I predict it will be a tough ride. I study economic theory, and we have already have a system in place that lives and lets live and lets killers go free. This is a much more general condition than what you refer to, a blood-spattered killer who can go shopping --- or take international flights. Almost all of them have been getting away with it for years. That is the system we already have. (And my position is it should be changed.) Nobody asks about the blood on a person's hands and the business did they would make less money. But they do not. So I think this is like the case you describe, where a country cannot try or arrest persons who commit criminal acts because the perpetrators are -as you say in the article -effectively protected within the system. Again: we already have a system where no one will ask you where your money came from. Or who you have been torturing, if anyone. In classical liberal social theory this is considered quite the norm, and therefore not a bad thing. So we would need to ask
some basic economic questions if anyone even cared. But look: Persons relish that freedom. Part of it is that when torturers go to restaurants, act like others act, pay and walk out we feel it has nothing to do with us. We watch impassively. It's basic freedom. No one points out that it means freedom for the bad guys as well. And this is very system that has delivered and created a dominant capitalist regime in the global arena today. I would like to suggest that a greater consideration is to just ask why people are good or bad. The idea that you can catch every criminal is very bourgeois. Persons either do or do not do those things in the first place. Going around interrogating everybody is difficult. The better question might be: "How do we create a society of good people"? Rather than: "how do we catch every person who does bad?"
Congrats on 'Politisage' and on bringing these ideas to the light of all the brilliant readers!
I predict it will be a tough ride. I study economic theory, and we have already have a system in place that lives and lets live and lets killers go free. This is a much more general condition than what you refer to, a blood-spattered killer who can go shopping --- or take international flights. Almost all of them have been getting away with it for years. That is the system we already have. (And my position is it should be changed.) Nobody asks about the blood on a person's hands and the business did they would make less money. But they do not. So I think this is like the case you describe, where a country cannot try or arrest persons who commit criminal acts because the perpetrators are -as you say in the article -effectively protected within the system. Again: we already have a system where no one will ask you where your money came from. Or who you have been torturing, if anyone. In classical liberal social theory this is considered quite the norm, and therefore not a bad thing. So we would need to ask
some basic economic questions if anyone even cared. But look: Persons relish that freedom. Part of it is that when torturers go to restaurants, act like others act, pay and walk out we feel it has nothing to do with us. We watch impassively. It's basic freedom. No one points out that it means freedom for the bad guys as well. And this is very system that has delivered and created a dominant capitalist regime in the global arena today. I would like to suggest that a greater consideration is to just ask why people are good or bad. The idea that you can catch every criminal is very bourgeois. Persons either do or do not do those things in the first place. Going around interrogating everybody is difficult. The better question might be: "How do we create a society of good people"? Rather than: "how do we catch every person who does bad?"
Congrats on 'Politisage' and on bringing these ideas to the light of all the brilliant readers!