scratch-mark

Just Another Day Here in the “Land of the Free”

Make sure you watch the video associated with the story Billy Beck links to.

You know, it has been a good 10 years now that I have been toying with the idea to someday create a massive online public ostracism database for placing swine such as Natalie Preston of the Baltimore Police Department. Perhaps one of these days I’ll post something about it.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

10 Comments

  1. Lute Nikoley on May 19, 2006 at 10:56

    First thing this "police" officer bitch Natelie Preston should be fired immediately, but of course they won't do that. Other cops will most likely slap her on the back and call her a hero.

    The couple who were accosted by this dirty pig cop, should file kidnapping charges against her and name the Boston PD as accomplices in the crime.

  2. Kyle Bennett on May 19, 2006 at 18:00

    It was Baltimore, but nonetheless, in a deeper sense the Boston PD are certainly accomplices as well, as are all PD's.

    Something strikes me odd about this one, I mean aside from the obvious outrage. It's a little over the top even for today's cops, though I don't believe for a minute they're not capable of it. I wonder if something will come out that mitigates it just a bit.

    Of course, even if some "fact" does come out that mitigates it, that doesn't mean it's actually true. I'm sure many are working hard as we speak to invent some such fact.

    And there would have to be a hell of a lot of mitigation to dampen the justified outrage.

    Ostracism should have been SOP for the last several centuries, and it is the only lasting solution to all of this.

  3. Kyle Bennett on May 19, 2006 at 19:50

    Darn, you're right John. Yup, once there's a law against something, why it simply means that it becomes physically impossible. I guess we'll just have to stick to the things that won't be outlawed should they ever actually have an effect.

    Hmm, maybe voting… yeah, they'd never outlaw that!

    Sarcasm aside, ostracism combined with free markets is the only sustainable non-coercive means of social control. Everything else is just pissing into the wind.

  4. John Lopez on May 19, 2006 at 18:20

    Ostracism isn't really an answer, because all the government needs to do is to make it a crime to advocate discrimination against a person based on their occupation.

    Nobody's willing to run a "Ostracize Officer McPiggy" website if the price for doing so is a Federal indictment for Conspiracy to Facilitate Occupation-Based Discrimination.

    (And think twice before responding "That's simply too absurd of a law to get passed".)

  5. Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2006 at 09:43

    John / Kyle:

    While I haven't delved into the topic here on this webiste, I might, soon.

    I have no doubt that John is correct: if it actually threatens the state, then it will be outlawed. However, my own view of it is a bit different. I don't expect it to ever work by having the rational few ostracize the parasite class. However, if done properly and objectively, it could be a source of shame and disgrace, particularly when accessible from one database with uniform objective standards–rther than politicized website all over of varrying ideology.

    You lay out the case and let the public decide–but the true value would be the effect it has on individuals who get trapped in the database and can never get out, not matter what. Restitution by former parasites can be documented, of course, but once there, you never escape.

  6. Kyle Bennett on May 20, 2006 at 11:52

    John,

    Defiance for defiance's sake, merely to express some kind of empty pseudo individualism is so '90's, so Libertarian (with a capital "L").

    Of course the government would come down on ostracism if it started to have any effect, but that would only change the external conditions, not the morality or the value of the thing. The reason they haven't done so thus far (in the general sense, there are existing laws against it in narrow – but ever widening – contexts), is that it's been successfully undermined in other ways. For instance, the black civil rights movement was almost instantly "embraced and extended" to include all discrimination – but it goes back much further than that.

    You may define the success condition of ostracism as its having acheived some specific change in the society as a whole. Good luck with that, and if that is to be the goal of any of your supposedly more workable and guranteed legal-in-perpetuity alternatives, then you've got a long, disappointing life to look forward to.

    I'd like to see that social change as much as you (assuming we envision it roughly the same way), but I do not hold it as a condition for success, nor even the primary goal. It's all about individualism, remember?

    I'll shun such people because they are a disvalue to me, and because their presence in my life can only diminish it. If there is any broader goal in it, it would only be to convince others that they have the moral right, and perhaps even the duty *to themselves* to do the same.

    The consequences of spreading that idea can only be good, though I don't expect it to bring about my vision of a collective state of societal perfection. If it were my goal to do so, I'd be as scary and dangerous as that bitch of a cop in Baltimore.

    Richard, ostracism cannot work effectively if it is either a) binary, or b) irredemable. I may have more to say on that later.

  7. Kyle Bennett on May 20, 2006 at 12:04

    Turns out I already have said more about it:

  8. Kyle Bennett on May 20, 2006 at 14:06

    John,

    Yes, it does change the calculations – from the expense side only. No you haven't provided alternative, but it looked like you implied there were some. Maybe not, but my main objection is that you seemed to be saying that since there would likely be legal pressure against it, it rendered the whole idea automatically unviable.

    You make a valid point about some kind of public ostracism movement, to which Richard's database would be pursuant. I didn't comment on that, only on the general idea of ostracism. I'm not as much interested in a public movement aimed at public goals as I am in resucing the idea from the obscurity and disfavor it suffers under now.

    Individualists have not been doing it all along, at least not consistently and in full context. Part of the reason is legality, part is social pressure, and supporting both is a prevailing attitude that, outside of certain inconsequential contexts, it is evil and destructive.

    Even done privately, and with limited participation, it would have positive effects in the society at large, and that does argue in favor of some effort put towards encouraging it. And if, as I believe, it is a necessary component of a lasting free society, any effort towards freedom would have to include some amount of effort in support of the general concept of ostracism as well. But don't mistake my argument for thinking that encouraging the widespread adoption of ostracism will bring about a free society. It's a prerequisite, not a means.

  9. John Lopez on May 20, 2006 at 08:53

    Darn, you're right John. Yup, once there's a law against something, why it simply means that it becomes physically impossible.

    No, you're right, Kyle. Laws mean nothing at all, any of them can be broken with impunity. That's why you've tossed out all of those "licences" and "registrations" and "permits" you're "required" to have, right? Hell, I bet you toodle down the freeway breakdown lane at ten over the limit in rush hour, no plates on the car, tossing empties out the window, just to prove that the law is so impotent.

    Sarcasm aside, ostracism combined with free markets is the only sustainable non-coercive means of social control.

    Sarcasm aside, why exactly do you think that this government wouldn't come down on a mass ostacism campaign any less hard than they have on anything else that threatened them? The only reason would be if it simply didn't work.

    Further, why do think anyone except a bare handful of relative radicals would participate? Seems pretty clear to me that the general public, while they may fear the police's direct attention, simply don't think too hard about the matter otherwise.

    Assuming that a signifigant portion of the population is going to participate in this sort of venture is akin to assuming that a signifigant portion of the populance is going to participate in some scheme to vote reforms onto the police.

    And, since this "ostracism" idea needs mass support in order to work, most of the other objections that apply to voting problems away apply to shunning them away.

  10. John Lopez on May 20, 2006 at 13:13

    Kyle,

    Of course the government would come down on ostracism if it started to have any effect, but that would only change the external conditions, not the morality or the value of the thing.

    It ought to change your calculations regarding how good of an idea it would be, though.

    You may define the success condition of ostracism as its having acheived some specific change in the society as a whole.

    No, the fate of society as a whole doesn't interest me overmuch. I just fail to see how devoting my own resources to public ostracism does me much good.

    Good luck with that, and if that is to be the goal of any of your supposedly more workable and guranteed legal-in-perpetuity alternatives, then you've got a long, disappointing life to look forward to.

    Seems to me that I haven't offered you any alternatives, supposedly more workable or not.

    I'll shun such people because they are a disvalue to me, and because their presence in my life can only diminish it.

    That's fine, but that doesn't seem to be what you and Richard were first talking about. Richard explicilty endorsed mass public shunning, and you merely added: "Ostracism should have been SOP for the last several centuries, and it is the only lasting solution to all of this." SOP for whom? Individuals? Doesn't that just mean carrying out your own affairs as you see fit? Isn't that what indiviudalists have been doing all along? And that's not really what Nikoley was talking about, was it?

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780