Is Jacob Blake a victim of police abuse?

[Ana the Ist]

Okay.

Ok.

In the past, many individuals cobbled together a system of governance that was out-and-out racist and maybe we need to do more than give a shrug and say “yeah, that happened”?

Except that didn't happen. Taxonomists and biologists had tossed around various racial ideas but the formalized concept of race that stuck in the US didn't really take shape until the 1800s.

As for an "out and out" racist government...we have a couple of founding documents and even though it's been awhile since I've looked at the final drafts...I don't recall race being even a tiny part of them, let alone playing a big role.

I understand that facts don't play well with the narrative you've bought into...but that's what happens when you get your history from activists and propagandists instead of historians.

I think it's fair to say the founding fathers were racists...but so was everyone else.

You want to help someone? I'm inspired. Do tell me how it goes.

No, now that the legal playing field is level, it’s back to individual (de)merit.

"Back to"...sure...

Nobody believes in a meritocracy until they're looking for a brain surgeon. I'll gladly consider a different system just as soon you come up with one that hasn't been tried. Racial discrimination isn't a new idea and I'm pretty sure how it turns out.

 

[durangodawood]

....You make it sound like "the state" is some separate entity apart from "the people" in a democratic republic.

The state doesn't have its own funds. It has taxes that it collects from me and everyone else. Those taxes are to be redistributed in a manner that is (generally speaking) to the benefit of all.

If you want "the state" to pay some group of citizens for whatever reason....what you're saying is that my taxes, along with everyone else's, are going to pay that debt. The funds that get redistributed for the benefit of all of us....will be redistributed for the benefit of some of us.

You can frame it any way you want....it doesn't change the fact that I'm the one paying. Unless this is intentionally done in a way that allows me to "opt out", I'm one of the people paying the debt.

In what way? I don't know of any version of justice that doesn't include a determination of responsibility.....

Yes, your money pays for the collective responsibilities assumed by the state, even if you arent personally responsible for the cause of those obligations. Let me present an example that makes the principle of collective responsibility clear.

Lets say the US Army dumps toxic waste for decades next to a town. And it poisons the ground and kills some people and sickens others etc. At some point this is brought to light and its clear the US govt owes people money for medical bills, and needs to buy out some residents poisoned properties etc etc.

So here's situation that started before you and I were born, that you arent personally guilty of, but that you and I and everyone in the US have to pay for because we are part of the collective called the USA. And the obligations of the USA arent tied to any particular individual, but instead endure as long as the collective endures.

Now, Im not trying to justify slavery reparations or any other particular obligation. I'm just trying to be clear that, in-principle, collective responsibility is valid.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, your money pays for the collective responsibilities assumed by the state, even if you arent personally responsible for the cause of those obligations. Let me present an example that makes the principle of collective responsibility clear.

Lets say the US Army dumps toxic waste for decades next to a town. And it poisons the ground and kills some people and sickens others etc. At some point this is brought to light and its clear the US govt owes people money for medical bills, and needs to buy out some residents poisoned properties etc etc.

So here's situation that started before you and I were born, that you arent personally guilty of, but that you and I and everyone in the US have to pay for because we are part of the collective called the USA. And the obligations of the USA arent tied to any particular individual, but instead endure as long as the collective endures.

Now, Im not trying to justify slavery reparations or any other particular obligation. I'm just trying to be clear that, in-principle, collective responsibility is valid.

But there are distinctions to be made for reasonable practicability, and these distinctions have already been made:

1. The persons who were directly injured still live and can be identified.

2. Their losses can be quantified.

3. The reparations once made forever close the issue between the government and those to whom reparations are made.

Added:

4. The specific government policy, government action, and government agency can be identified.

 

[durangodawood]

But there are distinctions to be made for reasonable practicability, and these distinctions have already been made:

1. The persons who were directly injured still live and can be identified.

2. Their losses can be quantified.

3. The reparations once made forever close the issue between the government and those to whom reparations are made.

I was just trying to establish that collective responsibility is valid in principle, which Ana seemed to dispute. He seemed to reject it for any case.

 

[RDKirk]

.

 

[RDKirk]

I was just trying to establish that collective responsibility is valid in principle, which Ana seemed to dispute. He seemed to reject it for any case.

I added a fourth point:

4. The specific government policy, government action, and government agency can be identified.

What makes the matter distinctive is that the guilt can be argued collective only on the back end. The argument is not that "the American people" bear moral guilt, but that a specific agency of the government is guilty, and the American people wind up paying the bill.

Little 8-year-old Chad is not morally responsible for that Army action that is injuring little 8-year-old Damien, so the concept of guilt does not come into play, but when Chad becomes an adult and the injury is discovered, Chad will be one of many other taxpayers who will have to cover the loss.

 

[durangodawood]

I added a fourth point:

4. The specific government policy, government action, and government agency can be identified.

What makes the matter distinctive is that the guilt can be argued collective only on the back end. The argument is not that "the American people" bear moral guilt, but that a specific agency of the government is guilty, and the American people wind up paying the bill.

Little 8-year-old Chad is not morally responsible for that Army action that is injuring little 8-year-old Damien, so the concept of guilt does not come into play, but when Chad becomes an adult and the injury is discovered, Chad will be one of many other taxpayers who will have to cover the loss.

Yeah I agree about guilt. And I noted earlier that collective responsibility for past deeds does not mean contemporary individuals necessarily bear personal moral guilt in any way. Some people are very sensitive about this, and I get it.

As for point 4, I'm not sure. I dont think the full and real sense of the collective can be wrapped up in just the government. We could extend my previous example to cover something like a destructive environmental practice that many people and groups participated in. Govt, industry, individuals. Now the mess need some clean up, and there's no way to apportion exact shares of responsibility to this person and that company and that agency. Its just fair to say "society did it", and through govt action we'll clean it up.

 

[RDKirk]

Its just fair to say "society did it", and through govt action we'll clean it up.

No, I don't think that's practicably fair, particularly if the first three points are not resolved.

And what does "clean" mean in this context? You're talking about setting sail without a destination, declaring war without knowing what victory ought to look like.

 

[hislegacy]

Well this is sufficiently off topic enough.

 

[durangodawood]

Well this is sufficiently off topic enough.

Sometime conversations drift after a dozen pages or so. Its ok.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON

ADMIN HAT OFF​