When I said the law is selective in enforcement I meant the system of law. The courts, law enforcement, and political “tough on crime” attitudes. That is very much on me for the lack of clarity and I apologise for it.
The perpetuation and propagation of a fundamentally corrupt and unfair system does not require everyone that upholds it to be corrupt, it needs only for them to be willing to participate in it. Perhaps they don’t see the fundamental inequality, or maybe they believe they can reform it from the inside. I don’t think the system can be reformed enough to be truly just and fair. I think it needs to fundamentally rebuilt.
In the UK the system of law is the same one that oversaw the enforcement of serfdom and of slavery. It is a system where judges can enforce arbitrary rules of conduct and dress in ‘their’ courtroom. A system where judges are too often treated with deference instead of scrutiny, despite blatant bias towards upholding the status quo.
It’s distinctly possible that I’m being a naive idealist, and that this is as good and fair as the system can be. It’s entirely possible that my ideal system is entirely impossible. It’s just that I want to hope for a better world, and I have too much doubt in the capability of reforming things.
Schmoo@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
It’s not about the intent of each individual cog involved in the creation and application of the law, but the intent for which the system of laws and hierarchies were created. Plenty of reform-minded people or naive pro-establishment folks participate in the legal system with good intentions, and sometimes find success reducing the harm that it causes, but that doesn’t change that the system continues to uphold class society and was created for that purpose. The effect of our system of laws and hierarchical institutions is the preservation of a system of division between distinct classes, and since I have yet to see a legal system that does not do this in some form I have concluded that this is the fundamental nature of laws.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Wait… Do you think that “any law system” is essentially evil and only anarchism will save us…?
Schmoo@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Aside from being reductive, yes, I’m an anarchist. I’m not opposed to writing down some rules, but I am opposed to the coercive use of force to impose them on others. It is possible to organize a system of preventative and restorative justice without the use of a hierarchy.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 21 hours ago
Anarchism is probably the most naive of all the available systems. It’s like it’s been designed by someone who’s never met any other human being outside of a very small, and very tight friends circle.
You have it backwards. We didn’t invent civilisation and then the ruling class decided to oppress the working class by inventing laws. We had an honour system, but because people are greedy cunts, we had to gradually replace it with a law system. And because people are greedy cunts, many of them being plain evil, we had to add an enforcement system (which used to be angry mobs).
Like, what do you think religions are? These are early, pre-“formal law” attempts at ensuring people behave according to rules, allowing for the growth of the community.
Think about it - you’re complaining that the enforcement of law is not equal for everybody, meaning that some individuals are effectively exempt from being affected by law, and you know that the 1% on the top are practically all in that group, you can clearly see how this 1% is fucking over the entire world… all of which you conclude by saying “there should be no laws for nobody”… Make it make sense.