Cut out that middleman!

- posted by demo kid

Shorter Federal Way Taliban: Why bother prosecuting criminals when you can execute them yourself without a trial?

5 Responses to “Cut out that middleman!”

  1. Thehim says:

    I’m always interested in exploring the depths of Jonathan’s stupidity, so this part actually leapt out at me:

    I believe that if individuals in our country took ownership of their own property and life and secured them with vigor, we wouldn’t have nearly as much crime as we have today. Why? Because it would be like every person being their own policeman. Criminals would be scared to death of crossing all but the most helpless victim, and then only in secluded areas where they would be sure no one else would cross their path.

    The problem here should be quite obvious to him, but it’s not. Jonathan, by advocating harsh penalties for any number of victimless crimes demonstrates exactly why his fantasy world remains a fantasy. If we had a justice system that truly adhered to a live and let live philosophy, we might come close to that vision. Unfortunately, we don’t, and it’s idiots like Jonathan who prevent it.

  2. Demo Kid says:

    When he advocates for homosexuality and sex outside of marriage to be illegal (among other things), strongly defends the rights for people to own guns, suggests that armed insurrection is democratic, and then says this crap, you start to wonder exactly what “every person being their own policeman” really would mean to him in practice.

  3. N in Seattle says:

    DK notes:

    When he advocates for homosexuality and sex outside of marriage to be illegal (among other things), strongly defends the rights for people to own guns, suggests that armed insurrection is democratic, and then says this crap, you start to wonder exactly what “every person being their own policeman” really would mean to him in practice.

    Has anyone ever seen Jonathan and Curtis Sliwa together? Really, it’s obvious that Jonathan is pushing for “vigilante justice”, with himself as the arbiter of what’s acceptable and what’s eligible for “termination with extreme prejudice”. His idea of due process that anything that’s not OK with him deserves to be put to an end.

    It’s the reductio ad absurdum of black/white, yes/no, good/evil Manichaean certainty.

  4. Thehim says:

    N, I’m sure even Sliwa would blush at Jonathan’s views on authoritarian power.

  5. tensor says:

    Having grown up in New York, during that time of very high crime rates which enabled Sliwa and his vigilantes, I do have to wonder WTF Jonathan is talking about. Is Federal Way some sinkhole of violent crime, and the MSM won’t tell me (not that I’d care, but anyway)? I’m guessing this fixation on street-level crime is at some intersection of wingnut bedwetting, violent authoritarian fantasies, racsist dogwhistle (street criminals = brown people), and such as. When bad bankers are literally getting away with hundreds of billions, caring about some guy stealing $20 from the all-night fuel stop seems even sillier than usual.

    The bestest irony, though, is how the gun-nut vigilante-wannabe crowd never understands that the rest of us want a big government to protect us from them. While we’re being the change we seek, they’re being the reason we like the ‘repression’ they decry.