Genarlow Wilson -- Georgia is insane

[ALawPoker]

No need to apologize. He made a brash claim and didn't provide any source of information, you (apparently correctly) disagreed with what he said, and then he declared he was right and still did not post anything proving that.

If past rape allegations are gonna factor into this discussion (which again, seems to be missing the point, imo), the burden is on RedBean to post an objective account of what happened.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
All instances of racism will tend to disintegrate when we stop all forms of it. When a state engages in racism it is still racism, and so it still carries the same real consequences. Maybe some business owners will resent the policies and see more reason to discriminate against prospective black employees. The state is not magic and it is still subject to natural human consequence.

Would all instances of racial tension suddenly disappear if the state's affirmative action and similar policies disappeared? Obviously not. Not immediately. But the problem is worsened and not improved when people let a state see race and factor it into their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, and I'm with you on all of this. However, that's got very little to do with this particular case.

Edit: it's also really questionable to me how you got 'government does not work' out of a case of a bunch of racist local authority figures running amok. No, seriously, the most that someone "can" do in a state of anarchy in a community of racists is refuse to seat blacks in his restaurant? Really?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26...ef=mpstoryview

This story is bizarre. Basically, someone was sentenced to TEN YEARS of prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old when he was 17.

???

Is that even illegal? Apparently so, and Georgia has recently changed this sort of conduct between consenting minors to a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Whew, what a concession, I'm glad it is only mildly illegal for high schoolers to give each other head. It's good that minors often will not be charged for murder, but could face TEN YEARS for sexual relations with someone two years younger than them.

This just blows my mind. It's only one example, and [censored] happens, but if this isn't good evidence that a state monopoly on justice is really, really bad, then I don't know what is. Show me a private arbitrator who decides that the 17-year-old owes the 15-year-old something equal to 10 years of prison and I will show you a private arbitrator that goes out of business fast. <font color="red"> Totally wrong, in many states (or "geographical areas" if you were under AC) </font> It just couldn't happen. It's the type of injustice that would be totally inconceivable if state bureaucracy was not in charge. <font color="red">total nonsense. if deep-pocket daddy of the girl wanted to find "
justice at any price" it would be easier when all justice is bought and sold by definition </font>

I mean, when I heard the story in the background playing on CNN, I first thought he was an adult who had consensual relations with a 15-year-old, and I was like "hmm, ya, 10 years is ridiculous, it's good that they overturned that." I assumed it was some sort of reasonable debate, and still thought it was newsworthy. But then the fact that HE WAS SEVENTEEN and it was a two year difference just makes this impressively ridiculous. This could easily be a high school junior getting head from a sophomore, if that puts it in the correct perspective. TEN YEARS IN PRISON!

Obviously the fact that he's black is why this happened. <font color="red"> ORLY? support what it is that makes this "obvious" </font> But the point is this happened to a human being in the United States of America in 2005. Isn't that [censored] scary?

Government does not work. I used to think it was at least good for the sake of a clear authority, but I came to my senses on that, and examples like this are just empirical icing on the cake.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> it works far better than anything proposed on this site would, thats for sure </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't read my own posts with red text added in random spots. Sorry, guy. If you want a reply, or anyone to read your arguments, please respond like everyone else on this forum does.

[/ QUOTE ]

then dont read them, IDGAF what you do. Its easier to follow than layers of quotes, dont like it, your loss.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All instances of racism will tend to disintegrate when we stop all forms of it. When a state engages in racism it is still racism, and so it still carries the same real consequences. Maybe some business owners will resent the policies and see more reason to discriminate against prospective black employees. The state is not magic and it is still subject to natural human consequence.

Would all instances of racial tension suddenly disappear if the state's affirmative action and similar policies disappeared? Obviously not. Not immediately. But the problem is worsened and not improved when people let a state see race and factor it into their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, and I'm with you on all of this. However, that's got very little to do with this particular case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, it's only tangentially related. I posted this as an aside thought after Iron informed me that there were already threads in other forums that discuss the case directly. I figured this would be an OK direction to take the thread. Is that against the rules?

I still don't know why you jumped at me and represented my thoughts as being some outlandish position if you basically agree, but just thought that it was off topic. I think you knee-jerked, realized you agree, and now are going with the off topic thing since it's your only reply.


[ QUOTE ]
Edit: it's also really questionable to me how you got 'government does not work' out of a case of a bunch of racist local authority figures running amok. No, seriously, the most that someone "can" do in a state of anarchy in a community of racists is refuse to seat blacks in his restaurant? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you agree with me or don't you? If you think it's OK for a government to tell a restaurant owner that he has to let people of a certain color sit in his restaurant, then you are not "with me" on what I posted.

Don't jerk your knee and interpret this to think that I think it's good for people to refuse service to black people. If I witnessed such a thing, it would disgust me, and I'd never eat there again.

I, unlike you, am simply of the belief that government will make the problem worse. The best "legislator" for the situation is the market. If you think a restaurant owner could be successful by not serving to people of various ethnicities, you are gravely mistaken. Maybe it would work in some hickish pockets of Georgia or Alabama, but all that would speak to is the irrational mindset of those societies. There's a reason they aren't as prosperous as other parts of the country, and the irrationality of racial intolerance is probably a small part of that. Trial and error. Eventually the rational belief will win out. But we all lose when we try to FORCE rationality on other people.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
then dont read them,

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
IDGAF what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then don't reply to me. I was just giving you the heads up. Since you bothered to respond to me, I assumed you were interested in my thoughts. I figured it would be nice to let you know why I wasn't answering and give you the option to post it again if you wanted one.

[ QUOTE ]
Its easier to follow than layers of quotes,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your opinion and one that the internet norm does not share. So you will have to deal with what other people find easier, or face the consequences of even fewer people reading your posts.

I think you just aren't very sharp and for some reason have a hard time with the [ quote ] html, so you lazily do it your way even though you know it just makes it harder to read. But that's just my perception that you probably DGAF about.

[ QUOTE ]
dont like it, your loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zoh no! And earlier today my dog ate a ply of toilet paper that I really, REALLY cared about. That's two losses in one day.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: it's also really questionable to me how you got 'government does not work' out of a case of a bunch of racist local authority figures running amok.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sort of missed this when I responded to you before.

Obviously this is just one indication. I wouldn't make such a bold claim without strong justification. My belief that "government does not work" is based on a ton of other stuff that we can devote other threads to if you really want to debate the point. Like I said after the part you quoted me on, "this is just empirical icing on the cake."

The fact that a bunch of racist people HAVE the authority to do this to someone is what highlights the problem. Your solution would probably be to apply further layers of authority to keep them in check! But all we really need is a healthy respect for liberty. A free society does not select for racism. There's no reason for it. So when you encourage rational behavior, you encourage the selection against racism (even if that isn't obvious to the knee-jerkers who love to talk about how righteous they are).

So if race issues concern you, you're best to ignore it. Literally. That's the best thing you can possibly do. You should merely encourage people to act rationally, and then you're encouraging racism to evaporate as efficiently as possible. It's only if you hold the opinion that racism could have some long-term benefit (which to me is an odd and bigoted opinion) that you should have the opinion that something need actively be done about it.

I don't feel like I need a rule in my house that says "no putting your hand on the stove top." There's an innate incentive to not want to do that. All I need to do is demonstrate the rational chain of thought that the stove top is hot and if you touch it you will regret that decision a split second or two later. (The only difference is that it's easier to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship when the effect is immediate.)

It's amazing how everyone just ignores that a state forcibly redistributed other people and brought them here against their will where they would not be treated like fellow humans. Then for another hundred years or so the state systematically defined their rights and segregated them accordingly. And in more recent times the state has adjusted to the realization that black people are equals and also they are less well off than white people (wow, didn't see that one coming!), and so the racism we see today from the state is in the form of affirmative action policies. It's less bad than segregation (and it's also 150 years later so we should expect a great deal of improvement) but it's still [censored] racism and it's still [censored] stupid.

A free society has no reason to ever be racist. You wouldn't migrate to areas that you know will hate you and harm you because of the color of your skin (and those areas will pay the price by missing out on your goods and services). And without a ton of artificial hoops to jump through to move in between different imaginary lines, it is easier to move if you do want to.

And also, the problem just wouldn't exist. When all exchanges are voluntary actions between individuals, there is drastically less reason to see people as some "group" based on the color of his skin. To whatever extent people still did this, they would have to deal with the very real disadvantage that this mindset brings.

Over time racism WILL disappear because it is not to human beings' best interests to be racist.

But when a state comes in and says this percentage here, this much there, this happens for these people, this for that people... the whole thing is just a mess. The state makes racism much, much worse and delays our ability to see past it, but would prefer to trick us into the bizarre position that they are actually necessary for SOLVING the mess. That without them, ZOH NO, racists will run amok and everyone will be racist everywhere!!!

They [censored] make the mess! And then anything they can do will only make it worse. Only time can heal the mess we inherit. NOT a further reliance on the state to somehow make things better.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, it's only tangentially related. I posted this as an aside thought after Iron informed me that there were already threads in other forums that discuss the case directly. I figured this would be an OK direction to take the thread. Is that against the rules?

I still don't know why you jumped at me and represented my thoughts as being some outlandish position if you basically agree, but just thought that it was off topic. I think you knee-jerked, realized you agree, and now are going with the off topic thing since it's your only reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, originally, I missed that you were the OP and just assumed you came in with the affirmative action slant (hence my other edit.) My bad, and I hope you see why the other post makes more sense from my perspective now.

As to your other point,

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: it's also really questionable to me how you got 'government does not work' out of a case of a bunch of racist local authority figures running amok. No, seriously, the most that someone "can" do in a state of anarchy in a community of racists is refuse to seat blacks in his restaurant? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing how everyone just ignores that a state forcibly redistributed other people and brought them here against their will where they would not be treated like fellow humans. Then for another hundred years or so the state systematically defined their rights and segregated them accordingly. And in more recent times the state has adjusted to the realization that black people are equals and also they are less well off than white people (wow, didn't see that one coming!), and so the racism we see today from the state is in the form of affirmative action policies. It's better than segregation but it's still [censored] racism and it's still [censored] stupid.

A free society has no reason to ever be racist. You wouldn't migrate to areas that you know will hate you and harm you because of the color of your skin (and those areas will pay the price by missing out on your goods and services). And without a million hoops to jump through to move in between different imaginary lines, it is easier to move if you do want to.

And also, the problem just wouldn't exist. When all exchanges are voluntary actions between individuals, there is drastically less reason to see people as some "group" based on the color of his skin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woooooooow, that's a REALLY big leap - actually, several really big leaps - for which there is not a shred of evidence anywhere. In fact, there are like a dozen different assertions in this statement that are gigantic and pretty much equally false.

1)There's no racism in a state of anarchy? Wait, no, you just admitted that "if a community hates you, you just move". I mean, that's pretty disturbing in and of itself, but you don't think this state of affairs *perpetuates* racism? "They're different so we told them to leave town or else" somehow equates to racism dying out in the future? When the white supremacists all move to Idaho and announce their Racially Pure Empire, the free market solution appears to be for the blacks to move...and this is a desirable outcome in AC-land? Really?

2)"States created racism". To my knowledge, this isn't actually true - pick two random tribes who are all interrelated by blood and think they are the entire universe in the Amazon rain forest or in New Guinea, and they're as likely to have tried to kill and eat the other one as any other voluntary transaction. Even your average two year old is already going to be more likely to pick up a doll of one color than another, so some amount of racial preference is set in us from a very early age, and this one's going to have to require an awful lot of proof to stand up. But okay, let's stick with our one local case of unquestionably state-enforced racism: how does that translate into "kill the state now and the racism problem ends?" Removing affirmative action may in fact improve things. Removing the state? How well are those mixed Shiite/Sunni neighborhoods doing in Iraq lately?

3)We all know that for a variety of reasons, blacks and Hispanics are, as a whole, less successful, less educated, more likely to have criminal records, etc. than whites (what do you know, I can make this entirely reasonable assertion without sounding racist. Who'd have thought?) Now, let's remove the state and all social support from the equation. Oh, hey, it's an underclass of poor people with different skin color and little hope of advancement! But this doesn't lead to racism at all, because...

[ QUOTE ]
Eventually the rational belief will win out. But we all lose when we try to FORCE rationality on other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I keep seeing that, and yet we FORCED it on the South (complete with National Guard, no less) and, a generation later, racism is not publicly acceptable anymore, even in those Southern hick pockets. The old generation might still be racist, but their kids all date the "wrong" skin color just fine. How come?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
1)There's no racism in a state of anarchy? Wait, no, you just admitted that "if a community hates you, you just move". I mean, that's pretty disturbing in and of itself, but you don't think this state of affairs *perpetuates* racism? "They're different so we told them to leave town or else" somehow equates to racism dying out in the future? When the white supremacists all move to Idaho and announce their Racially Pure Empire, the free market solution appears to be for the blacks to move...and this is a desirable outcome in AC-land? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there racism in a state of anarchy? What year are we talking about? Eventually there will be negligible racism whether we have a government or not; the only issue is whether government slows that down or speeds it up.

Racism is something that is not conducive to human prosperity. Things that are bad are bad for tangible reasons. Therefore it is something that will die out (or we will die out). Since I think conscious animals will tend to grow aware of their burdens, I think it's pretty clear that racism will continue to die and eventually approach extinction.

Will some people always be racist? Sure. Some people jump off buildings too. But keep in mind how relatively "new" the race issue actually is, considering humans didn't have the capacity to interact with other races until what, 500 years ago or so? I think you're letting the impact racial difference has on us now bias your judgment into how petty of a difference humans will naturally come to see it as.

My argument is merely that: 1.) When anyone acts as a racist, that is an irrational action with a bad consequence. 2.) Government actions are human actions too. When the government forces someone to act as a racist, that is bad too and that also has a bad consequence. 3.) People will be less likely to act irrationally when they make decisions for themselves and for their own property than when we act based on centralized law.

It's really not a very difficult concept. You're representing my argument with some inane hypothetical about white supremacists moving to Idaho and forming a racially motivated empire. lol. I'm sure you think you actually have some point with that, but all you're really demonstrating is an odd insight into how humans behave and what actually motivates us.

The best part is, who gives a [censored] if they made their empire as long as all actions are voluntary? If they own the land they can do what they want with it and what gives anyone the right to stop them? The truth is that this hypothetical would never occur because there's no tangible incentive for it. When they see other people benefiting from free and open trade, they'll naturally tend to join them.

[ QUOTE ]
2)"States created racism". To my knowledge, this isn't actually true

[/ QUOTE ]

Conveniently, it's also not what I actually said.

I would say that it's pretty clear that a state (the United States) created the disproportionate racial tension that exists in America. But I don't deny that there is a natural bias to be racist. Experience and education is all that's really required to prove that there's no REASON to be racist.

[ QUOTE ]
pick two random tribes who are all interrelated by blood and think they are the entire universe in the Amazon rain forest or in New Guinea, and they're as likely to have tried to kill and eat the other one as any other voluntary transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaha. You realize this example points to a primitive mentality of a culture that does not accept (or at least, has no understanding of) the idea of land ownership, right?

Would these people be likely to be racist? Ya sure, I agree with you. But my arguments hinge on the assumptions that access to modern technology and ever improving technology is good and that the belief that you are the only race in the universe will be selected against as society improves.


[ QUOTE ]
But okay, let's stick with our one local case of unquestionably state-enforced racism: how does that translate into "kill the state now and the racism problem ends?"

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't necessarily. It's just one example, and my thoughts on racism (again) are just a loosely related tangent.

If you've never even considered the idea of privatized courts/arbitration and will just laugh and throw darts, then don't even bother responding. But if you're actually open-minded to the ideology you are so willing to discuss here, let me ask you: Do you think it's possible that a private court/arbitrator would ever reach a decision that held the 17-year-old black guy to such a harsh penalty?

If it did, what do you think would be the consequence for that firm?

It's pretty obvious to me that this injustice could not possibly exist in moderns times if it weren't for the reliance on a state.

[ QUOTE ]
Removing the state? How well are those mixed Shiite/Sunni neighborhoods doing in Iraq lately?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is worse than your New Guinea tribal mentality example.

[ QUOTE ]
3)We all know that for a variety of reasons, blacks and Hispanics are, as a whole, less successful, less educated, more likely to have criminal records, etc. than whites (what do you know, I can make this entirely reasonable assertion without sounding racist. Who'd have thought?) Now, let's remove the state and all social support from the equation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about removing social support??? Wow.

Voluntary social attitudes and support for who and what we want to help isn't going anywhere. I don't need a government to tell me racism is bad. And neither should you. Racism is bad because it's bad! And I've already touched on the very real reasons why it's bad.

"If government doesn't do it then no one will do it." Oldest misconception in the book. People do not do destructive things when they realize its destructive. So all that's necessary to "stopping" racism is a social attitude which helps recognize the undesirable result that racism begs.

All a state can do is restrict behavior. It can't magically make you realize that racism is bad. So if you think it, you'll keep thinking it, and the state will make the situation worse by trying to prohibit the feelings that you'll hold and one way or another act on anyways.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eventually the rational belief will win out. But we all lose when we try to FORCE rationality on other people.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know, I keep seeing that, and yet we FORCED it on the South (complete with National Guard, no less) and, a generation later, racism is not publicly acceptable anymore, even in those Southern hick pockets. The old generation might still be racist, but their kids all date the "wrong" skin color just fine. How come?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, a real brain buster here.

I'll go with "What is 'because time has passed and the rational train of thought will win out whether government slows it down and takes credit or not,' Alex?"

OK, I'm sick of Brain Busters, let's go back to Analogies That Make No Sense, for $800, Alex.

[DblBarrelJ]

I'm so happy to see this kid released, good guy. Shook his hand right before he walked outside to the main gate.

Here's what happened four years ago. Genarlow and friends were in a hotel room having a New Years party, several young ladies were in and out throughout the evening. The girl he "raped" was moaning "Oh God Yes" and at one point during the "rape" had an orgasm.

Later on, the fifteen year old juvenile comes in, starts giving oral sex to everyone in the room. On the tape, you clearly see her go up to Wilson and say "You want some head, baby?" to which he responds "LDO" (I'm paraphrasing).

The next morning, the drunk 17 year old wakes up in the hotel room, believes she's been raped, and calls 911. Three Douglas County deputy sheriffs arrive, followed soon afterwords by an SVU detective, who then radios for assistance from a CAC (Crimes Against Children) investigator. FTR, Douglas county is the county I grew up in.

The Deputies take the videocamera and the tapes in to be used as evidence. They are analyzed, first by the CAC and SVU detectives, then by DA David McDade.

Warrants for Genarlow and several of his friends are issued, and patrol deputies and detectives begin serving them the following days afterword.

Genarlow and his friends are offered "deals" all of which involve registering as a sex offender, and furthermore, registering as a sex offender under the hidious description of "Child Molester".

Genarlow stuck to his guns, and I'm very proud of him for it. Had I been DA McDade here, he probably would've received some probation time for his troubles, and a slap on the wrist.

A protest is being planned at the Douglas County courthouse sometime soon, calling for the resignation of DA McDade, and I can assure you, I will be in attendance. I would encourage anyone in the Atlanta area to join me.

-J

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Joe Schmoe can kill you because of your race, with or without a govt, but of course you use "you won't eat in his restaurant" as an example of the worst case under AC. Please, man, stop already.

[/ QUOTE ]

But killing is still "against the rules" in or out of AC.

Refusing to seat someone in your restaurant is "legal" under AC (though it is illegal in the status quo).

Throwing someone in the pokey for 10 years for a blow job is a real, permitted possibility under the rules of the status quo, whereas it isn't under any reasonable projection of AC.

That's the tradeoff. Throwing "killing you because of your race" is a strawman. I know you've "heard a strawman"....

[ QUOTE ]
2) I have never ever heard a statist say that govt will make all racism disappear. I know you've heard a straw man. Stop it already.

[/ QUOTE ]

"prevents" =/= "make ALL disappear".

Adding more opportunity for racists to make their targets uncomfortable, and doing so at taxpayer expense is basically the EXACT OPPOSITE of prevention.