[lbo-talk] volume

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at enterprize.net.au
Tue Jun 24 21:19:59 PDT 2003


At 6:34 PM -0400 24/6/03, Luke Weiger wrote:


>And
>Wojtek's points are spot-on: most people (including the poor) who are
>incarcerated in this country for long periods of time have done much worse
>than stealing loaves of bread (or "cheating" the welfare system) to sustain
>themselves. To suggest that poverty necessitates acts of wanton cruelty is
>both stupid and disgusting (though not thuggish).

I think I'm going to have to challenge your presumptions here. Let us examine the options of the drug dealer that Wojtek mentioned, how else is a person engaged in a criminal enterprise supposed to protect his territory and business except by brutal intimidation? He can't exactly hire a lawyer to take the dispute to court, now can he?

So if someone threatens his livelihood, by for example threatening to dob him in to the coppers, or unfairly stealing his stock-in-trade, or failing to pay for goods provided, or encroaching on his territory, his only options are to either meekly fold up his tent and return to a live of hopeless poverty, or use violence to deter the aggressive behaviour.

Acts of cruelty are not "wanton" at all in that situation. They are perfectly understandable and even reasonable. (Compared to revenge-motivated violence.) The drug dealer doesn't want to live a live of poverty. there is no legal way for him to escape poverty, he has found a way out which unfortunately incidentally necessitates ignoring the life and health of everyone else.

I would assume that given a choice between between being a drug dealer and, for example, being born rich, or smart enough to get rich legally, the drug dealer would choose to be born rich or smart. But you have to work with what you have and the successful drug dealer has only ruthlessness. Who can blame him for using his natural abilities to get ahead in life?

You aren't qualified to judge him unless you can say for certain that in the same situation you would have behaved in a more saintly and selfless way. Can you say that for certain Luke?

It isn't enough to be without sin, you must be without any call to commit sin. Before you cast the first stone. Sin is relative in other words.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list