Don’t overlook the fact that those that are stealing stuff and making the excuse that it’s justified because of some perceived repression won’t hesitate to make the leap that it is alright to take your life for the very same reasons.
William Taylor @BillT
Tooted on August 17, 2020
[See also yesterday’s QOTD.—Joe]
Never accept a justification for something that doesn’t have an innate limiting principle.
Heard once of a major in the intelligence field that would do stupid things like leave classified materials out, forget to lock the safes, etc. His excuse was “The Devil made me do it”. Having heard this, I resolved right then and there that if I ever heard that coming out of the mouth of someone, I’d revoke their clearance and lock them out of the facility. Why? Because he was uniquely compromised by an entity that did not have clearance. Nobody else seems to have a problem with the Devil making them do things.
Same thing with “I had a rough childhood” pleas in criminal court by a defense attorney with no better argument. Isn’t that an argument to lock the defendant up and never let them out? The childhood is fixed in time, unchangeable. If that is a justification for this crime, then it is a justification for any crime, any time the opportunity presents itself. For the sake of the community, such an individual must be locked away until the “rough childhood” no longer bears upon the individual’s actions.
The justification of the crime can be far worse than the crime itself. Or as I’ve heard it put, The excuse is worse than the sin.
Now, the question of what to actually do about it, when these excuses and justifications become the basis for an entire, world-wide religio-political movement, is another question altogether. The age-old result of course is a game of death squads verses death squads, but that never seems to solve anything beyond a short pause in the violence while the Romish left breeds the next generation of grievance collectors.
I pointed out elsewhere that there is no real difference between stealing property and killing. The reason is that property is the result of labor, i.e., a person spending a portion of his life to create something. If you steal or destroy the product of that effort, you in effect steal that portion of the creator’s life. While it might seem that property can be replaced, the time consumed in creating it cannot be.
This is why deadly force, morally speaking, is proper in defense of property. And it should be legal generally, rather than only in limited circumstances in some of the states, as is the case today.
It’s a matter of degrees. If someone steals a candy bar, what did they take? Maybe a minute or two of your life depending on what you earn. Is the high probability of them forfeiting all of their life moral because of the loss of one minute of yours?
But the bigger issue, theoretically, is they can be forced to “make you whole” by repayment of your loss of the candy bar. Not so with the “permanent injury or death” threshold currently used. That, I think, is the moral difference.
That said, if the social circumstance are such that there is virtually no chance of you being “made whole”, then I have no argument with your assertion. Don’t touch my candy bar.
Remember: They may call themselves communists, BLM, etc., but what they are in fact is antiwhite.