• RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree with you. That said, as humans, we’re not yet evolved past defending territory we’ve chosen to live on. I think we still need “might” as an option for response, until we as a creator evolve further.

    I don’t know if it’s possible to get rid of the final might destination on the continuum of responses to issues, but I think we can agree that the “extra steps” part between “an annoyance” and “possible danger to individuals and society” is extremely lacking and narrow.

    I strongly, strongly dislike what the police have become, and evolved from, in the united States. Someone does need to investigate crime and murder though, and not just a few amateur podcasters. With some careful thought, and likely messy experimentation, we can handle laws being just, fair and useful. How? That seems to be the tricky part.

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Warfare is of vital importance to the state, it is a matter of life and death.” -Sun Tzu.

      A hundreds of years old warlord recognized this, it’s a thought independent of economics. As long as there’s more than one nation-state on this planet, might is always the end result, including defense from an aggressor.

      The idea of inherent violence solely being a capitalist trait doesn’t tell the whole truth because the need for might exists as long as there’s power dynamic, which exists as long as there is govt.

      • fkn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You think it’s the govt that creates the power imbalances that results in violence? This is laughable… government is a result of violence that creates the power imbalance. Your point was reasonable until you conflated the two at the end.

    • Maeve@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I strongly, strongly dislike what the police have become, and evolved from, in the united States. Someone does need to investigate crime and murder though, and not just a few amateur podcasters. With some careful thought, and likely messy experimentation, we can handle laws being just, fair and useful. How? That seems to be the tricky part.

      That’s not exclusive to capitalism .

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but as an organization, protection of property seems to be their primary focus in more capital-centric societies.

        I’m speaking from an admittedly limited experience, having lived in the US most of my life, so I welcome any other perspective or ideas.

        • Maeve@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m also from the US, and haven’t lived abroad. It did rise to my awareness in this exchange, having recently begun trying to process Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Private property is the cause of the greatest social disparities, and protecting it is essential for our current systems to preserve themselves.

          It should be no surprise that it is implicated in much of the greatest violence in our society.

          • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve seen a few solutions to the private property idea posited. I’ll admit my biases, they made me uncomfortable, mainly because they cannot be the only piece of the machine altered.

            For ex, there’s a very large company near me that allows one to purchase land to build a house on, but that land is your family’s for 99 years before ownership reverts to the corporation.

            I can’t really see the upside for any family, investing a lot of money into property that simply… Vanishes after a time. But that was one of the solutions I previously reviewed, no true ownership. Most of the other ideas were tweaks on that central idea.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Within the context of criticisms of capital, private property expresses a meaning that may be unexpected based strictly on a vernacular interpretation.

              Whereas personal property refers to property that is used directly and personally by its owner, private property refers to property that is used by someone else, or another group, such that the owner may profit from asserting private control over such resources despite that they are useful for society or to others.

              Businesses and rented properties are private property.

              A house someone owns and occupies is personal property.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know if it’s possible to get rid of the final might destination on the continuum of responses to issues

      Perhaps the issues themselves are not inevitable.