Recently a sign for a leading ASUN presidential candidate was vandalized. And while I can’t bring myself to really care about it, I can’t seem to resist a smile cracking across my face. Don’t get me wrong, I think whoever did it should be punished, not because it is an “affront to our values of our democracy” as one commenter had it, but rather because presumably, Casey Stiteler, paid for and owned that sign.
So why is this funny? Because it’s so absurd. I mean, who cares? Who in this entire situation cares? Running for president of ASUN = lame. Painting/being the subject of a self-glorifying 8′ x 12′ sign in front of the most highly trafficked area on campus = vain. Taking the time out of your life to draw a giant penis on such a lame, vain thing = ridiculous.
Bullet point: funny, if pointless. You know, kind of like the ASUN itself without the million dollars stolen from students.
I saw this linked from John’s facebook. I had some comments.
First, I agree that whoever did it should be punished for destroying property belonging to another. Since I am the “one commentor” you quoted, I’d like to elaborate since I did not make my point clear enough on the Sagebrush. Compared to other acts of vandalism, defacing campaign signs is a greater wrong because aside from the damage inflicted on person property, it also attacks society’s attempts to organize unbiased elections.
Second, I recall meeting you for the first time in front of a giant election sign that prominently featured your name. You also worked hard with START to campaign for elected office. I think that’s commendable. Then, why are you hypocritically attacking someone for pursuing the same kind of opportunity you availed yourself to last year?
Finally, I’m disappointed you neglected to comment on the “hate crime” angle, and should like to hear your thoughts on it.
I could do a whole Dear Corinna letter on this quote alone “Compared to other acts of vandalism, defacing campaign signs is a greater wrong because aside from the damage inflicted on person property, it also attacks society’s attempts to organize unbiased elections.”
It's just sadly inept.
1. Democracy is a failure of a system.
2. The idea that a a crime can be greater because it is inflicted upon “society” in addition to an individual is plain silly (and you already know this, stay tuned).
3. This is the dumb ASUN elections we're talking about…this is about as “serious” as toilet papering the DNC headquarters.
Let's see if I can bang through the rest of this comment:
4. Really? Hypocritically attacking? Really? Opportunity? Really? You think it's commendable? Really?
5. Hate crimes are stupid, pointless categorizations that further the idea that there should be such a thing as racial identity. Hate crime legislation is as racist as those condemned to be punished for it.
6. All of the above claims are tangent to my original point: this is funny because it is absurd.
Yeah, I’m not the go-to person for the defense of democracy, but I think some form of representative government is, in general, the best way to organize a government (I’m not taking into consideration any speculative forms of government; only proven forms). I would disagree with you that it is an unqualified failure, and you need only compare the world’s democratic states to those ruled by other systems to see that democratic forms of government are superior along nearly any line of measurement you and I would agree are important.
The idea that crime (inc. property crime) causes social harm is a fundamental notion of law. If you think that’s silly… well, I invite you to come out here and sit through a few lectures. You might find some of your assumptions challenged.
Finally, ASUN elections are meaningless on a world scale. But ASUN is the first contact many students make with a functional government and as such should be taken with some degree of gravity, even if it’s only slightly above none. Plus, as you say, the budget is non-trivial.
It’s interesting how vigorously you lash out at people who support many, if not all, of your ideas. It’s almost zealousness. I hope that aspect to your approach mellows over time.
1. No government > any government. Watch my lecture on anarcho-capitalism to see why.
2. Just because democracy is a better form of government than say communism does not in anyway mean it is preferable. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
3. Law is meant to protect individuals living amongst other individuals. All laws that are based on societal well-being are wrong as they posit such a thing as “the greater good”. But there is no “good” that extends beyond people. On this point we can have a lengthy and productive discussion.
4. In response to my point above, I claim that even if we assume there is a “greater good” on which one can make an assault, I fail to see how defacing a sign with a penis — ah, heck, let's go even further and someone had written “Fuck Democratic society!” — is somehow bad for said society. Are we not allowed to disagree, vehemently and cynically so, with the status quo of our “society's” ideals?
5. ASUN is meaningless on all scales. It's a needless institution that perfectly highlights my Point Number One.
6. It's interesting how passive-aggressively you lash out at people who you feel lash out vigorously. It's almost pathetic. I hope that aspect of that approach disappears with time as it is mediocrity and compromise that creates bastardized, meaningless philosophies and weak-willed people.
1. I *prefer* government. Many people prefer government to anarchy. Most people do.
2. Democracy has its own types of evil. I am strongly in favor of minimal government so that the damage can be contained while the essential services of government continue to be provided.
3. I’m not sure how you can believe there is no “greater good.” The existence of externalities, positive and negative, has been proved over and over. Crime creates negative externalities, thus it harms society.
4. Defacing a political sign (who cares how its defaced?) creates a variety of negative externalities: it discourages entry into the public arena; it diverts resources that would have been put to a better use; it promotes further acts of vandalism. Of course people are allowed to disagree; it doesn’t require the destruction of property to do so.
5. If ASUN is meaningless on all scales, every effort you have put in towards opposing ASUN is also meaningless. Which means that you engage in meaningless acts.
6. I looked up passive-aggressive in the dictionary and Wikipedia in search of insight to your point. I fail to understand what you mean. I forthrightly described your criticism as hypocritical, and I sincerely wished that you would mellow out from your zealous attacks on people who should by all rights be your comrades. That is passive aggressive? Or are you still sore that I compared you to the hero of Castlevania?
Oh, I watched about 20 minutes of your A-II lecture. I thought it was naive, but probably did more to advance the purpose of public discourse than anything else on the UNR campus that day.
1. Qui gives a shit what you prefer. I don't care if every person in the world supported democracy, anarchy is not only viable, but necessary. Or is it that you prefer torture in the name of your safety, slavery in the name of your freedom, and murder in defence of your life?
2. So you're saying you prefer a little evil with your government? You prefer deep-fried apathy and McNuggets where your balls should be to an actual stance against all wrong-doing. Seriously, how is your argument anything more than “a convenient evil is okay, a mild injustice, justifiable”?
3a. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about what property rights should entail would never be so foolish as to suggest that there are externalities. If everything in the world were privatized (as I contend it should be) there would be no such thing as pollution because everything must be dumped in someone's backyard…
3b.The “greater good” is used by shallow people unable to do good for a person simply for the sake of doing good for that person. They're the people who hate humans while claiming to love humanity.
4. Your point here is ridiculous and undermined by the fact that the defacing of this one sign has caused more campus discussion than all the ASUN advertising for the elections has combined.
5. Yes, everything I have done in regards to the ASUN is meaningless. As is yours. We could be working our way towards cures for cancer or solving world hunger, and yet we find a pitiful distraction in a pitiful institution. It is all sad. It is all pathetic.
6. I consider myself to be not an unsmart person. I can generally grab the ebb and flow of an argument and see where it's taking me and the implications involved. But your I-don't-get-what-passive-aggressive-means-something-about-a-video-game-comrade argument gives me a serious WTF face. What the hell are you trying to say?
Listen, we're not friends. We're not comrades. I find you personally unpleasant and your point of view on political issues to be pathetically inadequate. Sure, we may agree on a few things here and there, but for drastically differing reasons, stemming from philosophies which are at base, mutually exclusive. You seek to compromise and have the patience (if it can be called that) to see gradual change. Sure, that might be laudible to some, but not to me. No one should be content with half-won victories or satisfied with such a banal status quo as what you support.
You seem to detest my radicalism, but I detest, in equal measure, your lack of fortitude. If what your ideals are really worth having, you should defend them with zeal. If your philosophy is a sound one, what does it matter how aggressively you defend it.
You seek to dim a candle flame for fear it may burn the curtains. But I say if your light is worth seeing, scorch the heavens and light the earth ablaze.
Bullet point: qui gives a shit?
Any reasonable lover of liberty should prefer incremental change over no change, regardless of his preference for revolutionary change. Yes, I seek to compromise, because in my book any relative improvement in the status of liberty is a victory for all citizens. Gradual change is more achievable than radical change.
Yes, you are smart. But you take yourself very seriously so that even a little humor sends you staggering towards the walls. What am I trying to say by calling you Simon? I’m comparing you to a fictional, zealous vampire fighter as a way of poking fun at your cartoonishly grandiose gestures.
Speaking of meaninglessness; well, if you can’t convince someone who already agrees with the majority of your philosophy to buy in to the rest of it, then what’s truly meaningless is your advocacy for anarchy. You may as well hike up to Alaska and become a hermit. Or to Transylvania to become a vampire hunter.
Oh, you got me. Your points so valid, your rhetoric so powerful, your logic so sound that I have but no other option but to be convinced your microwaveable philosophy of “liberty” is much better than mine.
Yep that settles it. Time to become a fictional, zealous vampire fighter because I am cartoonishly grandiose.
Yep, nothing to be done. All change must be of sufficient dx/dt form.
All hail to sad glory that is the pathetic “liberty” of Corinna Cohn.