Sam Bankman-Fried living on bread and water because jail won't abide vegan diet, lawyer says
Sam Bankman-Fried living on bread and water because jail won't abide vegan diet, lawyer says
The co-founder of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX pleaded not guilty to a seven count indictment charging him with wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering.
The co-founder of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX pleaded not guilty to a seven count indictment charging him with wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering.
An attorney for FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried said in federal court Tuesday his client has to subsist on bread, water and peanut butter because the jail he's in isn't accommodating his vegan diet.
You're viewing part of a thread.
laws don't stop people who want to do bad things. if vigilantism were normalized, mores would form around it, and there would be no need for laws or government.
that's far off. we need to liberate people from the material conditions that keep them in bondage to the capitalist class before we can start figuring out what the world will look like after teh revolution. in the mean time, i still don't think it does us any good to pay to jail these people.
Vigilantism is no better than a criminal justice system. You still have rules that you must follow, and punishment for those who break the rules. Vigilantes could even lock someone in a cage if they felt like it.
So I don't see why you prefer subjecting someone to the whims of vigilante mob than to much more predictable criminal processing. If anything, vigilantes have embraced racism and class preferences far more openly than our legal system.
And laws do stop people from doing bad things. That's why lynching suddenly became less common after it was outlawed.
vigilantes don't have a monopoly on violence and a labyrinthine bureaucracy preventing policy change
A monopoly on violence is usually a good thing. The alternative is war, either on a local level (gang wars) or national (civil war). Wars are generally to be avoided.
And policy change may be hard, but changing the attitudes of a mob is much harder. We passed laws against racism in the 1960s, we still haven't eliminated racist mobs.
A monopoly on violence is usually a good thing. The alternative is war
that's a false dichotomy
Well, at least one alternative is war. Which I prefer to avoid, even if it requires a monopoly on violence.
And I will always prefer one group threatening violence to rule-breakers to multiple groups threatening violence to rule-breakers. Especially since multiple sets of rules are more likely to be contradictory.