“….I found the guilty verdicts bracing. A dozen Americans had finally sliced through Trump’s reality distortion field and said, simply, “You’re lying and cheating and it’s not right.” Even though the case was a stretch and not the strongest one against Trump, there was something refreshing about the jury doing what no one else around Trump has been able to do — not the inexplicably sycophantish Republican lawmakers, not the corrupt Supreme Court, not the slowpoke Merrick Garland.”
—-The “Queen of Snark” Maureen Dowd in yesterday’s Sunday New York Times, gloating over Trump’s conviction even while acknowledging what the sham of a trial really was from the beginning.
I suppose I could and maybe should call this an ethical quote of the month, since Dowd is saying the quiet part out loud and admitting what the Democratic Party’s “lawfare” really is, not that the ugly truth is exactly a big secret. [Here’s “gift link” to the column, which is otherwise behind a paywall.)
Red-pilled former Rolling Stone pundit Matt Taibbi writes on his substack, “Whoa. Trump has so altered American consciousness that detractors feel comfortable publicly supporting the idea of slapping 34 felony convictions on the man as punishment for alleged earlier offenses.”
That’s exactly what all of these trials are about. Trump’s a bad guy, see. He never should have been elected by that undemocratic Electoral College gimmick and stopped wonderful Hillary Clinton from being the first DEI female President. The idea was to “Get Trump,” just like the idea when he was President was to “impeach the motherfucker,” as a distinguished member of “The Squad” told an adoring crowd.
“Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime,” boasted Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret police chief. With an international wheeler-dealer in hotels and construction like Trump, adopting Stalinesque tactics against a feared political opponent was a sure thing, so hey, “Let’s do it!” Taibbi continues, “Dowd’s slip (if it was one) wasn’t rare. Editorial pages, broadcast panels, even political mailers in the past days implored readers to focus on Trump’s overall history, not this particular case.”
Indeed. Read the arguments of the lawfare defenders even on the comment threads on Ethics Alarms. They don’t focus on the charges in the trial just completed. (To be fair, the trial itself made it nearly impossible to figure out was Trump was really accused of.) “It was great to see the 12 just say no, you don’t slime your way into the presidency by having your creepy gofer pay off a porn star you slept with while your wife was home with a newborn and call it a legal expense,” writes Dowd. Did none of the jurors find themselves wondering what accounts Clinton and JFK put their sexual predator “hush money” payments under while they were seeking the White House? Nah…those were good Presidents. They just made mistakes, like we all do!
Our devoted and respected champion of civil discourse and open-mindedness, Extradimensional Cepholopod, has been encouraging me to participate in Braver Angels, a group with an admirable mission that matches his (it’s?) perspective. Yesterday I received an invitation to attend the group’s national convention (in Kenosha—ironic choice!), which will include a civilized debate on the trial and its implications. “We can search for truth together in defiance of the powers that profit from our divisions,” the invitation read. “We can dig for common ground and reform our politics and institutions along those lines. But we can only do this if we perceive enough humanity in one another to extend the hand of goodwill.”
Sounds nice. But here is how the Braver Angels spokesperson described the pro-verdict side of the debate:
“From this point of view, this is a man who lied about Barack Obama’s place of birth to undermine his presidency, who obstructed an FBI investigation into his ties with Russia, who tried intimidating Ukrainian president Vladimir Zolensky to investigate the now current president Joe Biden just as he tried intimidating Georgia Secretary of State Ben Raffensperger to find more votes in the state, who lied about and attempted to steal the 2020 election, who provoked an insurrection, who was impeached twice, and who even today is unwilling to accept the outcome of a 2024 election if he should lose.”
I wrote back to John Wood Jr., “National Ambassador, Braver Angels,” and said, “I am an ethicist and a lawyer, and my time is valuable. I have no interest in debating a court case with anyone whose defense of the verdict in that case rests on events and alleged conduct that have nothing to do with the case, or shouldn’t have. Moreover, the list you provided include exactly one statement that is factual (yes, Trump was impeached twice, which is a reflection on the Democrats that distorted the Constitution and Congressional precedent to do it) and not dishonest, distorted, or outright false anti-Trump talking points and spin. Braver Angels is going to have to do a lot better than this to entice me. I’ve tried reasoning with people who believe what you wrote justifies the guilty verdict in Manhattan. It is literally impossible.”
And it is.
Roger Kimball, a conservative pundit who writes at “American Greatness,” like Andrew McCarthy, Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz and others who, like Taibbi (and me) are far from Donald Trump fans, sees the peril here. He writes in part,
“…although Trump is clearly the protagonist in this long-running drama, in the end, this story is about something other or more than the real-estate developer turned hyper-reality-show President. Trump himself has often put his finger on the key point when he insists that “they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.”…
“In Memory of Justice,” the title of Andrew McCarthy’s long column on the process and the verdict, encapsulates the point. McCarthy is no fan of Donald Trump—quite the contrary. But he understands that what just happened far transcends the fate of a single individual. Once upon a time, he writes, “Our system embodied the rule of law, the sturdy undercarriage of a free, prosperous, pluralistic society. Now, on its good days, it’s a clown show. On the bad days—there are far too many of those—it’s a political weapon.”
This weapon has two distinct functions. One is to harm enemies of the regime. Hence, the innumerable show trials starring Donald Trump as Defendant-in-Chief and his allies and supporters (here’s looking at you, Peter Navarro). The second is to protect friends and allies of the regime. Hence the kid-glove treatment thus far accorded to Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, deep-state apparatchiks from the DOJ, the FBI, and other coercive actors in the alphabet soup of state supervision….Larry Hogan, Maryland’s governor and 2024 senatorial candidate for the emasculated, formerly Republican, party. Responding to the impending verdict in the Trump case, Hogan issued this emetic little tweet: “Regardless of the result [!], I urge all Americans to respect the verdict [!]and the legal process [!!]. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.” That ship has sailed, Guv. There is no rule of law in the United States. There is only rule of the regime party. Which is why Mark Steyn, responding to Hogan, described him as an “all too typical wanker Republican senate candidate.” Steyn continued: “I loathe the likes of Hogan far more than I loathe Alvin Bragg: The latter campaigned for office on a promise to get Trump, and delivered to his voters. The former, in pretending that there is anything “great” about this that should command our “respect,” is making evil and corruption respectable and bipartisan.” Quite right. The commentator Megan Kelly, who seems to have definitively boarded the Trump train, is right that Thursday’s verdict represents “a before and after moment for America. It is a line we can’t uncross.”
Bingo
Ethics Alarms 
This is something I had hoped Jerry, and maybe to a lesser extent, Bob Ghery, would address.
I have no problems in identifying Trump as a horribly immoral, and perhaps even amoral, person. The problem I have is throwing aside all standards of law in order to gain a conviction.
The crime is falsifying documentation on payments to Cohen, who had previously used the money for an NDA with Stormy Daniels. Is it at all disputed that, even given that it was a criminal falsification, that on its own it was a misdemeanor whose statutes of limitations had expired?
In order for this bookkeeping fraud to be a felony, it had to have been committed in connection to another crime. Is this at all disputed?
The jury was instructed that the crime that this bookkeeping fraud was connected to doesn’t matter. Is this at all disputed?
In order to convict Trump guilty of 34 felony counts, the jury had to presuppose Trump was guilty of another crime, but apparently Trump did not have to be convicted of that other crime, or even have the jury in agreement about what that other crime is. Is that at all disputed?
If none of the above is in dispute, then can someone please explain to me how it is justified that a guilty verdict depends upon assuming someone is guilty of a crime for which he has not been charged, much less convicted of? I don’t care that this is Trump we are talking about. Pretend Biden is in his place. Or your favorite relative. Or yourself. Our legal system was built on the presumption of innocence. In order to reach a guilty verdict on these felony charges, Trump had to be presumed guilty. Doesn’t that strike anyone cheering these convictions as wrong?
For anyone who is saying they are happy that Trump is being held accountable for his crimes, the reality is that he isn’t being held accountable. Of all the crimes that Trump has allegedly committed, not one was showcased in this Manhattan trial. Trump’s other two cases that have reached verdicts actually have: he lost the defamation case against E. Jean Carroll, and he lost the real estate case. But he was not on trial here for rape, he was not on trial for having sex with a porn star, even paid sex with porn star against prostitution laws. He was not on trial for befriending Jeffrey Epstein and taking flights on his Lolita Express. He was not on trial for Russian collusion. He was not on trial for refusing to accept the 2020 election or sparking a riot. He was not on trial for trying to get dirt on Biden from Ukraine. He was not on trial for election fraud. He was not on trial for Trump University. He was not on trial for tax evasion. Of the dozens of things that liberal commentators have pointed to that Trump must be guilty of, NONE of them were the charges brought against Trump.
When it comes to a court of law, what matters is what the defendant actually is charged with. Trump was charged with fraudulently misclassifying a payment in connection with another crime. That other crime had possibilities tossed out for consideration, but Trump was not charged with any of them, much less convicted of them. But in order to make the felony charge stick, he had to be guilty. But he was never shown guilty of those crimes.
I for one believe that no matter how much one detests another person, and no matter how much that person seems to be guilty of other crimes, you don’t abandon the principle of presumption of innocence. That holds for Trump. It holds for Biden, Joe or Hunter or otherwise.
There must be at least a hundred or more comments like Dowd’s that would fill the same bill. The NYC case is as preposterous as the “Snap Impeachment” was. You have to admire Trump’s tenacity and endurance. He seems to thrive on this contentiousness. Interesting personality type.
I wonder whether Hunter Biden is going to be thrown under the bus in his, irony of all ironies, gun trial. Will he be convicted before the election so the regime can say, “See, we went after this guy. We’re not stupid, we’re smart.” Then Hunter will be pardoned, whether Joe wins or loses.
A headline from an article in Slate:
“How the White House Should Spin the Trump Conviction. The time for Biden to show restraint here has long since passed.”
Good to know everything since the morning after the 2016 results came in has been restraint.
The real beginning of this destruction of the legal system was the George Floyd trials. Chauvin was going to be found guilty regardless of fact, law, fairness, anything. He had to be sacrificed to Black Lives Matter, and no one in power or with influence had the guts to stand up to the mob and its sycophants. That was the precedent.
Interesting. I date everything to the election. The AUC irretrievably lost their minds that morning. Getting Trump has been their sole reason for being ever since. I see the George Floyd thing running on a parallel track fueled by the systemic racism/white supremacy industrial complex.
And I think Obama’s presidency and the Travon (My Baby!) Martin (who, as it turned out, looked just like Obama’s imaginary son!) case led to the George Floyd train wreck.
Can a judge be guilty of a Brady violation if he prevents exculpatory evidence about election law from being heard by the jury? If he purposely prevents the jury from hearing such exculpatory information would that not meet the actual requirements for this alleged fraud that Trump committed.
I am not trying to a specious question I actually would like to know why given the prosecutor’s closing remarks about willfully keeping people from knowing the facts about a particular candidate?
I’m confused, I think most people think Trump should be held accountable for all the crimes he’s committed.
This is the culmination of someone making themselves an easy target and turning their nose up at the rule of law for years.
You could have just stopped after “I’m confused” and I would have been total agreement with you.
Which crime was President Trump convicted of that led to the (expired) misdemeanor charge of bookkeeping fraud being upgraded to thirty-four felony counts last week?
Falsifying business records.
is this a real question?
Bob,
Just to be clear. The claim is that Trump falsified business records (payments to Cohen that were reimbursements for payment to Stormy Daniels, that were labelled as “legal fees” instead of something else, such as “campaign contributions”) became a felony instead of a misdemeanor because he falsified other business records. Is that what you are saying? Because that isn’t what the prosecution set forward. They alluded that falsifying business records could possibly be the other crime, or it could have been defrauding the electorate, or even another theory. But they did not actually specify. Trump was convicted of none of those.
Looks like he falsified business records in order to violate NY election law.
Again, to be clear: Trump was never charged with, nor convicted of, violating NY election law. And yet the assumption that he did was enough to elevate a misdemeanor charge into a felony. Is that correct?
Right. He was charged and found guilty of falsifying business records, with the intent to violate NY election law.
He didn’t have to be found guilty of violating NY election law, just that he intended to violate it.
Admit it, Bob. Trump was found guilty of being Donald Trump.
So when presented with actual evidence a crime was committed, and an actual conviction….you still think he’s innocent.
Amazing.
No testimony by someone like Michael Cohen is evidence of anything.
Sure it is. The jury obviously found he was telling the truth.
Plus there were receipts, the shell company, monthly invoices, the wired money, Stormy Daniels, her lawyer, the electronic records in the Trump Organization’s computer.
There is no law against compensating people for non-disclosure deals. And as a matter of law, the judge was obligated to rule that no jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on Cohen’s testimony, since he could not be credible within any margin of doubt. The jury just wanted to convict, and that’s what the prosecution was counting on, despite its weak and contrived case.
“There is no law against compensating people for non-disclosure deals.”
Odd and irrelevant comment since Trump wasn’t charged with this.
“And as a matter of law, the judge was obligated to rule that no jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on Cohen’s testimony, since he could not be credible within any margin of doubt.”
Where are you getting this from? First of all, Cohen wasn’t the only testimony given during the trail. There was a lot of evidence presented. Second, what matters is if the jury found what Cohen said was TRUE, during the trial.
I hope you’re not arguing that a defendant can’t be found guilty if a witness isn’t credible. Because the jury gets to decide if a witness is credible or not. Just because Cohen lied before and isn’t credible doesn’t mean he’s lying now or his testimony can’t be included.
“The jury just wanted to convict, and that’s what the prosecution was counting on, despite its weak and contrived case.”
Pure partisan speculation that you have zero proof or evidence for since you have no idea who the jurors are.
No, the unsequestered jurors just were informed over and over that it was a “hush money trial.” Then the witness who had no information to convey at all testified in disgusting detail about what was “hushed up.” I could teach a semester-long course on unethical prosecution using this case.
And how exactly did he intend to violate NY election law?
By promoting a candidate through illegal means I assume.
What were these illegal means?
Did you really just say Stormy Daniels had no information to convey?
Trump denied they had sex, so that’s why she was able to discuss it.
I know…the thought of Trump having sex IS disgusting.
Your ignorance on the facts of the case just shows how biased you are.
That’s strike #2, Bob. Next time you insult me, you’re gone. Last warning.
I overstated: yes, she had limited information relevant to the case to convey, but not to the crime that was being alleged. Nothing she knew related to falsifying records. That was my point. I bet you even knew that was my point.
She did not have to go into minute and prejudicial detail to assert that they had sex. Obviously. Capable, non-biased judges not determined to convict a defendant limit prejudicial testimony like that. But the whole objective, as I have written here and the commentary of the Get Trump mob support it, was to humiliate him and debase Trump’s character.That’s not the purpose of the criminal justice system, but I know, I know, Trump is special.
No Bob. The misdemeanor charge had run out and could only be used and elevated to a felony if Bragg could prove it was in the furtherance of another crime. Bragg did not charge Trump with any other specific crime and the judge allowed the lie that payments to a third party for silence that could be damaging to the campaign was an election law violation and the judge barred the former head of the FEC from answering certain questions that would have explained that such payments are not violations of federal law and only the federal government can enforce election law anyway.
Hey Bob which president basically told the SCOTUS “up yours” when he went ahead with doing what they said was unconstitutional? Biden.
I think Biden should be held accountable for his crimes. Maybe he will be if the DOJ is run by his opposition.
I think Obama should be tried for murdering US citizens (Anwar el Alamo and his son) who he deemed were our enemies without due process.
I think Capitol police officer Byrd should have been tried for the killing of an unarmed woman who was guilty of nothing but trespass if that. I want to see masked Antifa members prosecuted under the Enforcement acts of 1870 that criminalized masked individuals guilty when they denied others the ability to exercise their constitutional rights. I want to see those who laid siege to the Whitehouse and burned the church of the presidents charged and tried. I want all those who rioted and did 2 billion in damage to cities across the country. I want those who set fire to the police station after blocking escape for those inside tried for arson and attempted murder. No one has been charged but Garland has announced the DOJ will be finding those merely on the Capitol grounds and prosecuting them,
Congress held Obama’s AG Eric Holder in contempt of Congress yet no prosecution occurred by the DOJ because Holder ran the DOJ.
I am getting tired of all those who choose who is above the law and who is not.
Yes, criminals should be held accountable, including Trump.
Yes Chris.
Trump was convicted of falsifying business records in order to violate NY election law.
NY election law does not preclude federal election law. The election in question was federal. Bragg and NY had absolutely no jurisdiction.
And that is ignoring the fact that the felony charge was predicated upon a crime for which Trump was never charged, never mind convicted.
But wait, there’s more: the reporting date for campaign expenses was *after* the election.
This entire thing reeks of prosecutorial abuse and judicial incompetence. Both those moral cretins should be disbarred, with prejudice.
That’s false. There’s no precedence either way. Doesn’t mean they can’t do what they did.
And they didn’t have to prove, charge, or convict Trump of the NY election law violation, only that he intended do violate it.
And they didn’t have to prove, charge, or convict Trump of the NY election law violation, only that he intended do violate it.
They still had to prove he was attemp;ting an overt act that violated NY election law.
Yes, it does mean they may not do what they did, because there is explicit precedence: the states do not get to create federal election law.
As for intent, well now you are into USSR star chamber territory.
Ask yourself this: how many prosecutions like this in New York have their been, ever? None. That should tell you something.
Even leftist news organizations referred to Bragg’s trick as a “novel legal theory”. Even MSNBC called it an “eyebrow-raising legal theory”, and noted that “The Washington Post reviewed the New York State Law Reporting Bureau as far back as 2000 for any relevant case law regarding this specific statute. The report found “two entries in which a judge issued legal opinions on the statute. Both were from [Judge Juan] Merchan last year in rejecting Trump’s motions to have the case dismissed.”
A prosecution based on a novel interpretatyion of criminal law can never be ethical.
Furthermore, in such a prosecution, logically there must be reasonable doubt that the alleged acts violated the law in question, so the only legal and ethical verdict is not guilty, as a prosecutor seeking such a prosecution can never logically prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
And what NY election law did he intend to violate?
I’ve often found myself saying recently, that I didn’t go to college and study the physics of electromagnetism, circuit theory, modulation and codes, network architecture, etc so that people could use our laws to send messages.
It is a line we can’t uncross
Here is what Republican police officers and Republican prosecutors and Republican jurorsm have a holy, moral duty to do, now.
Police officers, when investigating crimes, have a duty to bury evidence of guilt, and forge and fabricate evidence of innocence, if the suspect is a Republican.
Conversely, if the suspect is a Democrat, they have a duty to forge and fabricate evidence f guilt and bury any evidence of innocence.
Prosecutors must start charging Democrats with felonies, especially capital felonies. They should not let evidence, statute, Brady v. Maryland, or the United States Constitution stand in the way. If they have to use creative legal theories, so be it. If they have to suborn perjury, so be it. If they have to collude with police to fabricate evidence, so be it.
Republican jurors have a duty to acquit if the defendant is a Republican, even if he openly confessed in court.
Republican jurors have a duty to convict Democrats, even if video evidence from three angles prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The rules have changed.
I love the old rules.
I did not want to change the rules.
Other people, with the support of media, academic, and entertainment elites, changed the rules for all of us.
Jesse kelly is right.
https://x.com/TheFirstonTV/status/1797814277505786305
Jack, keep in mind that people’s perspectives may assume things are true that contradict what your perspective assumes is true. Showing you understand their perspective doesn’t mean agreeing with their assumptions.
I haven’t looked directly at the case myself and I haven’t had the time to check out other perspectives in detail, so for the purposes of this explanation, I’ll assume that you’re correct and this case is a corrupt abuse of laws.
When people are afraid, they do stupid and desperate things like erode the rule of law. You can tell them they’re wrong to do so, but that doesn’t stop them being afraid and feeling like they have to do something desperate. In order to get people to a state where they can stop doing stupid things and realize how stupid those things are, we just need to address their fear. It’s easier than you think.
Addressing fear doesn’t mean we have to tell people they’re right about what they believe. It just means we need to identify the bad things they believe will happen if they don’t take desperate measures, and affirm that we don’t want those bad things to happen to them either.
Addressing fear takes a combination of epistemology (exploring how we came to believe certain things in the first place), collecting additional evidence, and finding practical alternatives that reduce the need for shared certainty about what’s true. It all depends on which measures are most feasible for any given question.
For example, “I don’t want you to be abducted by space aliens either. I’d like to help you find a way to be confident that won’t happen that doesn’t involve you stealing road signs to put around your house to confuse space aliens. I don’t believe space aliens would abduct you, but if you think it’s necessary for your safety, how about we show you where you can buy your own custom signs you can use for your house?”
We don’t need to reevaluate the process by which a person came to believe space aliens want to abduct them, and we don’t need to do observation, exploration, or experimentation to collect more information. We just need to give them a less disruptive approach to what they believe is necessary to protect themselves.
In this case, none of us want Trump to run for president, even if we don’t think he’s going to oppress people to appease his voter base. If we figured out an ethical way to accomplish that, ideally without setting up Biden to be reelected either, that would be better than letting people’s fears go unaddressed and then condemning them for panicking.
It’s justifiable to condemn people for responding unethically to fear, but it doesn’t accomplish anything. It’s more effective and more ethical to create the conditions under which people can learn to behave ethically. It doesn’t necessarily mean giving them what they ask for, but it does mean finding a way to make them feel safe and listened to somehow. Again, acknowledging what they fear will happen doesn’t mean you have to tell them they’re right about anything.
Does that make sense?
Addressing fear doesn’t mean we have to tell people they’re right about what they believe. It just means we need to identify the bad things they believe will happen if they don’t take desperate measures, and affirm that we don’t want those bad things to happen to them either.
That ship has sailed.
It is time for payback.
Republicans need to start imprisoning Democrats, regardless of what evidence, the law, Brady v. Maryland, or the United States Constitution say.
As my longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379970&p=4514143#post4514143
When the law is not the same for all, there is no law, just the law of the jungle.
Here is one idea for a prosecution that should happen.
Here is one idea I have for a prosecution by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Prosecute Patrice Cullors, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and Charles M. Blow for the capital murder of Garrett Foster.
The argument is this.
They spread the lie about the police habitually hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men, how the criminal justice system is systemically racist.
And because of this lie, many people, including Garrett Foster, participated in riots.
And because Foster was killed in one of these riots, Cullors, Hannah-Jones, and Blow are guilty of his murder.
Under the old rules, such a prosecution would be an outrage, a violation of freedom of speech. Any prosecutor who would pursue this prosecution would have deserved disbarment, and Paxton would have deserved impeachment and removal, in addition to disbarment.
I would not have tolerated this even in the slightest.
But the rules have changed.
I wish that they did not change.
I did not change the rules.
Others, with the full support of media, academic, and entertainment elites, changed the rules for all of us.
I agree that the political Left is lying and cheating, and I have no intention of letting them get away with that. I’m doing my best to set things up so that people know how to hold them accountable.
If you think that lying and cheating in response is the most effective response, I’m curious as to why you think you’re going to win that game, and if you win, how you think you’re going to build a society that people want to live in on the board state that results from that endgame.
I’m getting a sense of Rationalization 31: The Troublesome Luxury. The thing about ethicsis that it’s a constructive principle, not a boon. Ethics isn’t a concept that merely describes the world we want to live in. (The conflict-related word for that would be “harmony.”) Ethics is one of the processes by which we build that world. Trying to win at politics by destroying trust is like eating your seed corn, or burning your jacket to stay warm. You get an immediate return, and then you lose everything.
You don’t have to play by an enemy’s rules, but you still have to have rules. You have to have something that shows people what world you intend to create if you win. People need to be able to trust what happens if they surrender. If they start playing by your rules, do they get the benefits of those rules? If not, they have no reason to see your side as superior, and you have to do everything the hard way. Everyone loses, because whatever faction “wins” will have long since sacrificed the ability and inclination to build a world that people want to live in. There will no longer be any political principles that sustain a civilization. There will be nothing but warlords and the law of the sword. We can do better than that.
The way forward is not to focus on destroying threats, but to focus on building what people value. When people see a basis for the future that doesn’t make them feel afraid, they’ll abandon the destructive approaches they were pursuing. They won’t need them anymore. They’ll know that they can do better.
How does that sound?
Everyone loses, because whatever faction “wins” will have long since sacrificed the ability and inclination to build a world that people want to live in. There will no longer be any political principles that sustain a civilization. There will be nothing but warlords and the law of the sword. We can do better than that.
One of my longtime Usenet allies made this observation.
http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379059&p=4499368#post4499368
– Christopher Charles Morton, dba Deanimator
Basically, you want give reasons for people to continue to “give a fuck”.
I do not know how to do this, and I doubt you do.
I do know that one essential component is making an example of those who violated the rules that protect us from those who enforce other rules. That is key. If those who enforce the rules can break those rules against us with impunity, then, as Chris wrote, there is no law, just the law of the jungle. If if the only law is the law of the jungle, then the only way to avoid dying sooner is to destroy the opposition, without any internal restraints.
You’re right that we must show there are consequences to violating rules. However, if our enforcement of those consequences lacks internal constraints, then people who already believe the best of themselves and the worst of us will tell themselves that any retaliation is spite for not getting our way, rather than a proportionate response they earned through their own transgressions. This is the stuff that cycles of revenge are made of, because each side thinks only their own revenge is justified and the other side’s isn’t.
If you only try to win a physical war and don’t bother trying to win the war in people’s minds, you’ll need to fight a hundred times as hard and you will suffer thousands of times more casualties. The vast majority of people don’t inherently lack a sense of honor. They suspend their sense of honor when they become sufficiently afraid. Demonstrating your own honor has a practical benefit. It builds trust, which dispels others’ fear. You can behave honorably by purposefully limiting what advantages you will take, obstructing people’s unethical options but allowing them to retain ethical options. When they see you behaving honorably, they stop being ruled by fear and develop the confidence to act with honor themselves.
Granted, it’s often not enough to simply be honorable–there is an art to presenting that honor so that people recognize it. It’s not difficult to do it effectively, though.
Please keep in mind that most people are not confident that they can deal with violent and lawless anarchy. It may appeal to you, but most people would be far more comfortable solving problems through constructive negotiation rather than through what is effectively organized crime. You can fantasize about throwing ethics out the window, but given the opportunity people will put in the work to maintain civilized society. I’m here to help them do that.
Personally, I find it inane that you keep copy/pasting your call to fight fire with fire, wrong with wrong, injustice with injustice, hate with hate, on this blog of all places. (Pop quiz: Who said that hate cannot drive out hate?) What do you seriously expect will happen if people start doing what you suggest?