167
‘Shoot the homeless’ is a wild campaign slogan
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
167 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23055 readers
40 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to The Labour Community.
Take any slop posts to the slop trough
Main is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
How can this possibly be constitutional? I don't get how violence can be decriminalized against a section of the population
Republicans want homeless people eradicated, Democrats just don't want to see them. This is part of why Democrats will support (watered down, means tested) solutions that involve roofs over heads and not just cops.
That’s only a portion of democrats.
The rest don’t want to see them, but they also don’t want to think about them. Out of sight, out of mind, all is good in god’s heaven. They’ll let republicans do the dirty work willingly or unwillingly, and if they get a glimpse of how the sausage is made, they’ll do a performance of “This is terrible. How could republicans do this?!”
And even the means tested democrats will inadvertently support this shit. They’ll just keep demanding more and more before they lift a finger, and when you die before meeting the criteria, they’ll just go “ah well nevertheless.”
Democrats think not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump, but the reality is that their inaction when they wield power is a vote for all things evil. Lousy fucks.
mbic, we constitutionally enshrined the right for the state to enslave people, the constitution is what people don't revolt about.
While I am constantly weirded out by how seriously fascists take the constitution, it is ultimately not "real" in the sense that it doesn't define or restrict their actions.
Plus, the courts have very limited enforcement power and can often just be ignored.
And even if this is unconstitutional, and never passes, it's a screaming out to fascists that they can and should kill. It sends marching orders to the fash even if it doesn't hold the weight of law. Like how back in the Trump year's Trumps more or less open support for fascist street fighting gangs emboldened them right up until the FBI turned on them.
They don't take the constitution seriously at all; but libs have for the past ~75 years at least, so fascists have identified it as a useful weapon.
The government and its rules are like Tinkerbell; they only exist if we all believe in them. Or, to quote my boy Montesquieu: governments rule by the consent of the governed. Don't forget that the first major native American relocation program (Andrew Jackson's trail of tears) was ruled unconstitutional. Jackson was a real piece of work and had a fucking hate boner for everyone and everything; I mean, thank fuck the guy wasn't around for WWII and the technology/political ideologies of the time. I'm pretty sure he came when he heard the SCOTUS ruled against him. He famously said "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him come enforce it", and just went ahead with his act of genocide. The SCOTUS couldn't really do anything besides stamp its feet and yell about it because Jackson just decided that the rules didn't apply to him.
We've actually been in deeply, deeply unconstitutional territory multiple times in our history and the court either turned a blind eye to it or they were just flat out ignored. It can and will happen again.
The arguments are based around things like "property rights" and "moral hazard" and "public safety" instead of directly stating something like "You're life is forfeit if you ever go without a home long enough to look like you're homeless."
But porky knowingly causing a mass extinction event because 'muh shareholder value' ISN'T a moral hazard?
Moral Hazard isn't some "10 Commandments" type of thing, its a rhetorical device.
A moral hazard is just when removing (or mitigating) the consequences for some risky behavior makes the behavior more common, thus potentially resulting in more harm than leaving the consequence in place would have. The stock example is insurance: if I know that in the event of my house burning down, insurance will compensate me for any losses, maybe I'm more likely to be careless with my lighter, leading to my house being more likely to burn down.
In that sense,
causing a mass extinction in the name of shareholder value sort of is a moral hazard, because most capitalists are shielded from the direct harm associated with their actions, as those harms are exported to the global south and onto non-human species first.
It's because it's only authorizing the use of force on criminal trespassers, which includes people illegally living on your property.
I'm honestly surprised it wasn't already a law.