United States: Deliberately Infected people with STD"S.

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
Sounds more like crimes by Dr. John Cutler.

Well, it has to expand at least beyond the one guy, even if he was at the head. One dude can't infect 1300 people. That this information never came to light for decades also more than implies some level of legitimate conspiracy, even if only in the strictest sense of the word.

Of course the entire country isn't responsible for it, or even the entire "government." But it's like anything else within an organization, if one group of people in one department screws up, it puts the entire organization at reputational risk. The best move for the organization as a whole, typically, is to accept responsibility for the actions of those within the group who are directly culpable, display a legitimate commitment to doing better, and then press on.
 

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
Dammit. I almost made that joke... should have just gone with it...
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Sometimes, though, it takes too long for something to come to light, and the chance for prosecution is gone by then. For a crime to come to light is only the first step - I don't think that by itself is much of a credit to the system.
The existence of 'the system' confuses the issue of criminality in the first place, clouding that very first step you mention; thus the truth in Lord Acton's statement.

Various minions of 'the state' perform acts every day that would land them in prison if not excused by the presumed power of 'the state.'

Try 'taxing' or 'arresting' your neighbor, or claiming his home or yard by 'eminent domain.'

Now add in the research that showed people will be as cruel as necessary to carry out their 'assigned tasks,' and give them justification for those actions by declaring them 'orders' from 'the proper authorities' for 'the good of society.'

Mix in one (1) loony with a desire to make a name for himself through some 'alternative' research, and the ear of some power-granter with similar delusion of grandeur.

Voila! Wholesale actions against whole groups of people, justified only by the existence of 'the state.'

Thus the argument that the state should only have the bare minimum power possible to protect the citizens from aggression, and should be watched like a hawk in every exercise of that power.
 

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
Thus the argument that the state should only have the bare minimum power possible to protect the citizens from aggression, and should be watched like a hawk in every exercise of that power.

But then who watches the watchmen? And who watches the watchers of the watchmen?
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
But then who watches the watchmen? And who watches the watchers of the watchmen?
Dang, did you miss this part?
Thus the argument that the state should only have the bare minimum power possible to protect the citizens from aggression, and should be watched like a hawk in every exercise of that power.
It's almost impossible to watch the watchmen today; they're everywhere, involved in everything, and granted the power to do almost anything.

The idea is to reduce the power, number and breadth of their involvement in voluntary society, so there's actually a slim chance of being able to keep an eye on those charged with protecting the rest of us from ourselves (and themselves).
 

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
No, what I was looking at was the part where you say that the state should be "watched like a hawk" in every exercise of its power to protect citizens from aggression. Who will watch the state like a hawk, even its reduced capacity? The citizenry as a whole? Wouldn't that take some organizational effort? Wouldn't people have to be put in charge of that organization? Who then watches the organization? So on and so forth...
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
No, what I was looking at was the part where you say that the state should be "watched like a hawk" in every exercise of its power to protect citizens from aggression. Who will watch the state like a hawk, even its reduced capacity? The citizenry as a whole? Wouldn't that take some organizational effort? Wouldn't people have to be put in charge of that organization? Who then watches the organization? So on and so forth...
Who watches the state today? Who has the assignment today? What organization has the job today? Who's in charge of it today?

Even with the huge level of government involvement in virtually every aspect of our lives, 'people' are doing a better job every day of watching the watchers. Just watching the threads in P&CE shows that's happening all over the place. The abuse of power is getting caught more often every day.

Now reduce the watchers that need watching by 50% or more and see what happens. Get rid of the laws the watchers are using to keep people from watching them, like the no-record-police laws in several states, and the situation will get even better.
 

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
Well, you know I think the "no-recording-police laws" are indeed bogus, but that still doesn't change the fact that a reduced presence of the people running the state will dispense the power amongst others... which ideally will result in harmony and so much love and happiness even Al Green thinks it's a bit much... but practically, again, now we have another group of "watchers" to keep a watch of. Sure, right now the internet "watchers" are catching abuse of power more often, but in terms of practical effort to actually eliminate said abuses, or hold people accountable, that still requires organizational effort. Otherwise all people are doing is watching, shaking their head and declaring their disappointment, and then moving on to the next thing to watch out for.

I guess I'm presuming an actual follow through on the "watcher" part, as opposed to just catching motherfuckers in the act just to be saying, "I saw what you did there."
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Well, you know I think the "no-recording-police laws" are indeed bogus, but that still doesn't change the fact that a reduced presence of the people running the state will dispense the power amongst others... which ideally will result in harmony and so much love and happiness even Al Green thinks it's a bit much... but practically, again, now we have another group of "watchers" to keep a watch of. Sure, right now the internet "watchers" are catching abuse of power more often, but in terms of practical effort to actually eliminate said abuses, or hold people accountable, that still requires organizational effort. Otherwise all people are doing is watching, shaking their head and declaring their disappointment, and then moving on to the next thing to watch out for.

I guess I'm presuming an actual follow through on the "watcher" part, as opposed to just catching motherfuckers in the act just to be saying, "I saw what you did there."
There's no magic wand; improvements are incremental. A totally free paradise will never magically replace an oppressive state overnight. An aware citizenry and clear limits on the power of the state can both contribute to that transition over time, however, and doesn't require an overnight restructuring of the whole of society. We're seeing some of that play out today, as watchers overstepping their bounds regularly show up on YouTube, and more recently, have started showing up in courtrooms as well.

Reducing the power of the state and its minions doesn't mean an overnight transition to anarchy, although that seems to be the popular assumption.

Of course, when the first cuts any politician ever proposes are to police, firemen, and teachers, it's easy to get that impression.
 

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
Likewise when people who push for diminished role of the state declare that any politician ever proposes cuts to police, firemen and teachers as if the possibility of even one exception is ludicrous to consider.

Here's the thing, reducing the power of "the state" isn't actually something I'm terribly opposed to, but in practice, even the act of actually reducing the power of government would require significant organized oversight to ensure it was done efficiently and effectively. In short, someone would have to govern the process. And that's cool, but what's the actual plan for that? All the jabs at the government, righteous wrath and rhetoric is cool, but does anyone have an actual blueprint for how to actually bring this about?
 
Last edited: