03-28-2003, 08:19 PM
Hi,
The paradox of vigilantianism - vigilanties arise in the vacuum (or percieved vacuum) of law, to enforce the law, by breaking the law.
The problem here is the singular collective "law". I'm reminded of a riddle: "A man without eyes saw pears on a tree. He did not take pears, he did not leave pears. Now how can that be?"
The vigilantes don't break *the* law, they break *some* laws to enforce the rest. In a sense, this is just what governments do. The "social contract" concept of rule by the consent of the governed fails the test. The criminals do not give consent to the government to curtail their criminal activity. They state, by their actions (which, I believe, speak louder than words) that the government has no *right* to tell them not to rob banks (or whatever). The government, representing the superior force of the majority, arrests (i.e., kidnaps) these criminals and deprives them of fundamental rights (liberty, the pursuit of happiness). It is simply a case of the government getting away with actions that would be jailable offenses if performed by individuals. So, since the government is simply the will of the powerful (whether that power comes from money, from position, or from majority), if the vigilantes represent the majority of the population, then they are excused from some law just as any government is.
Besides, is a "law" that is not enforced a law at all? That gets right down to the fundamental question of what a "law" is. So, if vigilantes are operating in a region at a time when no law is enforced, then what law can they be breaking? Again, the question devolves into whether absolutes exist and are (even some) laws absolutes.
Usually, the only real difference between vigilantes and policemen is whether they get paid.
--Pete
Solution to riddle: A one eyed man saw two pears on a tree and took one of them.
The paradox of vigilantianism - vigilanties arise in the vacuum (or percieved vacuum) of law, to enforce the law, by breaking the law.
The problem here is the singular collective "law". I'm reminded of a riddle: "A man without eyes saw pears on a tree. He did not take pears, he did not leave pears. Now how can that be?"
The vigilantes don't break *the* law, they break *some* laws to enforce the rest. In a sense, this is just what governments do. The "social contract" concept of rule by the consent of the governed fails the test. The criminals do not give consent to the government to curtail their criminal activity. They state, by their actions (which, I believe, speak louder than words) that the government has no *right* to tell them not to rob banks (or whatever). The government, representing the superior force of the majority, arrests (i.e., kidnaps) these criminals and deprives them of fundamental rights (liberty, the pursuit of happiness). It is simply a case of the government getting away with actions that would be jailable offenses if performed by individuals. So, since the government is simply the will of the powerful (whether that power comes from money, from position, or from majority), if the vigilantes represent the majority of the population, then they are excused from some law just as any government is.
Besides, is a "law" that is not enforced a law at all? That gets right down to the fundamental question of what a "law" is. So, if vigilantes are operating in a region at a time when no law is enforced, then what law can they be breaking? Again, the question devolves into whether absolutes exist and are (even some) laws absolutes.
Usually, the only real difference between vigilantes and policemen is whether they get paid.
--Pete
Solution to riddle: A one eyed man saw two pears on a tree and took one of them.
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?