[lbo-talk] guilty [was volume]

[Jose Rodriguez & Sally Everson]

For me the issue is not if 'they' are guilty, or even:  are people who go to
jail and spend time in prison worthy of sympathy? -- but: how many of us in
this world are not guilty of something? Greed, ruthlessness, selfishness,
misanthropy, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, ethnocentricism etc. is not
the exclusive right of any one class or nation - that behavior permeates
every level of society in every society.  For me one has to decide whether
to condon or even celebrate that behavior (whether by cheering on or
supporting a nation's war for oil or by buying music or movies which do so)
[BTW- I find many hip hop artists refreshingly critical of US
culture/politics].
The problem is that only a certain segment of society (us. poor, underclass,
working class, ethnic minorities, etc) are HARASSED DAILY over every little
infraction - whether its having tail lights out, or an old car that
pollutes, not filling out forms correctly or whatever (which often leads to
bigger charges - dig and you shall find) and are BUSTED and will spend way
too much time in JAIL for behavior of lesser magnitude than committed by
people of the privileged class EVERY DAY. Here where I live a CORRUPT public
servant that steals money from the government (which is literally food and
services out of the mouths and hands of the most needy) gets a BRACELET on
his wrist and sent to serve time in his MANSION! Or what about other big
white collar/ corporate criminals -- what do they get?  And how many will be
hired for big bucks as consultants and speakers a few years after they
finish their 'sentence' and their name has left the spotlight?

I think we all ought to turn ourselves in ...

Sally

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at enterprize.net.au>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] volume


> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>