[Silver]

I was wondering as a vigilante, what your thoughts on vigilantism are. Do you believe it can make a difference for the better? Or as people are people and power corrupts, it can only lead to disaster?

I believe that it depends on the individual and their beliefs. The person's morals, ethics and past experiences. Their strength of character.

I think it also depends on a person's reason for becoming a vigilante. I became one because I was sick of what I saw around me, especially during the nights. Yet others I know became a vigilante for either revenge or selfish reasons such as to 'be someone'.

Your thoughts?

[Casanova[OCAU]]

'Vigilantism' is a very interesting concept and it is really contextual. It's like a double edged sword.. it can cut both ways. If there really is a breakdown of law and the authorities are not able to enfore order in any meaningful way, or if the authorities themselves are corrput and are the opprosers, then vigilantism is welcome.

However, if it is used to the whims of a selfish person or a group of people, it's productivity ends there.

[Sinister]

The liberties that one can take with others lives is often treated far too lightly. Every action has a serious chain of reactions that the good intentions do not alway rule or prevail.

A wise man once said: "Nothing in the world is so horrible that action cannot make it worse."

The same wise man said: "Your brother is your brother and his life is connected to yours. Be that it may, but should he be threatened then you are threatened."

The finality in all of this is survival. If survival(defined in this discussion as the exchange of life and or lives at risk) is at the heart of a vigilate's actions then all he must encompass in his mind is the point of view of his foe.

However, if idealism is his motivation than there is a much greater chance of great destruction and evil to result from his actions.


The question is do I approve of vigilantes. I don't want to give you some sort of conditional answer. I want to give you a yes or a no.

My answer is yes.

There has to be a check and balance no matter what possible danger that check and balance offers. It protects survival, mankinds greatest goal.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by Sinister

However, if idealism is his motivation than there is a much greater chance of great destruction and evil to result from his actions.

Do you mean any idealism in particular or idealism in general? I'm not fully sure I follow you here.

My views myself are sort of idealistic. I know what I don't like seeing. Things like dealers selling the younger kiddies ice, thugs who attack an individual as a group. These make me feel sick and it's a more recent problem around here. A few years back it was just some harmless stoners and their pot, now.....
We get all kinds of crap. Dealers of most drugs, Would be tough guys carrying knives, tools and sporting goods and cops who are never around when they're needed. They're not corrupt or anything, thank God, but they aren't the fastest cops in the station. They're a few cop cars short of a garage if you know what I mean. At least judging by their response times.

I've heard the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword". I'd respond with "A fiery resolve is mightier than villainy". I hope people will end up learning that their actions can carry mighty consequences rather than that they can get away with everything short of murder.

Here's wondering...

[Sinister]

Idealism and fanatacism can become like terms and are easliy interchangeable. It takes a very magnificent, rare type of person to be party to one and not transform into the other.

That is why Idealism should be kept non-violent. Even if it is in response to a violent event. The moment idealistic disagreements turn to violence the collateral damage mounts and innocent lives are lost. Thus vigilantism dissolves into bare undirected violence.


Let's define Idealism, so that we're clear on it:

Saying to Enron that they were thieves and liars is not untrue. Becoming a Robin Hood, hacking their banking account and funneling large portions of their money to the people they had wronged is Idealism meeting Vigilantism.

In the process, the people and the bank lose their jobs because of the website security that you destroyed. Innocent employees at Enron now are being held responsible and may suffer for your actions. Other people may be arrested for the crimes that YOU committed.


Life and systems are too complex to have such a simple vulgar solution. One well-intended action may lead to an all out war in which many people will find themselves on the dangerous end. "Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement; even the very wise cannot see all ends."

The place I live in sounds like yours, Celtic Silver.

I would support viliantism in cases like yours. I would punch the dealers in the park a row over, if I wasn't female and puny. Calling the police doesn't help much.

But for me, it throws up a moral question - if they are hurting people and you don't like it, are you any more justified to hurt them? You're doing the same thing, only claiming a moral high ground that they cannot reach. What do you think?

My above question is generally a hypothetical one, just to see what your stance is regarding behaving as the enemy does and calling it a good deed. As I have said, I support viligantism where structured protection fails. If you came and decked the guys that hang about the swingpark with bags of crystal meth, I would do nothing more than shake your hand.

[Jin]

Originally Posted by Casanova

However, if it is used to the whims of a selfish person or a group of people, it's productivity ends there.

Then it ends as soon as it begins. I don't mean to attack the Enlightenment here, actually I do, but the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Hitler's rise to power and almost any other revolution you can think of prooves that no matter what ideology people try to enforce themselves, it always ends up being used for selfish reasons. Unlike what the Enlightenment stated, people are not good by nature. By nature people are barbaric, bloodthirsty, selfish animals that prey off one another without a second thought and it is for this reason that vigilanty groups ALWAYS end up being corrupt, opposing versions of what they were intended for.

The major problem now is where does one draw the line? Just shrugging off opression makes no sense, but vigilantism always ends in the reverse, so how does one choose? There is no answer for this, unfortunately. It's just another one of the feudal struggles that make up life; just another choice one has to make. Both choices will end in the opression of someone, the only issue is whom.

[Silver]

A few things for me to think about.......

Anyway, Sinister I see what you mean about well intentioned deeds and I have seen this in cases such as the Cronulla Riots which ended in a rather racist fight between 'wax heads' and 'wogs'. While most of both crowds could definetly be considered good people, in a group both went to far to do what they thought was right. The mob view seemed to cloud the judgement of the individual. I myself, rarely go around after hours with more than a mate or two as chances are most people are at the pub or hanging out at someone's house.

Govinda, replace swingpark (none local) with skate park and you'd probably be shaking my hand a few times too many...... I know what you mean by moral ground. It is one of the main reasons I started this thread as I couldn't help but wonder at times if what I was doing was really the best action, even now, I wonder mainly due to how fast some places revert to their former state as well as the unfortunate fact that I might do a little too much damage to someone. I think many vigilantes may think about this, if they're doing things for what they feel are the right reasons. Though I do know a couple of vigilantes seeking revenge, and I've noticed they seem to get a weird pleasure from it as well as being more than a little rash in thought, as I can be considered at times.

Jintatsu, I am no leader or control freak by any means. If I could choose between feeling the need for vigilantism and just lazing around knowing everything was okay I'd choose the latter. For the record I can be very barbaric, bloodthirsty and selfish, but I always try to do what I think is right and that is what I believe seperates a true vigilante from your common thug. That said as all people have different perceptions of right and wrong, and their place between right and wrong, many if not all vigilantes could be doing the wrong thing. Is it just a measure of means compared to result? Or is it something personal to the individual, which determines the outcomes of their actions? And on top of that, I wonder, how would the way an individual was raised affect what they do in the future in terms of them turning or resorting to vigilantism.

[Jin]

Originally Posted by celtic silver

Jintatsu, I am no leader or control freak by any means. If I could choose between feeling the need for vigilantism and just lazing around knowing everything was okay I'd choose the latter. For the record I can be very barbaric, bloodthirsty and selfish, but I always try to do what I think is right and that is what I believe seperates a true vigilante from your common thug. That said as all people have different perceptions of right and wrong, and their place between right and wrong, many if not all vigilantes could be doing the wrong thing. Is it just a measure of means compared to result? Or is it something personal to the individual, which determines the outcomes of their actions? And on top of that, I wonder, how would the way an individual was raised affect what they do in the future in terms of them turning or resorting to vigilantism.

First of all, you have no idea how you'd act, given the power. You can make educated guesses, but you can never truly be sure. Power has a way of making the most dispicable thing seem acceptable if it furthers your ends. Second, no vigilanty single handedly does anything meaningful; it takes a group and that is where the corruption lies. A person may be good natured at heart, yes, but people are rotton to the core and a vigilanty group that is actually powerful enough to make a difference rarely, if ever avoids corruption.

[Silver]

Firstly, Jintatsu, I must thank you and everyone else for helping me with this, your wisdom is actually getting through to me. As for your last post, I wonder about those that wouldn't accept power even if it were thrust upon them. They may have very valid reasons, like being more than happy with their current circumstances as I am on most counts.

That's the thing, I know I wouldn't accept any real power to begin with. And I know others who would feel the same way. I can understand that most if not all of the time corruption results from power, but if power, leadership, control or whatever is rejected, than can that kind of corruption happen?

What I wonder about more now is if the constant fighting has changed me for the worse, and if it does the same to others. I actually can't seem to get by without seeing or being in a bit of a fight every so often. I wonder if it's bad for the soul, the core of your being or whatever it is you believe makes you you. I don't know if it's that I enjoy fighting or what, but I don't think I was always like I am. If that makes any sense.

Which means I should add a little to my first question. Does vigilantism result in disaster for others, the ones committing the actions or both? And can it's ends really be justified in a broader sense?

[Draken Benvolaid]

It depends on the actions of the individual, and why they they resort to vigilantism. It is like anything that has to power to alter other's lives.

"It has the power to bring either salvation or destruction at the whim of the user" -Aura.

The fallen shout loud with their lies, and the risen stay silent holding back the truth. That is not how it should be, but it is how the world is.

If the actions stop someones from being injured or killed phyisally or mentaly I believe it is worth it. The reason I fight is to protect others and try to stop little corruption I can prevent. I fight for the the untanted innicent, so they can have a normal and joy-filled life.

For instance, last Christmas, I was out shopping with my dad in a large department store, when about 5 shelves away, I see a little girl screaming while being pushed in a cart. She was crying and calling for her mother. I rushed over to see what was going on, but by the time I got there, the were out the back door, and into a car and out of the parkinglot.

I got there too late to save her. I...I began to hurt inside...

Now ask yourself, what would you do if you saw this happen and caught up with them? Would you save her or leave her to the truly fallen one?

[Silver]

I would do everything in my power to help her. With no real regrets.
Sometimes people need to get a message, and I happen to be one of those strong enough to teach them. If I die, I die. If I get injured, so be it. But I think I will always fight for what I believe to be right, until I'm not physically able. That said, I have been feeling a little fatigued as of late. And I'm beginning to make mistakes. I'm thinking I should recuperate for a while, as I believe that, if I might make a mistake fatal to someone, I shouldn't be out at all. That's just me though.

I try to make a difference for the better but I look at my methods at times and wonder if I'm the fallen one.....

I think that's why I started this thread. Due to the uncertainty. I've read everyone's views here, but I still wonder...

[Draken Benvolaid]

No. The fallen ones I refer to are the ones who act cruelly with out remorse. They steal without a just reason, lie without guilt, kill with out repentance, ect.

I guess you could say they're the ones who embody the seven sins without a second thought or regret. They try to manipulate those who's spirits weaver through any means necessary. Whether it be using false truths or hopes to confuse others or perform the actions themselves, their goals will always be the same as the other fallen ones, to control without question. They pull those in between the lines and drag many of them down with them, hoping to corrupt them, to make the others same as the them.

It happens often. Radical factions, protest groups, school districts, religious organizations, in fact, every government has done so hundreds of times. But don't get discouraged, just know what’s what, and who’s who. Know what's a lie and what's the truth.

To get back to what your question of being a fallen one or not, you are not because you have a conscience. In your decision making of whether or not to fight and your thoughts afterwards, your heart weaver, showing you had to make a decision. No one is completely a risen person, because no one is perfect. Most of us fall on the in between, some making wrong decisions down the line, but many show regret for doing so. It's the same as showing your emotions in conjunction to your actions.

The Virginia Tech thing showed that he was a fallen one; no remorse, no regret, no attempt for repentance. I think he was manipulated by what he heard in the world.

But you, no. Your within my area of the line. All that you and everyone else in the world needs to do is act on your emotions and listen to yourself more often then others, that is the true path to happiness in life.