• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle





  • It kind of depends on the facts and your jurisdiction. With the button, maybe? With a death note book, almost certainly not.

    When proving the elements of attempted murder (or any non-statutory crime), the state has to prove both “mens rea” and “actus rea” (that you intended to do the thing and that you tried to do the thing), but when you’re being charged for something “attempted” you have the defense of “impossibility,” when the actions you are trying to take couldn’t have possibly worked.

    Now, that doesn’t cover cases where you were only wrong in point of fact. For instance, buying fake drugs from a cop. But it does cover instances like using a voodoo doll.

    There’s more detail on all the above in the illustrated guide to law, which is a pretty solid resource for stuff like this. Here are the relevant sections:

    Actus Rea Explanation: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=261

    Attempted Crimes: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=344

    Impossibly Defense: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=416







  • Ideally through the civic channels that exist to accomplish change. Run for office. Campaign for reform. Pass the BAR and join a firm that does pro-bono work fighting for important issues.

    But if all that fails, there is certainly a point where the people need to rise up and overthrow an unjust government.

    But what I’m arguing is never justified is violence against other citizens just because they benefit from the unjust system. If the system is unjust, fix the system, don’t lash out at those who just benefit from it.


  • I think my issue is less with the idea that property is protected with violence.

    The point of the original comic though was that one is justified in using violence to take from the rich because they only have/maintain their property with violence.

    But if all property is maintained by violence, am I not then justified in taking any property I see fit? If so, is it free reign to take the property of those whose ability to protect it with violence is minimal? Am I justified in stealing from children or the disabled, since they are protecting their property with the threat of violence?

    The fact of the matter is that none of us want to live in that world, so we give over that threat of violence to the state. The state holds a monopoly on violence and notionally uses it to meet out it’s use in an equitable and just way.

    When the state is bad at that, that can be reason to work towards the restructure of the state, but it’s never a reason (imo) to simply violate the law.


  • testfactor@lemmy.worldtoComics@lemmy.mlThe Three Little Pigs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, I think you’re hugely discounting psychological barriers, if nothing else. Most people are decent and wouldn’t steal the blanket, even if they wanted it.

    Ownership of things is a pretty intrinsic part of human existence, and humans are deeply social creatures. There are a lot of non-physical aspects that influence people’s concept of ownership.



  • testfactor@lemmy.worldtoComics@lemmy.mlThe Three Little Pigs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    All property is gained and maintained through violence?

    Does this mean any property, or just land ownership?

    Is there a value threshold below which it becomes immoral to take someone’s property from them?

    I see this position bandied about sometimes, and I’m always curious what people actually think it means.




  • I wouldn’t let every VM have an interface into your management network, regardless of how you implement this. Your management network should be segregated with the ability to route to all the other VLANs with an appropriate firewall setup that only allows “related/established” connections back into it.

    As for your services, having them on separate VLANs is fine, but it seems like you would benefit from having a reverse proxy to forward things to the appropriate VLAN, to reduce your management overhead.

    But in general, having multiple interfaces per VM is fine. There shouldn’t be any performance hit or anything. But remember that if you have a compromised VM, it’ll be on any networks you give it an interface in, so minimizing that is key for security purposes. Ideally it would live in a VLAN that only has Internet access and/or direct access to your reverse proxy.