Jono wrote:
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Phonic wrote:
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
The whole reasoning of our social compact into the state is giving the state the power of authority...the state is the only legitimate coercison mechanism. You can't have a feudal system of knights, vigiliantes, mercenaries etc...it in of itself proves a threat to the stability of the state, as it allowed the privatization of violence which ultimately will lead to the underminning of our societies laws and centralized authority.
Did you copy paste that from a Max Weber book?
Actually, crime undermines our laws, not fighting it.
No, I studied history in college and political science, so I know a bit or two...and actually both undermine our laws if you look at what I said. What i elaborated on in my previous post is exactly what is going on in Afghanistan...you have the privatization of violence by tribal groups with shifting allegiances and none to the central authority of the state in Kabul. Therefore you get armed resistance when tribal authority is threatened with. Taking the law unto yourself is just as dangerous for a republic as a person committing a crime.
It sounds to me like they're intervening rather than acting like vigilantes - there's a difference. As long as they're not breaking any laws, I guess it's fine. It's just that, going out and looking for trouble like that could be dangerous.
If you are intervening, you are acting as an extralegal means of law enforcement...you are at conflict with the state ( in the form of the police) and their responsbilities under the Constitution. You could very well be helping a criminal if you mete out extrajudicial punishment, by aiding their defense. Their are ways citizens can be involved in law enforcement, such as citizen watch groups like Curtis Silwa set up in New York, called the Guardian Angels. They work with the Police and they assist them, but ultimatly the state has the final say, as it should be.....intervening as you put it, would be someone who unwillingly is a witness to a crime and decides to do something about it. Vigiliantes are those who seek out criminals to mete out extrajudicial punishment.
So, if you happen to be in a place where you notice that someone is in trouble, are you supposed just let them get hurt or killed while the police are taking their time getting there? I'm sorry but I can't see intervening in those circumstances as the same thing as meting out extrajudicial punishment like what a vigilante would be doing. That said, I'm not in any way suggesting that people should go out and look for trouble like what those so-called "superheroes" are doing.
12 May 2011, 7:45 am
