Vigilantism

As good a point as that is, there are obvious circumstances and obvious situations where the law has blatantly neglected to do its job. The world is in a sorry state and you know it, and I'm not even sure the legal system can keep track of itself anymore it's so cluttered with ****. As good a point as you make, it does get to the point where vigilantism, to an extent, is justified.

 

If the law works, I'm all for using the law. However, again, I feel that sometimes there are some things that we must take into our own hands when the law fails or does not see an act and you have a choice to act or let it go on in front of you. I don't think things should be done out of 'revenge' which is a symptom cause for vigilantism, but I do think there is an extent people can go where if they don't do anything but wait on the law, that it lays on the conscience. There are just some acts I feel that if I had not taken them up, I could seriously not think of myself as a semi-decent person.

I draw the line on acts of retaliation and revenge, or being chauvinistic or fighting for 'honor' when there's a more sound approach. These are more 'ego' issues instead of actually stopping some transgression that is bad so it does not continue to harm someone.

The law can and does fail when people know it and do things to skirt around it. People tend to learn the habit even as children, when they know because they are young, they won't get charged as harsh as an adult. Some kids even know that playing up to teachers will make it so the teacher sees them in a certain way so they won't get punished so severely, or they do this with parents. Failure to act and assuming someone else will take care of a wrong doing all the time will let people continue to feel they have the right to do awful things to others. The law doesn't scare everyone into doing what society would hope would not be destructive. Also, a failure to act in some situations can make the law come after you too. There is a reason that such things such as citizen arrest exist, after all.

 

I see vigilantism as an extension of the justice system, in that when the justice system fails or is ineffective vigilantism takes over. The law is too restricted by itself for justice to be served in many cases and sometimes the community has to deal with it itself.

However, I know from the experience of living in Northern Ireland that vigilantism can not be a permanent state of affairs. It may start out with the best of intentions but the people involved quickly succumb to corruption. As they are not regulated by the legal system there is nothing stopping them. They do things that they see as "right" even if that view is not shared by the community. Over here justice seems to come more often than not from a bullet to the knee cap >_>

But I do understand why it starts up. Our justice system is pathetically inadequate. Our jails are full so they release prisoners early and don't put new ones in in the first place, charges are watered down, people get out early for acting like they are really sorry (I mean really, how does an apology equal 10 years off of your sentence?)

What really pisses me off is drink drivers and speeders. These people are obviously not capable of driving safely and yet are still on the roads. They should be banned from ever driving again after three strikes or a death! And if they are caught driving after the ban they get put in a wheelchair so that they are not physically able to drive a car.

Our society and justice system are far too soft on criminals. It's time we wake up and realise that if you break the law you are no longer equal to someone that hasn't. Simple as that.

 

Oh Christ, you're awesome.

 

While it is a solid solution, what happens to the large percentage of people who are speeders? The car industry would plummet, less cars made, and disabled loans would skyrocket.

Again it's a solid solution, but there is an easier way through technology. We aren't that primitive imo.

That's a huge fallacy. The law is a fictional entity devised by people to control each other. Breaking an imaginary law does not make you unequal. Sure it makes you accountable but it is only temporary, and they like being in prison, and if they are "truly" fixed like you said with putting them in a wheelchair, it becomes dehumanization.

If you really want to change it and fix it, adjust the society as a whole and begin a more eclectic approach to helping the "criminals" (i.e. finding out what's wrong and working on an environmental fix), and solving the problem through analysis. The need for punishment is incredibly outmoded and in the end costs way more money than necessary (prisons, for example).

The main reason I think criminals act the way they do is, as I've stated before, they aren't really given an opportunity to persevere. If you change that I guarantee you'd see a lot of nonsense shape up in the streets.

 

You are talking about changing centuries of societal development in a generation or two? I wish you luck :P

I do realise that all I have suggested do not deal with the root cause. There is very little that does, and the plans that are currently being implemented seem to be having very little effect. Society seems very resistant to change =/

On the point of technology, I know it is there. The BBC recently did a piece on it saying that it would know the speed for the particular road that you are on and not let you go any faster. I think it's great, I have always wondered why cars are manufactured with the capability to go faster than 70 mph when there is nowhere in the country they can go that speed.

 

Certainly not within a few generations. My only point was that we have been around for what, more than 4000 years and we still can't take care of each other? We make an effort but at the end of the day it ends up being that more disaster prevails rather than help. Though, you are right, it is very unlikely to do such a thing. I mean, there are grass-roots movements out there, at least, which hope to spread a message of what they feel is a real change. It would take very long to really make any real, holistic change, sadly.

I agree. Society is very resistant to change. But what else are we to expect of the establishment? is the way I see it. lulz

Yeah, now that I think about it, it's very redundant how they let that happen. I think even if they did attempt to restrict it that way, though, someone would just find a way to alter it so the restrictions wouldn't matter. That's another problem to deal with. I guess it's the mindset that counts when it comes to things like automotive control.

 

You should read the Mars trilogy. After the second revolution they set up their own government and society based on all of the experience and history of Earth. It turns out to be a pretty interesting government. Not perfect mind you, but then again perfection can not be what we aim for.

The problem is it is literally in our nature to be selfish. Evolution made us that way, because it helped us as individuals survive. But hopefully now that we have broken free of our gene's control we can also break out of those primal mindsets.

 

Well in a sense yeah, I agree it is a natural inclination to be selfish, since we need to survive over anything. Though not so much gene's. I doubt there's a "survival" gene (or any behavior gene), it's just a response to environment. The scarcity makes it a lot worse and I've come to see that quite clearly in the past year. I like to believe it isn't always that bad, though. Just the conditions we live in amplify that craving even further. A poor person living in the streets obviously might be selfish and steal in order to survive. But contrary, a rich person might be selfish because they were born into a family where wealth is a status symbol. Always because of how they live they can be selfish, because that 'me me me' mentality has stripped them of what's real, thanks to how they are introduced into the competition based society. I don't know if we've been broken free, we still live in a very pervasive societal system where things like vigilantism (while it can be good, in this case not so much) exists on a primitive basis instead of on a solution-based paradigm.

Also, I've been wanting to read the Mars series for a very long time. =D A Spanish teacher at my school and myself met because she saw me reading Murakami, so she suggested that series. She also suggested the Millenium Triology (heard of it?).

Btw I would suggest reading Engines of Creation. A fantastic look into technology and its profound effects on society. It's made me start saying this thing called "technological unemployment" which I think is very fascinating. It speaks for itself. lul

Wow I'm really off-topic now. o_o

 

xD They shall have to be added to the reading list. WAIT, MURAKAMI?! Isn't he Japan's most famous author outside of Japan? I think I read one of his books D: Can't remember the name though =/

On the gene point, the individuals who were more selfish tended to survive more and so had more children and so here we are. It is selfish actions that have evolved, and that we need to break free from.

As for vigilantism, it falls victim to selfishness as we are all after all, human.

 

And I've started to think recently that the only reason this selfish mode we have exists is due to the fact it was the fastest, easiest and first way to survive that occurred. Due to scarcity and competition obviously, but nonetheless it happened that way and we have so many ways to evolve/move (whatever term works) out of this way of living.

Though as you said, these selfish actions have, in a way, "evolved" over time and have taken a pretty good root. I don't think it's because of genes, however. :P I think it's a result in environmental conditioning. The boy sees his daddy investing in the stock market and therefore has a higher propensity to be raised doing the same thing. It's just so dumb how we have created this artificial divide, "class" and "wealth." Now it's so unbelievably inflated that when it crashes, things will be even worse than the great depression.

Yep you're thinking of the right Murakami. If you aren't sure of the book you read, it was likely one of these: A Wild Sheep Chase, Norweigan Wood, A Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. lol

 

It was After Dark. OMG THAT BOOK WAS AMAZING. It was so odd, my favourite part was the whole man with no face part ._.

Anyway, back on topic ;D
It's not so much that there is a gene for not sharing food. There is a gene that says "Only share food if it is a close relative". Genes that mean you're more likely to procreate and for your children (and other close relatives, who are more likely than not to be carrying the same genes as you) to survive to procreate etc.

Although environmental conditioning cannot be ignored, far from it. Nature may decide the starting parameters but it is all nurture after that (no matter how detrimental the "nurturing" actually is).

Lol, that is so off-topic xD

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I suppose vigilantism could be compared to Communism. Good on paper but fails because it involves humans lol

 

Communism only fails because it makes it impossible to persevere with competition adequately. That's why capitalism works, because you can build up and increase your level of living. However in communism everyone essentially gets paid the same. And that is dangerous because if money is part of the equation, you're going to psychologically want more and more, but you can't. So on the structure of it, it is corrupt. Vigilantism is a result of that mess.

It can also be the same with capitalism, however. The only difference is that the competition becomes so fierce and so huge, eventually you create monopolies. Then people take it into their own hands to help themselves because monopolies are apparently very dangerous.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. lol

Correct me if I'm wrong for the way I'm interpreting this, but there is a gene that automatically gives you a propensity to only nurture those of close relations to you? Like you said, genes that mean you're more likely to procreate and for your child to survive/procreate?

If the baby comes out of you, there is an unbelievably high chance you will take care of it--because it's yours--it slopped out of you. If the propensity is genetically determined, then what happens when memory is lost? If it is genetic that shouldn't change anything you feel towards the child, therefore you will still take care of them without knowing who they are?

 

I always assumed that it was also because some people are more inclined to lead while others are more inclined to be lead. Hierarchies form very naturally and they ruin the communist system. Although having money in the equation certainly doesn't help.

The way in which genes work is that mutation causes them to arise. They each have a certain effect on the body (called a phenotype, if it affects outside of the body it is called an extended phenotype; like a beaver's dam for instance). If the body they are in procreates there is a 50% chance they are passed on to the child. This makes things quite complicated as "bad" genes can also be passed on.

Anyway, a gene or group of genes that basically say "Look after, feed and protect your children" would be very successful as it would mean that many offspring would survive. This would mean that it would spread throughout the population until almost all of the individuals in the species have a copy of that gene. However, it will not only be children. Brothers and sisters also have a 50% chance of having the gene, as do your parents. Cousins, uncles/aunts etc have less chance and less the further out you go. This means that any resources that are invested in distant relatives are going to have less of an effect on the survival of that particular gene and therefore a gene for being helpful to your distant relative will be less successful than one for looking after your children.

In the wild animals have evolved different ways of looking for their children. It is often by smell or pheromone as they will usually all look the same xD This means that even if memory is lost an instinct will tell them that they have to look after the child. In humans, however, as we have become so atypical to other organisms our genes are all misfiring. That is why there is adoption. People feel drawn to looking after children in general, not just necessarily their own. Animals in the wild also adopt other young, sometimes not even from their own species. That is how powerful genes can be, making us do the completely illogical through a simple misfire.

 

Certainly. It erupts much more severely in the United States' system, since everything is so gargantuan in economic/financial stature.

Vigilantism is so common right now (tea party, for instance). At any rate, whether someone is more inclined to lead or not plays a large role, as you said. Because if an individual is genetically superior (in terms of strength, body structure and the like) then they will dominate. In our system however things such as that are secondary to monetary gain and profit.

It is very damaging in any monetary based system, not only communism, of course. Especially when competition and scarcity are the means of perseverance and prosperity. Which makes absolutely no sense to me.

That is a good way to look at it. In terms of what they are technically able to do physically, it would make sense they evolve in order to satisfy that superior ability (beaver and dams, a lion's muscular structure for hunting and surviving in its scarce environment). I still can't see how a gene for something like that could make sense. And "bad" genes feels like a misnomer. More like "unnecessary." A beaver won't need a blow-hole (and it will likely never attain one, obviously). Is this to say a gene could pass that negates all of these nurturing propensity's brought about by its other gene's?

If a mutation were to occur and a gene were to be created that deeply influenced that time of behavior occurred, that would technically mean that type of gene would be infinite, correct? What I fail to understand is a gene controlling behavior. A gene can produce phenotypes and genotypes, which influence technical ability (more muscle, less muscle, being tall, having more hair, etc). Could it be said that instead of a gene influencing an ability, it sets up the circumstances that allow the behavior to take place "instinctively", without the gene directly instructing behavior?

I see it that way because if genetics was that restricting there would be no such thing as "interests" because it would be down to the genetics entirely, to the extent of what is needed to survive. Still, we have a brain for a reason.