I’m against the death penalty in general, but I also acknowledge that in terms of tangible damage to humanity, any billionaire walking the Earth makes any serial killer who has ever walked the Earth seem positively quaint by scale.
I also recognize that we are living under class occupation. The owner class handily won the class war by convincing most of the developed world not to fight it half a century ago.
The peasants don’t have the luxury of taking prisoners. We are the losers of a war, in spite of the fact that many have come to worship their occupying oppressors.
Keeping the most destructive humans locked away and well fed until they die of natural causes is a peacetime luxury for those in charge, and unless you’re holding a reprehensible amount of capital, that isn’t us. You might believe we are in peacetime, but if we refuse to stop them, and it looks that way, they will force our shared, communal habitat to stop us all through their insatiable, sociopathic avarice.
We love to think we’re not, but we’re still subjects wholly dependant on this world, even the owners activily attacking us and it simultaneously.
The peasants don’t have the luxury of taking prisoners.
I mean, why not? POWs have their own self-evident advantages, as we’ve seen taking place in palestine right now. Hostages are a pretty good thing to have if you want to create a long term negotiating strategy with other people.
But also, if you get rid of the billioinaire’s billions, then you get rid of the billionaire. Now you just have a 'naire. Maybe a thousandaire, or something. Like, all the rich people that fled from cuba to florida didn’t really end up doing a whole lot with their lives except being mad and super bitter about the fact that they weren’t able to keep participating in a fascist government that oppressed the people. Most of them were petite bourgeois anyways. It’s the ones that refused to leave that you end up murdering by way of this being the only thing that can force them to leave.
None of that is really similar to this situation at all, even, this is just an independent government killing someone that realistically could have no recourse if they were just completely stripped of their money and sent off to go fuck around in some other country. It’s also, to me, kind of an illustration of the divide that you conceive of prison as a “way to keep the most destructive humans locked away and well fed until they die of natural causes”. There’s, ideally, a greater purpose to prison beyond that. You’re justifying this by conceiving of this as like, a “war”, an extreme war, a life or death war, oooh it’s a war, wartime wartime wartime, but then, the police do the same thing when they justify shooting some guy on the street.
I dunno, this strikes me as a lot of nice sounding guilt-assuaging talk, as good rhetoric, but you haven’t really given me any logical argumentation to chew on here, as to why this would be good or why this had to be done, really.
I’m against the death penalty in general, but I also acknowledge that in terms of tangible damage to humanity, any billionaire walking the Earth makes any serial killer who has ever walked the Earth seem positively quaint by scale.
I also recognize that we are living under class occupation. The owner class handily won the class war by convincing most of the developed world not to fight it half a century ago.
The peasants don’t have the luxury of taking prisoners. We are the losers of a war, in spite of the fact that many have come to worship their occupying oppressors.
Keeping the most destructive humans locked away and well fed until they die of natural causes is a peacetime luxury for those in charge, and unless you’re holding a reprehensible amount of capital, that isn’t us. You might believe we are in peacetime, but if we refuse to stop them, and it looks that way, they will force our shared, communal habitat to stop us all through their insatiable, sociopathic avarice.
We love to think we’re not, but we’re still subjects wholly dependant on this world, even the owners activily attacking us and it simultaneously.
I mean, why not? POWs have their own self-evident advantages, as we’ve seen taking place in palestine right now. Hostages are a pretty good thing to have if you want to create a long term negotiating strategy with other people.
But also, if you get rid of the billioinaire’s billions, then you get rid of the billionaire. Now you just have a 'naire. Maybe a thousandaire, or something. Like, all the rich people that fled from cuba to florida didn’t really end up doing a whole lot with their lives except being mad and super bitter about the fact that they weren’t able to keep participating in a fascist government that oppressed the people. Most of them were petite bourgeois anyways. It’s the ones that refused to leave that you end up murdering by way of this being the only thing that can force them to leave.
None of that is really similar to this situation at all, even, this is just an independent government killing someone that realistically could have no recourse if they were just completely stripped of their money and sent off to go fuck around in some other country. It’s also, to me, kind of an illustration of the divide that you conceive of prison as a “way to keep the most destructive humans locked away and well fed until they die of natural causes”. There’s, ideally, a greater purpose to prison beyond that. You’re justifying this by conceiving of this as like, a “war”, an extreme war, a life or death war, oooh it’s a war, wartime wartime wartime, but then, the police do the same thing when they justify shooting some guy on the street.
I dunno, this strikes me as a lot of nice sounding guilt-assuaging talk, as good rhetoric, but you haven’t really given me any logical argumentation to chew on here, as to why this would be good or why this had to be done, really.
The French revolution shows that the guilotines don’t necessarily stop when the aristocrats are all dead. I’m not enthusiastic about mob justice