force here potentially displayed, and of which humans are capable with the right tools, is far in excess of anything of which any other animal (of which we know, at least) is capable. A gun is not a claw. A gun is not a display of plumage. A gun is an object designed by humans with the express purpose of killing. To present yourself to somebody in the possession of a firearm is to assert that you have the potential to kill them, and on some level that you are willing to. This does not create a "dominance contest", it creates a potential life-or-death situation.

Lmao this is deranged. I don't think the guys who carry at the Panera are asserting the will to kill me.

Samurai carried swords because they were samurai; peasants didn't because they couldn't. The point of the US is that all decent citizens should be samurai. Many parts of Europe had similar restrictions, but decided that all decent citizens should be... peasants. This has never made sense to me - obviously the point of a republic should be to elevate the citizenry.

Humans also have a tendency to escalate in the face of escalation (more aggressive law enforcement can make criminals more violent rather than cowing them, as more brutal treatment of prisoners appears to increase the rate of recidivism).

Plausible within the limited framework of punishing criminals by sending them to crime school and then closing most doors by which they could earn a decent living, but I bet recidivism rates would go down if we replaced some prison sentences with caning.

(Not to mention that, rather than running around with guns with which they clearly aren't being responsible, these people could be actually taking civic actions to improve society where it needs it rather than pretending that they somehow have divinely-bestowed authority to threaten whomever they please with extrajudicial lethal violence. It sounds like a lot of these problems are the result of a lot of inaction, probably in part because people are exhausted by Capitalism, and so on and so on. But if you have time to form a posse, you have time to form a pressure group to actually help get society back to functioning.)

A pressure group to do what? Expand the police force? The same police force that, like, carries?

And what does a functioning society look like? Can a society in which the people abdicate all responsibility to the government really be characterized as "functioning"?

[bradrn]

Samurai carried swords because they were samurai; peasants didn't because they couldn't. The point of the US is that all decent citizens should be samurai. Many parts of Europe had similar restrictions, but decided that all decent citizens should be... peasants. This has never made sense to me - obviously the point of a republic should be to elevate the citizenry.

And this argument has never made sense to me. Sure, I can accept that you, and the people in your community, are sensible enough and responsible enough to own and use guns. But then there’s the domestic abuser who wants to kill his wife. Or the mentally ill guy who believes God is telling him to murder all the gay people. Or the drug gang who is trying to have a war with the other drug gang next door. Giving them guns sure doesn’t sound like ‘elevation’ to me. And sure, there are other weapons available, but guns are designed for killing people in a way which other weapons aren’t. If you accept guns in your community, you get that deterrence effect you’re talking about, but you also get all those other murders, and that is a price I’m personally not willing to pay.

(For comparison: a few days ago, there was a shooting in Sydney, in which exactly two people from one gang were killed by a rival gang, or something like that. It was front-page news here. The police launched a huge investigation and everything. Would it be front-page news where you live?)

A pressure group to do what? Expand the police force? The same police force that, like, carries?

The flip-side of my argument above is that the samurai were entrusted with swords because they were assumed to have sufficient responsibility to use them. The same applies with the police: ideally, they should have training and supervision such that they can be entrusted with lethal weapons. In practice, it’s debatable whether this is actually the case, but at least the organisational structure and supervision are there to effect a change.

(The argument can be applied more broadly, actually. Owning a gun is perfectly legal in Australia, as long as you can prove that you are sane and that you know how to use it. I’ve never understood the idea of a system which lets you own a gun without requiring proof of sanity.)

And what does a functioning society look like? Can a society in which the people abdicate all responsibility to the government really be characterized as "functioning"?

Um… yes? Because if they don’t, some idiot will come along and do idiotic things, and no-one has the power to stop them.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The difference that they can talk to the parents about it, and that there is an immediately accessible and nonviolent potential solution (other than actually watching where their kids are playing) staring them in the face, and which they chose not to take.

You can talk to the parents all you want, but you can't expect them to do anything effective - or to do anything at all.

The only car accident I've been in involved a drunk driver. The guy was in his 30s and lived with his mom, who owned the car and did not share his surname. The car was a better one than I've ever had, and they lived in a better neighborhood than I ever have. What can you do? You can hope the guy learned his lesson when he wakes up in the hospital - but ideally it wouldn't get to that point, and the government doesn't do much to stop it.

He hit two people, went through his mom's windshield, and got a fucking citation.

And you threatening him with a gun would do what, exactly?

Ignoring the fact that, in the situation you mentioned, nobody died — and if they did, extrajudicial execution is not justifiable (neither, I would argue, is the State having power of life and death in itself, but that's another discussion) — someone's kid could get "run over" for a variety of reasons, and what the consequences are are certainly not to be decided with the threat, or actual application, of lethal force by persons too close to the situation emotionally to make a clear-headed judgement on the matter, but all this delving into pointless minutiae is rather, well, pointless. The central point is that, in a situation where nobody apparently actually got hurt, a group of armed persons threatened minors with lethal violence, apparently without trying to do anything to remedy the situation without said threat of lethal violence (their being minors is not the central factor, just an aggravating one; if the posse in question threatened a 30- or 40-something with extrajudicial lethal violence, this would also be unjustifiable).

It's even odds that a teenager who can drive is a minor in the United States, but I don't see anything wrong with extrajudicial giving a polite warning to an out-of-towner engaging in physically dangerous antisocial behavior with a Lambo, nor with "extrajudicially" exercising one's Second Amendment rights while doing so.

The Second Amendment has to do with well-regulated militias, which are not involved here. I'm also open to the idea of minors not being allowed to drive, or much stricter laws as to who can get a driving license at all.

If I could field a posse to show up carrying and politely suggest that the jackass neighbors turn their shit down, why would I rule it out?

Given the character you've evidenced (and which you appear proud to evidence), you, personally, presumably wouldn't; the question I would ask is whether or not it ought to be legally permissible for you to do so. Given that this is a source of potential violence, which could lead to serious harm or death, the answer to that question would be, of course, "No, because loud music does not constitute a greater societal problem than escalating a situation with the threat of lethal violence over a relatively petty matter."[/quote]
Once people start considering selling their house and moving to a different county, it's no longer petty. Either my cousin in the suburbs moves or her asshole neighbors do. Why should the party not at fault suffer?
[/quote]
Compared to death, yes, it is petty. You are not going to die of annoying neighbours.

Most dominance contests among other animals don't result in a fight, much less a death. Why do you expect humans to be so different? You don't need to kill anyone; you just need to win a dominance contest and scare the other guy off, and sometimes scaring the other guy into following the local norms will work just as well.

Other than the fact that humans have a tendency to resentment, the force here potentially displayed, and of which humans are capable with the right tools, is far in excess of anything of which any other animal (of which we know, at least) is capable. A gun is not a claw. A gun is not a display of plumage. A gun is an object designed by humans with the express purpose of killing. To present yourself to somebody in the possession of a firearm is to assert that you have the potential to kill them, and on some level that you are willing to. This does not create a "dominance contest", it creates a potential life-or-death situation.

Lmao this is deranged. I don't think the guys who carry at the Panera are asserting the will to kill me.
[/quote]
I don't think I'm the one who's deranged.

Samurai carried swords because they were samurai; peasants didn't because they couldn't.

Feudalism isn't exactly a great example to hold up.

The point of the US is that all decent citizens should be samurai.

Most citizens of the United States are not part of a historical Japanese military class, and I doubt very much that most of the population of North America at the time of the formation of the country knew terribly much (if anything) about who or what samurai were. This was a bit before the creation of the modern weeb.

Many parts of Europe had similar restrictions, but decided that all decent citizens should be... peasants. This has never made sense to me - obviously the point of a republic should be to elevate the citizenry.

And making them part of a military class "elevates" them? Sounds like a better way to make more of them dead.

Humans also have a tendency to escalate in the face of escalation (more aggressive law enforcement can make criminals more violent rather than cowing them, as more brutal treatment of prisoners appears to increase the rate of recidivism).

Plausible within the limited framework of punishing criminals by sending them to crime school and then closing most doors by which they could earn a decent living, but I bet recidivism rates would go down if we replaced some prison sentences with caning.

It makes children sneakier, not better people, so I don't quite follow the logic there.

(Not to mention that, rather than running around with guns with which they clearly aren't being responsible, these people could be actually taking civic actions to improve society where it needs it rather than pretending that they somehow have divinely-bestowed authority to threaten whomever they please with extrajudicial lethal violence. It sounds like a lot of these problems are the result of a lot of inaction, probably in part because people are exhausted by Capitalism, and so on and so on. But if you have time to form a posse, you have time to form a pressure group to actually help get society back to functioning.)

A pressure group to do what?
[/quote]
Is that even a good-faith question?

To humour you, perhaps to actually get things enforced (huge onerous fines might be nice)? Change state laws about driving licenses (raising the driving age to 18, enforce more stringent penalties for violating laws; on this note, having police not carry guns)? Create a homeowner's association to exclude non-residents from the neighbourhood? Put in speedbumps and other infrastructure that forces slow driving through the neighbourhood (the more stuff is in your way, the slower you have to drive to not die)?

[bradrn]

The difference that they can talk to the parents about it, and that there is an immediately accessible and nonviolent potential solution (other than actually watching where their kids are playing) staring them in the face, and which they chose not to take.

You can talk to the parents all you want, but you can't expect them to do anything effective - or to do anything at all.

The only car accident I've been in involved a drunk driver. The guy was in his 30s and lived with his mom, who owned the car and did not share his surname. The car was a better one than I've ever had, and they lived in a better neighborhood than I ever have. What can you do? You can hope the guy learned his lesson when he wakes up in the hospital - but ideally it wouldn't get to that point, and the government doesn't do much to stop it.

He hit two people, went through his mom's windshield, and got a fucking citation.

And you threatening him with a gun would do what, exactly?

I think this is really the important question here. If it does have a deterrent effect, then we may want to seriously consider its pros and cons. If it doesn’t do anything, then there’s no point in trying.

Ignoring the fact that, in the situation you mentioned, nobody died — and if they did, extrajudicial execution is not justifiable (neither, I would argue, is the State having power of life and death in itself, but that's another discussion) — someone's kid could get "run over" for a variety of reasons, and what the consequences are are certainly not to be decided with the threat, or actual application, of lethal force by persons too close to the situation emotionally to make a clear-headed judgement on the matter, but all this delving into pointless minutiae is rather, well, pointless. The central point is that, in a situation where nobody apparently actually got hurt, a group of armed persons threatened minors with lethal violence, apparently without trying to do anything to remedy the situation without said threat of lethal violence (their being minors is not the central factor, just an aggravating one; if the posse in question threatened a 30- or 40-something with extrajudicial lethal violence, this would also be unjustifiable).

It's even odds that a teenager who can drive is a minor in the United States, but I don't see anything wrong with extrajudicial giving a polite warning to an out-of-towner engaging in physically dangerous antisocial behavior with a Lambo, nor with "extrajudicially" exercising one's Second Amendment rights while doing so.

The Second Amendment has to do with well-regulated militias, which are not involved here. I'm also open to the idea of minors not being allowed to drive, or much stricter laws as to who can get a driving license at all.

Wait, minors are allowed to drive in the US‽ Are you joking?

(Over here, you can get your learners’ license at 16, then you have to log 120 hours supervised driving to get to a P1 level, a further 12 months to get a P2 license, and then 24 months before you’re allowed to get a full license. I suppose a 16-year-old is a minor, but on the other hand they can’t get a full license either, so it all balances out.)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

It's even odds that a teenager who can drive is a minor in the United States, but I don't see anything wrong with extrajudicial giving a polite warning to an out-of-towner engaging in physically dangerous antisocial behavior with a Lambo, nor with "extrajudicially" exercising one's Second Amendment rights while doing so.

The Second Amendment has to do with well-regulated militias, which are not involved here. I'm also open to the idea of minors not being allowed to drive, or much stricter laws as to who can get a driving license at all.

Wait, minors are allowed to drive in the US‽ Are you joking?

(Over here, you can get your learners’ license at 16, then you have to log 120 hours supervised driving to get to a P1 level, a further 12 months to get a P2 license, and then 24 months before you’re allowed to get a full license. I suppose a 16-year-old is a minor, but on the other hand they can’t get a full license either, so it all balances out.)

In most States, you can get what's called a "Learner's Permit" at 15, and use that time to practise, then take a test, and at 16, you can have a license. This varies from place to place (some do provisional licenses until 18 or 21, but even so, the instruction isn't nearly so rigorous, in my experience). I think 16 is too young to be driving — I think 18 is a better age for all the "adult" things.

[Nortaneous]

Samurai carried swords because they were samurai; peasants didn't because they couldn't. The point of the US is that all decent citizens should be samurai. Many parts of Europe had similar restrictions, but decided that all decent citizens should be... peasants. This has never made sense to me - obviously the point of a republic should be to elevate the citizenry.

And this argument has never made sense to me. Sure, I can accept that you, and the people in your community, are sensible enough and responsible enough to own and use guns. But then there’s the domestic abuser who wants to kill his wife.

And get away with it? He wouldn't use a gun. On impulse? People who are that impulsive and that evil aren't suited to be samurai. We send them to peasant housing and set them to work making license plates for cheap. Ideally they'd be uplifted, but republican virtue can't cure Charles Whitman's brain tumor.

Or the mentally ill guy who believes God is telling him to murder all the gay people.

Schizophrenia is culturally mediated. If the voices are evil, there's a problem to begin with.

Or the drug gang who is trying to have a war with the other drug gang next door.

The continued existence of gangs in the US is a complicated issue, but a lot of it boils down to people thinking gangs are cool. And a lot of the rest is bad policy - bad immigration policy, bad criminal policy, bad sentencing policy, in at least two cases the CIA, etc.

And sure, there are other weapons available, but guns are designed for killing people in a way which other weapons aren’t.

What else are swords designed for?

(For comparison: a few days ago, there was a shooting in Sydney, in which exactly two people from one gang were killed by a rival gang, or something like that. It was front-page news here. The police launched a huge investigation and everything. Would it be front-page news where you live?)

It depends on the place and the news. One guy killing another guy in self-defense can be international news for a year, but nobody cares about gang wars in Baltimore. (Which is really too bad. They should. The government can't be expected to do everything, but what's the point of having a government if they can't delete the Crips and Bloods? And MS-13, and Latin Kings, etc.)

(The argument can be applied more broadly, actually. Owning a gun is perfectly legal in Australia, as long as you can prove that you are sane and that you know how to use it. I’ve never understood the idea of a system which lets you own a gun without requiring proof of sanity.)

How do you prove sanity?

I'm not up to date on the law, but IIRC it's at least extremely difficult to get a gun if you've ever seen the inside of a psych ward.

And what does a functioning society look like? Can a society in which the people abdicate all responsibility to the government really be characterized as "functioning"?

Um… yes? Because if they don’t, some idiot will come along and do idiotic things, and no-one has the power to stop them.
[/quote]

We have a government, and a lot of people who want all responsibility to be abdicated to the government. This has not stopped idiots from doing idiotic things, but has enabled idiots (and some very smart or at least crafty people) to do idiotic things at scale.

And you threatening him with a gun would do what, exactly?

Put the fear of God into him, or at least the fear of man. Some people have no respect and need to learn it. But obviously it doesn't work if you do it alone - or if you're too threatening. I don't think carrying is even a load-bearing element.

(If you're losing dominance contests all over the place, why would they have respect? Winning dominance contests is fun. It's like winning fights, but nobody gets hurt and the loser is an abstract group more often than not.)

The Second Amendment has to do with well-regulated militias, which are not involved here.

It's an absolute construction - it provides context but otherwise has no bearing.

Compared to death, yes, it is petty. You are not going to die of annoying neighbours.

Where does death enter into it? They're winning dominance contests and forcing you out, so you turn the tables and force them out.

Most citizens of the United States are not part of a historical Japanese military class, and I doubt very much that most of the population of North America at the time of the formation of the country knew terribly much (if anything) about who or what samurai were.

But the people engaged in the enterprise of forming the country were familiar with European history, which could well have included the ban on peasants carrying swords within cities. Why not? They had enough of a survey to construct an electoral college, and that wasn't even in England.

(Thomas Jefferson believed that the cultivation of republican virtue required that the people be educated in philology - and to learn enough Old English to read books from before the Norman yoke. The true reactionary is either an anarchist or Confucius.)

To humour you, perhaps to actually get things enforced (huge onerous fines might be nice)? Change state laws about driving licenses (raising the driving age to 18, enforce more stringent penalties for violating laws; on this note, having police not carry guns)? Create a homeowner's association to exclude non-residents from the neighbourhood? Put in speedbumps and other infrastructure that forces slow driving through the neighbourhood (the more stuff is in your way, the slower you have to drive to not die)?

If you, a decent and law-abiding person who actually lives in the neighborhood, get a noise ordinance passed, and then it's noon on a Sunday and your kid's having a birthday party, what's to stop the pettiest person on the block from calling the cops on you? It's not a dominance contest, nor is it in genuine conflict with the customs of your people - it's your kid's birthday, and Karen is mad that you won the pie bakeoff.

Ideally people would live in communities and have much broader agreement on customs - not total agreement, which can't happen, but things like "is it acceptable to, every weekend, turn your car on and leave it running in the driveway so that your fucking reggaeton can be heard three blocks away" - and these problems wouldn't arise in the first place. But once they do arise, there's little the government can do about it, unless they're supposed to be in the business of determining, block by block, whose customs apply, and formalizing them in the most literal-minded and exploitable way.

Any community can produce shithead kids, so speed bumps aren't a bad idea (although people are much more willing to be shithead kids on someone else's turf), but once you're talking about writing laws to deal with a difference in customs, you've already lost.

Wait, minors are allowed to drive in the US‽ Are you joking?

Typically you get a learner's permit around 15, take a driver's education course of about a week, jump through a variable number of hoops (in Maryland you need to prove 60 hours of driving practice; in Virginia you just need an instructor to sign off), become eligible for an intermediate license at 16, take a driving test of varying difficulty (unless you're in Virginia where you just need an instructor to sign off), and then the intermediate license becomes a full license after six months, for government values of "six months". (In my case I think it was 90 days, which became a year and a half because they had a backlog. This is completely representative of the quality of government services in the US.)

I support whatever system they have in New Jersey, a densely populated state with (IME) good drivers, and oppose whatever system they have in Virginia, where nobody knows how right of way works and you have to use hand signals. (This is completely representative of the quality of everything in Virginia. It's not a good state.)

Raising the driving age wouldn't work out. The vast majority of the US has no public transit and trapping kids at home stunts their growth.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

And you threatening him with a gun would do what, exactly?

Put the fear of God into him, or at least the fear of man.

Some people have no respect and need to learn it. But obviously it doesn't work if you do it alone - or if you're too threatening. I don't think carrying is even a load-bearing element.

How isn't it, exactly?

(If you're losing dominance contests all over the place, why would they have respect? Winning dominance contests is fun. It's like winning fights, but nobody gets hurt and the loser is an abstract group more often than not.)

I don't think I've ever been in one.

The Second Amendment has to do with well-regulated militias, which are not involved here.

It's an absolute construction - it provides context but otherwise has no bearing.

It provides very specific narrow reasoning that was specific to the historical context within the document was written, a context which now, broadly speaking, does not exist. I'm ill of people disingenuously ignoring that. And this aside, it isn't relevant to the discussion of whether or not society ought to permit it.

Compared to death, yes, it is petty. You are not going to die of annoying neighbours.

Where does death enter into it? They're winning dominance contests and forcing you out, so you turn the tables and force them out.

The "dominance contest" involves the use of objects of lethal force, or had you forgotten?

Most citizens of the United States are not part of a historical Japanese military class, and I doubt very much that most of the population of North America at the time of the formation of the country knew terribly much (if anything) about who or what samurai were.

But the people engaged in the enterprise of forming the country were familiar with European history, which could well have included the ban on peasants carrying swords within cities. Why not? They had enough of a survey to construct an electoral college, and that wasn't even in England.

What are you on about, exactly?

(Thomas Jefferson believed that the cultivation of republican virtue required that the people be educated in philology - and to learn enough Old English to read books from before the Norman yoke. The true reactionary is either an anarchist or Confucius.)

Again, what are you on about, exactly?

To humour you, perhaps to actually get things enforced (huge onerous fines might be nice)? Change state laws about driving licenses (raising the driving age to 18, enforce more stringent penalties for violating laws; on this note, having police not carry guns)? Create a homeowner's association to exclude non-residents from the neighbourhood? Put in speedbumps and other infrastructure that forces slow driving through the neighbourhood (the more stuff is in your way, the slower you have to drive to not die)?

If you, a decent and law-abiding person who actually lives in the neighborhood, get a noise ordinance passed, and then it's noon on a Sunday and your kid's having a birthday party, what's to stop the pettiest person on the block from calling the cops on you? It's not a dominance contest, nor is it in genuine conflict with the customs of your people - it's your kid's birthday, and Karen is mad that you won the pie bakeoff.

Why are you coming up with ridiculous hypotheticals?

Ideally people would live in communities and have much broader agreement on customs - not total agreement, which can't happen, but things like "is it acceptable to, every weekend, turn your car on and leave it running in the driveway so that your fucking reggaeton can be heard three blocks away" - and these problems wouldn't arise in the first place. But once they do arise, there's little the government can do about it, unless they're supposed to be in the business of determining, block by block, whose customs apply, and formalizing them in the most literal-minded and exploitable way.

Any community can produce shithead kids, so speed bumps aren't a bad idea (although people are much more willing to be shithead kids on someone else's turf), but once you're talking about writing laws to deal with a difference in customs, you've already lost.

What exactly is your argument here? That laws are pointless?

Raising the driving age wouldn't work out. The vast majority of the US has no public transit and trapping kids at home stunts their growth.

And yet the solution stares you in the face and you ignore it. I begin to sense a pattern.

[bradrn]

People who are that impulsive and that evil aren't suited to be samurai.

Thank you for making my point for me. Alas, there are a lot of impulsive people in the world, and you can’t keep track of them all.

Or the mentally ill guy who believes God is telling him to murder all the gay people.

Schizophrenia is culturally mediated. If the voices are evil, there's a problem to begin with.

This isn’t a solution. (And I’m not a psychiatrist, so I can’t assess this claim.)

Or the drug gang who is trying to have a war with the other drug gang next door.

The continued existence of gangs in the US is a complicated issue, but a lot of it boils down to people thinking gangs are cool. And a lot of the rest is bad policy - bad immigration policy, bad criminal policy, bad sentencing policy, in at least two cases the CIA, etc.

I’ve come to the conclusion that, short of remaking the whole of society, very little can be done about gangs. Until we do remake society, the best that can be done is to prevent them from getting ahold of tools which they can use to do harm.

And sure, there are other weapons available, but guns are designed for killing people in a way which other weapons aren’t.

What else are swords designed for?

I should perhaps have emphasised the fact that guns are designed ‘in a way which other weapons aren’t’. There is a reason that mass murderers use guns and not swords: you can hurt more people, more harmfully, more quickly with a gun than with a sword.

How do you prove sanity?

I'm not up to date on the law, but IIRC it's at least extremely difficult to get a gun if you've ever seen the inside of a psych ward.

I struggle to see this as anything other than a good thing. Proving sanity is hard, but that’s at least one proxy. (I believe here you have to undergo a police check before buying a gun. Or something like that.)

And what does a functioning society look like? Can a society in which the people abdicate all responsibility to the government really be characterized as "functioning"?

Um… yes? Because if they don’t, some idiot will come along and do idiotic things, and no-one has the power to stop them.

We have a government, and a lot of people who want all responsibility to be abdicated to the government. This has not stopped idiots from doing idiotic things, but has enabled idiots (and some very smart or at least crafty people) to do idiotic things at scale.

…OK, this is a good point. I’ll have to think about this.

And you threatening him with a gun would do what, exactly?

Put the fear of God into him, or at least the fear of man. Some people have no respect and need to learn it. But obviously it doesn't work if you do it alone - or if you're too threatening. I don't think carrying is even a load-bearing element.

…well, if it isn’t, then why have we ended up discussing it‽ If it isn’t, then don’t emphasise it as much.

If you, a decent and law-abiding person who actually lives in the neighborhood, get a noise ordinance passed, and then it's noon on a Sunday and your kid's having a birthday party, what's to stop the pettiest person on the block from calling the cops on you?

Absolutely nothing! It should be the responsibility of the cops to see this for what it is and take appropriate and proportional action. But I fail to see how this is relevant.