At this moment, while you scroll your Devil Brick, or peruse your PC, who can end your life legally? Or at least end your life with impunity.
Certainly your doctor who can prescribe life altering drugs that have lethal outcome or side effects. Oops.
Police may kill you given the acceptable circumstance. City cops, County Sheriffs, highway patrols, state troopers, and of course any number of Federal armed agents.
How about the food processing industry that has come a long way in the production of calories built upon deleterious ingredients that add to chronic health issues. It certainly can kill over time.
Think about it, who can end your life with impunity.
Meta
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Geoff Demarest on Ukraine Multiform War
- Geoff Demarest on Maybe Ignorant
- George L. Humphries on Ukraine Multiform War
- George L. Humphries on Maybe Ignorant
- Holmes Oliver on Attrition Warfare
Categories
Archives
Calendar
-
Senator Graham can not directly kill me with impunity. Deputy Sheriff Jones in my county can. As well as any sheriff in every county I may visit.
As we look across the landscape, if it can kill you, tax you, censor you, or talk to you in a manner that legally requires compliance…it is the political killing machine. Identify these persons and organizations in your area of living and doing.
Allow this way of thinking to help build a strategy for survival and influence, if you think you need one. May I enjoy my constitutional rights in California or Illinois? Can I cut a deal with the State Killing Machine in those jurisdictions? Is anonymous transit of these states a tactic for action? What do I do to develop a strategy of action in California?
This thinking.
Yup. And let’s not forget their systematic efforts to keep us from being able to defend ourselves. Don’t drive through New Jersey with a pistol in the cab. I also support the county-level default for strategic thinking on these matters. Still, you say Little Lindsey cannot ‘directly kill’ you with his impunity. Clearly. But he not only enjoys impunity, he supports it for others of his ilk. Additionally, he happily champions killing in your name and is getting away with that. I accept what you’re saying without reservation though. Some of us have already entered a phase of national life in which direct threats come from actual, local official men packing real guns that use real bullets against people who did nothing wrong. No bueno. The ten-meter shooter needs draw one’s attention more than the 300-meter, I’ll concede. One small softener: Counties vary. We have a sheriff who is all about defending the 2nd Amendment. Not an abusive guy or department. A Democrat, no less. I hope he leaves the party, stops confusing me.
Since my property records are held at the county and they tax me annually, anonymity is not an option vis-a-vis my local sheriff.
How do I remain alive and free in his jurisdiction? Perhaps my profile must include membership in a local church, the VFW, support to the local food bank, contact with the volunteer fire department, etc. Also a working knowledge of his operational emphasis might save me rolling up on an activity I don’t want any part of.
Geoff thinks at a much higher level.
I agree with Holmes (Good that I do, yes?). Ivan’s comment is fundamental. Nevertheless, in the spirit of my just being difficult and lacking the social skills of the great Holmes, I want to point out what is wrong with Ivan’s assertion, as well as what is wrong with Holme’s cloyingly fanboy reply.
First, while correct on a theory-smeary level, one of the most practical teaching points in On Multiform War is that we avoid assigning blame or causality to abstractions and atmospherics. “Violence” is rarely the problem, nor poverty, instability, chaos, etc. Well, obviously these are categories and OK to make theoretical statements with them so as to move the mind deductively toward appropriate elements within the categories. Yes, yes, blah blah. But “crime” is not what we actually have to confront. Criminals are. People, people. As we start any of our strategy-making, it is best that we remember to aim it at some other strategy-maker. So…”politics?” In the strategy-making sense of things, ‘politics’ does not kill. Politicians kill. Amazing the ugliness of a fellow like Lindsey Graham that he go to Ukraine and tell them they have to mobilize more of their youth to die – to actually scold Ukrainians for not having a more efficient system for sending young men into a meat grinder for a cause that has next to no logical strategic purpose for the United States. That guy’s skull is the geographic locus of an evil mens rea. We might try to be better characters, might say that it is his sin we despise and not Lindsay himself. Yea, well, his sin is not the evil. He is the evil. That he is not a democrat makes his sinfulness all the more of a confusion for our electoral political choice-making. But let’s not pretend he is not part of the problem. It is not ‘politics.’ It is a select group of politicians like little Lindsey.
Ivan, I see yours as a fundamentally significant question. It is on some level reasonable that whoever can do me in and get away with it, is my enemy. Including that’s true if the in-doing is slow motion or with positive intentions. What I especially appreciate about your assertion is that the key prompt or logic guide is not so much the nature of the act as it is the impunity. As soon as we were given to know that Pfizer and the others were to be given immunity from civil suits, I knew something wasn’t right. The fix was in. I would like to extend from your title that Political Science provides a killing language and grammar for that machine.