View Single Post
Old 15th March 2017, 06:02 PM   #1651
Joe Random
Illuminator
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,083
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
<...>
Could you clarify this one? Think I understand but I can read it a couple different ways.
<...>

Returning to the thread late and it has moved on, but wanted to answer the above.

In saying that there are beliefs so offensive/damaging/whatever that it is appropriate to abandon the rule of law in expressing opposition to them you [generic] have empowered any group to use those same extra-legal tactics against views you and I would both support.

Examples I've used before in the 'punch a Nazi' thread:

Trump was duly elected according to the Constitution and laws of this country. Those saying his presidency is illegitimate and who protest him are attacking the fundamental roots of our Democracy (the non-violet transition of power based on the expressed will of the people). Therefore we are justified in punching people in pussy hats, or setting fire to cars near a 'He Will Not Divide Us' installation (for the record, HWNDU is silly beyond words, IMO), because they're attacking not just [bloviating gassbag dickhead] Trump, they're attacking the very fundamentals of our democratic society!

Pro-choice activists want to make it legal, and to a varying degree sponsored by the state, to MURDER UNBORN CHILDREN! No one in their right mind could possible support the murder of unborn children. Hell, I don't think even Hitler thought it would be okay to murder unborn babies! Ergo any and all means to shut down a pro-choice rally is justified. Punch a Planned Parenthood worker if you love little babies.

This is the important bit : if some of the views of these purported 'fascists' were put into action, I'd be right there with others opposing them, even risking my personal physical safety. I've had ... colorful run-ins with anti-abortion activists in the past, and will gladly continue to do so where needed, for instance. But while the views are still just words and rhetoric, the rule of law serves we who would see people treated fairly and not sent off into camps or thrown off buildings for having WrongThink. Abandoning the rule of law merely because it feels so damned good to punch a neo-fascist or aim our car at an anti-abortion protester (yes, I can speak from experience here, I'm ashamed to say) only weakens the protections against those views we support, since we've now said there are times when <Southern Comfort> "You have to abandon principles and do what's right!" </Southern Comfort>.

There are many civil rights which don't apply to me, but for which I'd be willing to risk physical safety to guarantee for others should they become outlawed. But while the rights we seek to uphold still fall within the remit of the rule of law to protect, stepping outside that rule because we feel "it's justified in this case" only serves to weaken the defenses provided against all those other things we want to protect. Carried to its extreme and it's nothing more than 'might makes right' (since the rule of law is now subject to the "but I really want to hit him" test), which has never worked out well in the end for anyone. Not even Lord Humungus.

Last edited by Joe Random; 15th March 2017 at 06:36 PM.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top