Is it normal that i think people should take the law into their own hands

43% Normal
20 Comments

I think citizens should be responsible for taking the law into their own hands. If someone robs your house or rapes your dog it should be your responsibility to kill that person, not the governments. I think the government should be done away with and it should be the peoples job to prevent anyone new from rising to power. You might think what about people getting out of control, but if the citizens punish those who cross them then it will be no different than how we already prosecute the bad guys currently. Sure there would be wrongfull punishments that citizens give each other but other citizens can deal with those who wrongfully punish. Its not like the governments we already have dont wrongfully punish anyways. I personally would love to live in a society like this.

Voting Results
43% Normal
Based on 14 votes (6 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 20 )
  • Who_Fan4Life
    11 years ago

    Ok, well if you create posts that I think are stupid, am I allowed to slap you across the face for your wrongdoings?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Well yes you are. However i am allowed to do whatever I would like in return. Slap at your own risk. :)

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
    • MissyLeyneous
      11 years ago

      Technically, no. That would be assault, and would infringe on his liberty. He can say as many stupid things as he likes, as long as he isn't committing fraud or otherwise infringing anyone's liberties. (Fraud would be like yelling FIRE in a dark theater.)

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • MissyLeyneous
    11 years ago

    OP is on the right path, sort of. We need LIMITED, CONTROLLED government. Force the ones we HIRE to stick to the CONTRACT (Constitution).

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • dom180
    11 years ago

    There are actually some good arguments for anarchy. I think this is really not one of them.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • jermath35
    11 years ago

    We should do this like a lynch mob to all the bad people like: rapists, pedo, drug dealers, arm robbers etc... The current system doesn't work... Makes me think they're in on a lot of organized crime...hmmmm?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • kelili
    11 years ago

    That's the most stupid idea I've met on IIN. Congratulations!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • squeallikeasacofpigs
    11 years ago

    You moron. The majority of people don't have the capacity to punish the people that did them wrong. Like the very young, the old, women, the sick, the disabled, the poor and the cowards. Thats why you have a set group of people who do all the punishments. Fair and consistent.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Nothing about law is fair and consistant. So what about people who cannot do the punishments? Someone will do it for them. Such as if someone were to rob my grandma it would be up to me to punish them if she couldnt do it. We need more vigilanties in our society. Society has become way too weak and passive. Honestly I am disgusted by it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -1
      -1
        -
      • squeallikeasacofpigs
        11 years ago

        Well carry on being disgusted dickface, because it's never going to change to the way you want it.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • MissyLeyneous
          11 years ago

          Never say never.... ^_^

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • PapzBSlim
    11 years ago

    The reason I would disagree with you is because your consequences seem to be "over kill!" Kill a person because they robbed you? You completely skipped the eye for an eye part. I feel we still need a jury of our peers but do not need a judge per say. I am one person who cannot stand government though. I feel when ever we need to decide if there should or should not have a law, we the citizens should vote on it. Why do we need to elect people to vote for us? We should vote on out own laws and just have "Officials" count them and it is all televised.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dirtybirdy
    11 years ago

    BRONSONBIRDY!!! The Vigilante Vulture. Vicious.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dappled
    11 years ago

    How would you make sure punishments are fair across the whole country? Who would handle investigations? How do you prevent injustice (i.e. saying someone had broken into your house and then killing them just because you wanted to)? Even primitive societies nominated arbiters of justice. What you're suggesting is fraught with problems.

    Read "Lord of the Flies", by the way.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      You think things are fair how they are? Well nothings fair. People get falsely imprisoned all the time, and even when its found that they were falsely imprisoned the people who persecuted the innocent person are not punished nor is the innocent person rewarded, not that any sort of reward can make up for false imprisonment. Also guilty people lie all the time and get away with their crimes. Theres no possible way to make sure life can ever be fair for everyone. The whole system is courpt and we are better off without it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        11 years ago

        1) Let's talk percentages. The odds of being prosecuted for a crime not committed is slim compared to the chaos of anarchy under even the most corrupt government. Anarchy is also highly improbable within the human race, since any given individual will always look up to, or another will look down at someone else...and someone will inevitably lead...and another follow. Millions of years of evolution ensured that a social animal will maintain a hierarchy of some sort. Who would rule? You? Maybe you'd be a just ruler...but many would disagree.

        2) Many people have won wrongful imprisonment suits in the U.S. One recently near me. Yeah...they'll live the rest of their lives comfortably. That's why we have a civil court as well as a criminal court.

        3) "Fair" doesn't equate justice.

        4) Your opinion of what constitutes justifiable use of deadly force, raping your dog for example, wouldn't necessarily agree with the guy who believes that a neighbor blowing his leaves on his lawn deserves to die...or the one who thinks child molesters should get a $50 fine. That's why we have the rule that you're juged by a representative of your peers: 12 men & women from within your community debate the matter.

        Perfect? No...but until someone comes up with a better idea, they...or you...are welcome to present it to Congress, who makes the laws.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • VioletTrees
          11 years ago

          I really agree with "'Fair' doesn't equate justice." The government should exist to have a net positive impact on society. Sometimes, such as with civil rights, fairness can be a consequence of that. In many cases, though, what feels "fair" and what's actually constructive are two very different things.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          The guy who would kill his neighbor for blowing leaves would chose whether or not to kill him either way regardless of the politcal system. People who dont commit crimes because of fear of the government would instead choose not to out of fear of being killed by someone seeking to avenge that persons death. I realize in a society of anarchy someone would try to take over which is why the people should be responsible of not letting someone control them. It would allow more freedom of people braning washing society into following them.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • [Old Memory]
            11 years ago

            To a certain extent, I understand where you're coming from. If a person's choices are dictated by rule of law, the threat of being caught and prosecuted determines their choices, taking away their ability to simply make the right decision for the sake of compassion and respect..leaving us unable to learn integrity.

            Unfortunately, we have not quite evolved sociologically to the stage where everyone can be trusted to rule themselves. This is painful to say as a Libertarian, because I believe that we're closer to that stage than those who believe in government control of individual choices.

            Where society lies currently, we have to have law for the sake of maintaining some sense of order. The proverbial, "right to swing your fist ends at someone elses nose" has to be enforced to prevent chaos.

            The guy who would kill his neighbor for blowing leaves on his lawn, in your model of society, would be left alone to his own vices. The neighborhood would simply say "don't blow leaves on his lawn...he's a crazy motherfucker!" but he would just be looking for the next reason to react...maybe blow away the kid who stepped off the sidewalk onto his grass. That's why we have to incarcerate madmen. If we don't, psychotic killers will rule the world.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
      • dappled
        11 years ago

        I do agree no system is perfect. I'm on your side on that. If you've got a particular problem case, though, we can talk it through.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0