Same goes for PJ's spectrum cop-out. I understand "*more* or *less* acceptable" but there must be a tipping point, even if it's a nice lefty fuzzy subjective point-o-the-moment. By scoring something a "-2", that implies unacceptable to me. Now maybe, in subjective lefty math, the origin (which I'm calling the tipping point), is at -5, but there's still an origin hiding in the fluff somewhere that defines the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable.
If you apply a different tipping point between acceptable and unacceptable based on race (even with good intentions), that's inconsistent with clamoring for equality and/or blind justice.
Nope, there isn't a tipping point. Instead, there's a scale of response, just like there's a scale of action. So, for example, IMO it might be justified to take someone to court for a -10 type action, while a -2 would only merit an admonishment and some social pressure -- while a -100 could merit an immediate physical response, and a -1,000,000 should be stopped with any means possible that do not include actions of more than, say, -1000.
Second, let's consider "equality." I believe in the ideal of equality of opportunity. I consider it a necessary condition of liberty. Liberty means having the maximum number of meaningful and attractive life choices. Therefore, a society that maximizes the number of such choices for a greater number of its citizens than another society, is freer. IOW, I want to work for equality of opportunity, without falling into the trap of trying to achieve it by *downgrading* rather than upgrading.
Since society does not have equality of opportunity, working for this goal necessarily means that it has to treat those of its citizens with fewer opportunities differently than those with more opportunities. In other words,
formal equality before the law must be subordinate to the ideal of equality of opportunity. I believe we should compromise the former as little as we can, but we should not shirk from compromising it if we must.
Therefore, I support things like progressive taxation, social services that benefit the poor more than the rich, heavy inheritance taxes, structures that remove or mitigate the influence of money in court, and so on. E.g., it is wrong if someone can get himself acquitted of a crime just because he can afford an expensive lawyer (see Simpson, OJ).
Finally, justice. In my opinion, people generally speaking are disgusting little shits who abuse the hell out of any power they may get their grubby hands on. Therefore, one of the main functions of society is to prevent the concentration of too much power in too few hands, create structures that curb such abuses of power, and enable the powerless to defend themselves against the powerful. It is just as wrong to ignore power relations in laws as it is to ignore motive, insanity, or mitigating circumstances. Needless to say, this should be addressed at the level of
laws, not courts. Laws
should be stacked in favor of the powerless, because that's where the only power they have lies -- the powerful have many other means to defend their interests. Justice should be blind to power at the court level, but laws must not.
See, dte -- the reason you're not understanding me is that our basic definitions are different: my liberty isn't your liberty; my justice isn't your justice; my equality isn't your equality. My positions are completely idiotic if you plug in your definitions. With mine, they're not. I hope they didn't make you blow an aneurysm; I know you too well to think that you'd react to them with anything other than incoherent fury... or, perhaps, laughter in disbelief.
