GE Morton wrote: ↑April 1st, 2021, 9:24 am
Scott wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 1:21 pm
I am sorry if my earlier posts didn't make this clear: I am concerned with nonviolent victimization, but I am significantly more concerned with violent victimization than non-violent victimization.
Why, given the varying degrees of suffering that may ensue from both?
Technically, suffering is not my only concern. I am concerned with freedom in addition to suffering, but I do believe that in practice they generally tend to be coherent. In other words, I am not a utilitarian but generally in practice that turns out to be moot. (In hypothetical thought experiments such as murdering an innocent fat man by pushing him in front of a train to save others, it is not moot.) I would prefer to see someone suffer in freedom (i.e. by their own choice) then be a slave to a nanny state. In other words, even if the idea of the benevolent dictator was possible let alone plausible, I would still oppose it, but luckily in practice I believe that point is moot, meaning freedom (i.e. nonviolence) is generally coherent with utilitarianism.
With that said, even if just judging in utilitarian terms of human suffering (or death), I believe the typical, mode, and upper limit for violent victimization each tend to be significantly greater than that non-violent victimization.
As an example of what I mean by the upper limit, I'd rather see a billion cars get scratched than one person get murdered, let alone a violent genocide like the holocaust occur. In another example, what nonviolent victimization is equal to worse than the murder of a bunch of innocent children?
In regard to the typical or mode, what i mean is that I am not at all swayed by the idea that if we take an exceptionally
minor case of violent victimization and compare it to an exceptionally
extreme case of nonviolent victimization the former could arguably be worse in terms of human suffering. The use of the word exceptional
So both in terms of upper limit and typicality, violent victimization is significantly more concerning to me than nonviolent victimization.
However, if it is helpful, I am happy to coceptually subdivide violent victimization into two mutually exclusive categories, which we could label 'minor violent victimization' and 'non-minor violent victimization', defined as such:
Minor violent victimization -- Incidents that are arguably no more concerning or damaging than is possible with nonviolent victimization, e.g. a woman slapping a man because he called her ma'am instead of miss making her feel old. Another way of defining it could be cases of violent victimization that many of us would prefer happen to us than extreme cases of nonviolent victimization. (I would much rather be lightly slapped than have my car stolen, especially if I am far away from home and was depending on that car to get back home.)
Non-minor violent victimization -- Incidents that are worse--possibly infinitely worse--than any nonviolent victimization. Examples might include murdering innocent children or the holocaust. While still preferable to either of those two things, I would also put in this category the mass incarcerating hundreds of thousands of peaceful human beings in cages for victimless crimes such as but not limited to marijuana possession, consensual adult prostitution, and pacifistic tax protesting.
If you accept this terminology, I can say that my earlier about concern are almost entirely if not entirely reflective of non-minor violent victimization
(e.g. murder, rape, full-fledged slavery, mass incarceration of non-victimizers, the holocaust, etc.).
Those matters concern me far more than non-violent victimization.
Like nonviolent victimization, minor violent victimization (e.g. a light slap in the face) is also not nearly as concerning as non-minor violent victimization.
Scott wrote:I believe arson is typically classified as a violent crime, along with robbery.
Are you working under the assumption that a crime cannot simultaneously be a property crime and a violent crime?
In any case, the source I checked
states, "Crimes defined as violent may vary by state, but they often include crimes of harm against another person like assault or battery, sexual crimes like rape, and serious property crimes like arson."
Regardless, generally, if any property crime leads to serious human damage, then it becomes (also) a violent crime. Examples include: (1) cutting someone's brake lines, and they get in a car accident and die or are injured, (2) you set a fire in someone's house and they die, they get injured, or their pet dies or gets injured, (3) you rip up all of someone's money, and as a result they quickly starve to death and die, (4) you are a cook who drinks on the job and then through gross negligence poison someone's food causing them to get terribly sick or die, (5) you are a car mechanic who drinks on the job and through gross negligence ruin the braking system on a car and it causes someone's injury or death, (6) you are a roller coaster inspector and mechanic and through gross negligence cause the roller coaster to malfunction injuring or killing a coaster full of innocent people, or (7) you swap out someone's birth control pills with placebos, and they get pregnant, have a pregnancy complication, and die.
Point being, if a so-called or would-be property crime is so extreme, so exceptional, or significantly indirectly damaging to humans (or animals), then it is a violent crime.
Even verbal assault is usually treated as a violent crime by most people.
Regarding crimes like the following:
- disorderly conduct
- disturbing the peace
- resisting arrest
- fleeing from police
- obstructing a police officer
- failure to obey a police order
They do often get filed as standalone charges.
Even in the case of something like resisting or fleeing, it is simply untrue when you write, "There had to be a lawful basis for the arrest in the first place," not that it would be much of a defense anyway. First, there is a big difference between lawful basis and alleged
lawful basis; cops frequently break laws and lie too, just like the rest of us humans. Moreover, even if in a given case there happened to actually be a true lawful basis (e.g. the completely legal war on drugs) to harass peaceful people, then that is an even worse problem. So when a pacifist allegedly
smoking marijuana gets charged only with the standalone charge of resisting arrest, which happens, or the standalone charge of disorderly conduct, it's irrelevant to the question of violence and victimization if the initial allegation was true or if the alleged
basis for it (e.g. "I smelled marijuana") was true.
The cops may need to claim that their was an alleged lawful reason for detainment/arrest in the first place but they absolutely do not have to pursue that charge or would-be arrest. People absolutely get arrested on the standalone charge of resisting arrest or disorderly conduct, but again that's a moot point if the alleged
reason for the initial detainment attempt or interaction was a victimless crime or non-crime. A genuine pacifist can easily get arrested for resisting arrest, distributing the peace, disorderly conduct, obstruction, etc.
Long story short, saying that there is a "lawful basis" for something is in no way remotely a defense for it, not to me, not philosophically. If anything, it makes it sound worse.
I cannot and would not speculate upon whether your intention is to defend big government and the violent agents of big government, which together cost trillions per year of violently stolen taxpayer money. However, I can say that for anyone who seeks to do that, a 'lawful basis'--alleged or otherwise--will not work to that end, not for me, not philosophically.