Zero Battery State

[Kannap]

do I get to charge my phone battery?

zero batteries. Come on, it's in the bloody title.

[Infected Mushroom]

Such a button would do a lot of good. No more assault, domestic violence limited, murder becomes far rarer. But yet, I narrowly find myself not pushing this button for 3 reasons; lack of exceptions, susceptibility to law, and lack of jury nullification.

In this world, no child is going to make it to age 5 without at least one stint in the slammer. Good samaritans will be punished for trying to help in the wrong ways (like, say, when trying to do the Heimlich manoeuvre, which would technically be battery but may save your life). Professional wrestlers become a thing of the past, as will all martial arts. Random, harmless spats will suddenly turn into life-changing events.
And even if we did start to talk about exceptions (of which of course war is an exception, you Putin-apologist, but we'll put a pin in that), we're soon going be asking uncomfortable discussions which I strongly suspect would have unjust results. Police for example must be allowed a certain degree of leniency (their job would be impossible without it, and they would still be necessary in this world), but would protesters be allowed the same luxury? Could police get away with brutalising demonstrations knowing that if any of them dare resist they'd be teleported away? What about in self-defence- specifically pre-emptively so? A person who points a gun at me isn't committing battery, but if I don't punch them I'm not going to bed tonight.

And then there is war, which you specifically carve out as an exception, making this button 50% less appealing. But what does that mean? Would a war have to be formally declared to get the exemption? And what about in civil war- this button could potentially be an automatic win button for every government in every civil war, and I am not so sure that's a good idea. Sometimes the rebels are in the right, but uprisings would be utterly impossible in this world.

Then there's point 2, the susceptibility to law. Vladimir Putin legalised domestic violence in Russia- so does that mean that when a Russian man beats his wife, nothing will happen? Meanwhile right across the border a Finnish man would disappear for many years. What about FMG? This world either a giant violation of national sovereignty (which I'm all for, but am not reassured this would be a desirable universal standard) or would allow the creation of places of concentrated, legalised horror.

Last of all is the complete lack jury nullification. This is a concept in common law where a jury can decide that even though the defendant committed the crime, they should not be punished for it. It's not some obscure fiction either- last year a prominent Black Lives Matter protester was spared a prison sentence via jury nullification in the US. In practice, we exercise it in our daily lives all the time- everyone knows at least one person who takes illegal drugs, but we don't report them to the cops do we? We didn't have our uni housemates arrested for theft because they drank our last soda bottle. Sometimes it is just not worth the hassle- other times the crime is entirely justified. But this would not be the case here. Every infraction that can be classed as battery makes a person disappear, no matter how minor or justified it was. And, frankly, some people deserve a slap every once in a while.

So no, I wouldn't. This button is incompatible with the existence of free people.

Jury nullification is a two-sided sword really. What’s to stop its use in a racist way? In a misandrist way? In a politically biased way? If there’s a law against battery and someone gets charged (as they should where there’s no complete defense), play down the years with legitimate mitigating factors when assessing damages and years (up up a reasonable and measured extent). Jury nullification is too great a power. It’s not consistent to say “they are guilty but we as jury refuse to convict.”

The System’s exact workings would vary on where the person commits the said offense. It’s not a force of cultural homogenization. It’s not here to say “Hey Indonesia you’re going it wrong.” “Hey New York State you should do it like California.” It’s not here to make these judgements. It’s here to charge and convict with accuracy, taking into account all statutes and common law factors and calculate the objective proper outcome (minus procedural laws relating to the inefficiency of a courtroom).

For something like wrestling and recreational sports, I’m sure there are common law factors and if not, then maybe those sports shouldn’t exist.

Protestors are allowed absolutely no leeway unless the law carved out special exceptions. They only get away with as much as they do now in many places (starting fights, smashing shops etc) because the government is worried about escalation and/ or doesn’t have the manpower present to round and sort it out. This system will greatly help with law and order in that regard. In the vast majority of cases, the protestors are the aggressors. They can’t win with the vote/formal process so they group up and destroy/unsettle things, hoping the state hesitates/is unable to react and to force their way across. Where the police responds, it will also be governed by The System to the extent reasonable force is allowed in the jurisdiction. Again, if the laws are unworkable, the state can always change/update/clarify the laws and The System would update. It’s a work in progress but in the whole at a great starting point.

As for children beating on each other, the System shall act as a major deterrent against bullying. Of course, the juvenile statuses will be taken into consideration in the calculations.

The whole thing is worth it alone just to free up a huge chunk of the bloated court system to focus on other crimes once the System can tackle the entire domain of battery.

---

If I get punched in the face and pummeled, I’d very much like the System to quickly and accurately penalize the said party. I wouldn’t want to wait months/years through this inefficient court process, hire lawyers to pursue civil damages, have to go through testifying (and being trolled on cross examinations), seeing through boring procedures only to get something down the road that may not be objectively fair. And this entire process enriching the lawyer class.

The System round benefit me and I certainly have zero intentions to physically assault anyone so I could only benefit. And most like most/all posters on the forum too would win.

[Infected Mushroom]

I think the idea is that your rights under the law are waived. The results are factually perfect but the process wouldn’t be a “proper courtroom.”

So the correct number of years/fines is reached that would be reached in a lengthy but correctly run courtroom.

Then the hypothetical is useless. We invented the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty because we saw what societies without it were like.

Why start in the dark (presuming if someone is guilty or innocent and then work it out imperfectly) when we can instead immediately shine a light and KNOW guilt or innocence?

If I have the tech and can just open the gift and know what’s inside (and it’s important/vital even to know let’s say)… there’s no real reason at that point to say “well that’s not really fair. We have to keep the box closed, follow the old tradition, presume what’s inside first and work it out step by step to estimate what’s inside and then work from there.”

[Huron League]

Man, if I pressed the button I’d feel powerless

[Infected Mushroom]

Man, if I pressed the button I’d feel powerless

You should feel greatly empowered because now you can walk around and there’s basically an invisible sign on you that says “You. Cannot. Hit. Me. Without. Being. Convicted.”

Before pressing it, people could beat you up and hope your follow some social norm to “man up” or not report it. Even if you reported it, maybe you’re ignored, maybe the authorities tell you to get over it. Maybe it goes to trial and you win (after months and years) and get little to nothing, they get little to nothing. Or maybe they with good lawyers. Oh, and some overpaid bully in a suit gets to troll you for entire days to undermine your credibility.

But we get to skip all that now.

[Hispida]

Man, if I pressed the button I’d feel powerless

You should feel greatly empowered because now you can walk around and there’s basically an invisible sign on you that says “You. Cannot. Hit. Me. Without. Being. Convicted.”

fuck that noise. some people deserve to be hit.

[Infected Mushroom]

You should feel greatly empowered because now you can walk around and there’s basically an invisible sign on you that says “You. Cannot. Hit. Me. Without. Being. Convicted.”

fuck that noise. some people deserve to be hit.

There are only a few complete defenses to battery, just as self-defense.

[Hispida]

fuck that noise. some people deserve to be hit.

There are only a few complete defenses to battery, just as self-defense.

there's nothing morally wrong with punching a nazi. or a pedophile. i'm not gonna complain if the scum of the earth get their shit kicked in.

[Ifreann]

Such a button would do a lot of good. No more assault, domestic violence limited, murder becomes far rarer. But yet, I narrowly find myself not pushing this button for 3 reasons; lack of exceptions, susceptibility to law, and lack of jury nullification.

In this world, no child is going to make it to age 5 without at least one stint in the slammer. Good samaritans will be punished for trying to help in the wrong ways (like, say, when trying to do the Heimlich manoeuvre, which would technically be battery but may save your life). Professional wrestlers become a thing of the past, as will all martial arts. Random, harmless spats will suddenly turn into life-changing events.
And even if we did start to talk about exceptions (of which of course war is an exception, you Putin-apologist, but we'll put a pin in that), we're soon going be asking uncomfortable discussions which I strongly suspect would have unjust results. Police for example must be allowed a certain degree of leniency (their job would be impossible without it, and they would still be necessary in this world), but would protesters be allowed the same luxury? Could police get away with brutalising demonstrations knowing that if any of them dare resist they'd be teleported away? What about in self-defence- specifically pre-emptively so? A person who points a gun at me isn't committing battery, but if I don't punch them I'm not going to bed tonight.

And then there is war, which you specifically carve out as an exception, making this button 50% less appealing. But what does that mean? Would a war have to be formally declared to get the exemption? And what about in civil war- this button could potentially be an automatic win button for every government in every civil war, and I am not so sure that's a good idea. Sometimes the rebels are in the right, but uprisings would be utterly impossible in this world.

Then there's point 2, the susceptibility to law. Vladimir Putin legalised domestic violence in Russia- so does that mean that when a Russian man beats his wife, nothing will happen? Meanwhile right across the border a Finnish man would disappear for many years. What about FMG? This world either a giant violation of national sovereignty (which I'm all for, but am not reassured this would be a desirable universal standard) or would allow the creation of places of concentrated, legalised horror.

Last of all is the complete lack jury nullification. This is a concept in common law where a jury can decide that even though the defendant committed the crime, they should not be punished for it. It's not some obscure fiction either- last year a prominent Black Lives Matter protester was spared a prison sentence via jury nullification in the US. In practice, we exercise it in our daily lives all the time- everyone knows at least one person who takes illegal drugs, but we don't report them to the cops do we? We didn't have our uni housemates arrested for theft because they drank our last soda bottle. Sometimes it is just not worth the hassle- other times the crime is entirely justified. But this would not be the case here. Every infraction that can be classed as battery makes a person disappear, no matter how minor or justified it was. And, frankly, some people deserve a slap every once in a while.

So no, I wouldn't. This button is incompatible with the existence of free people.

Jury nullification is a two-sided sword really. What’s to stop its use in a racist way? In a misandrist way? In a politically biased way? If there’s a law against battery and someone gets charged (as they should where there’s no complete defense), play down the years with legitimate mitigating factors when assessing damages and years (up up a reasonable and measured extent). Jury nullification is too great a power. It’s not consistent to say “they are guilty but we as jury refuse to convict.”

The System’s exact workings would vary on where the person commits the said offense. It’s not a force of cultural homogenization. It’s not here to say “Hey Indonesia you’re going it wrong.” “Hey New York State you should do it like California.” It’s not here to make these judgements. It’s here to charge and convict with accuracy, taking into account all statutes and common law factors and calculate the objective proper outcome (minus procedural laws relating to the inefficiency of a courtroom).

For something like wrestling and recreational sports, I’m sure there are common law factors and if not, then maybe those sports shouldn’t exist.

Protestors are allowed absolutely no leeway unless the law carved out special exceptions. They only get away with as much as they do now in many places (starting fights, smashing shops etc) because the government is worried about escalation and/ or doesn’t have the manpower present to round and sort it out. This system will greatly help with law and order in that regard. In the vast majority of cases, the protestors are the aggressors. They can’t win with the vote/formal process so they group up and destroy/unsettle things, hoping the state hesitates/is unable to react and to force their way across. Where the police responds, it will also be governed by The System to the extent reasonable force is allowed in the jurisdiction. Again, if the laws are unworkable, the state can always change/update/clarify the laws and The System would update. It’s a work in progress but in the whole at a great starting point.

As for children beating on each other, the System shall act as a major deterrent against bullying. Of course, the juvenile statuses will be taken into consideration in the calculations.

The whole thing is worth it alone just to free up a huge chunk of the bloated court system to focus on other crimes once the System can tackle the entire domain of battery.

---

If I get punched in the face and pummeled, I’d very much like the System to quickly and accurately penalize the said party. I wouldn’t want to wait months/years through this inefficient court process, hire lawyers to pursue civil damages, have to go through testifying (and being trolled on cross examinations), seeing through boring procedures only to get something down the road that may not be objectively fair. And this entire process enriching the lawyer class.

The System round benefit me and I certainly have zero intentions to physically assault anyone so I could only benefit. And most like most/all posters on the forum too would win.

Of course you dream of a world where the government can literally disappear anyone they want at any time.

[Infected Mushroom]

Jury nullification is a two-sided sword really. What’s to stop its use in a racist way? In a misandrist way? In a politically biased way? If there’s a law against battery and someone gets charged (as they should where there’s no complete defense), play down the years with legitimate mitigating factors when assessing damages and years (up up a reasonable and measured extent). Jury nullification is too great a power. It’s not consistent to say “they are guilty but we as jury refuse to convict.”

The System’s exact workings would vary on where the person commits the said offense. It’s not a force of cultural homogenization. It’s not here to say “Hey Indonesia you’re going it wrong.” “Hey New York State you should do it like California.” It’s not here to make these judgements. It’s here to charge and convict with accuracy, taking into account all statutes and common law factors and calculate the objective proper outcome (minus procedural laws relating to the inefficiency of a courtroom).

For something like wrestling and recreational sports, I’m sure there are common law factors and if not, then maybe those sports shouldn’t exist.

Protestors are allowed absolutely no leeway unless the law carved out special exceptions. They only get away with as much as they do now in many places (starting fights, smashing shops etc) because the government is worried about escalation and/ or doesn’t have the manpower present to round and sort it out. This system will greatly help with law and order in that regard. In the vast majority of cases, the protestors are the aggressors. They can’t win with the vote/formal process so they group up and destroy/unsettle things, hoping the state hesitates/is unable to react and to force their way across. Where the police responds, it will also be governed by The System to the extent reasonable force is allowed in the jurisdiction. Again, if the laws are unworkable, the state can always change/update/clarify the laws and The System would update. It’s a work in progress but in the whole at a great starting point.

As for children beating on each other, the System shall act as a major deterrent against bullying. Of course, the juvenile statuses will be taken into consideration in the calculations.

The whole thing is worth it alone just to free up a huge chunk of the bloated court system to focus on other crimes once the System can tackle the entire domain of battery.

---

If I get punched in the face and pummeled, I’d very much like the System to quickly and accurately penalize the said party. I wouldn’t want to wait months/years through this inefficient court process, hire lawyers to pursue civil damages, have to go through testifying (and being trolled on cross examinations), seeing through boring procedures only to get something down the road that may not be objectively fair. And this entire process enriching the lawyer class.

The System round benefit me and I certainly have zero intentions to physically assault anyone so I could only benefit. And most like most/all posters on the forum too would win.

Of course you dream of a world where the government can literally disappear anyone they want at any time.

The public policy objective of the Zero Battery State is the elimination/deterrence of the tort and crime of battery. This is what it aims to do.

[Eahland]

Law untempered by justice or mercy is a horrific thing.

And that's even before taking into consideration that you're allowing governments to define the conditions that get someone disappeared. Even before taking into account malicious actors deliberately exploiting that... you realize that you've set up a system where for much of American history, a white man could whip a black man to death without consequence, and it would be literally impossible for the black man to resist?

And once the malicious actors dip their oar in... looking forward to the laws defining "battery" as "giving aid and comfort to transgender persons".

Not that I'd trust it any more if you wrote the definition of "battery". One of my hobbies involves hitting my friends with rattan sticks, a whole hell of a lot harder than that little play-slap Will Smith gave Chris Rock. We have armor, but still, bruises are par for the course. I do not at all trust that a definition written by someone so obsessed with blind legalism that he would not throw a switch to literally save a life if it were against the rules would not get me disappeared first fighter practice.

And all because a multi-millionaire slapped another multi-millionaire for making fun of his wife's medical condition.

I'm pretty sure you've spent more time obsessing over this than the guy who actually got slapped.

[Infected Mushroom]

Not that I'd trust it any more if you wrote the definition of "battery". One of my hobbies involves hitting my friends with rattan sticks, a whole hell of a lot harder than that little play-slap Will Smith gave Chris Rock. We have armor, but still, bruises are par for the course.

So you beat people up with sticks for fun? And that’s supposed to be a valid counter argument?

If you and your friends consented to the exercise, then up a certain degree of injury the common law in some places would recognize it as an exception to actionable battery.

[Free Algerstonia]

id press the button. nothing will happen because other dimensions do not actually exist, so this button is meaningless

[Saint Kanye]

id press the button. nothing will happen because other dimensions do not actually exist, so this button is meaningless

What if other dimensions do exist, we're just in one in which they don't?

[Adamede]

do I get to charge my phone battery?

zero batteries. Come on, it's in the bloody title.

So gotta have it constantly hooked up to the hamster wheel?

[Kannap]

zero batteries. Come on, it's in the bloody title.

So gotta have it constantly hooked up to the hamster wheel?

works for the forums

[Infected Mushroom]

I really like how the thread is going. A lot of posters are interacting with the premise and setting forth their own well-articulated positions. The thread has managed to engage a lot of critical thinking.

[Chan Island]

Such a button would do a lot of good. No more assault, domestic violence limited, murder becomes far rarer. But yet, I narrowly find myself not pushing this button for 3 reasons; lack of exceptions, susceptibility to law, and lack of jury nullification.

In this world, no child is going to make it to age 5 without at least one stint in the slammer. Good samaritans will be punished for trying to help in the wrong ways (like, say, when trying to do the Heimlich manoeuvre, which would technically be battery but may save your life). Professional wrestlers become a thing of the past, as will all martial arts. Random, harmless spats will suddenly turn into life-changing events.
And even if we did start to talk about exceptions (of which of course war is an exception, you Putin-apologist, but we'll put a pin in that), we're soon going be asking uncomfortable discussions which I strongly suspect would have unjust results. Police for example must be allowed a certain degree of leniency (their job would be impossible without it, and they would still be necessary in this world), but would protesters be allowed the same luxury? Could police get away with brutalising demonstrations knowing that if any of them dare resist they'd be teleported away? What about in self-defence- specifically pre-emptively so? A person who points a gun at me isn't committing battery, but if I don't punch them I'm not going to bed tonight.

And then there is war, which you specifically carve out as an exception, making this button 50% less appealing. But what does that mean? Would a war have to be formally declared to get the exemption? And what about in civil war- this button could potentially be an automatic win button for every government in every civil war, and I am not so sure that's a good idea. Sometimes the rebels are in the right, but uprisings would be utterly impossible in this world.

Then there's point 2, the susceptibility to law. Vladimir Putin legalised domestic violence in Russia- so does that mean that when a Russian man beats his wife, nothing will happen? Meanwhile right across the border a Finnish man would disappear for many years. What about FMG? This world either a giant violation of national sovereignty (which I'm all for, but am not reassured this would be a desirable universal standard) or would allow the creation of places of concentrated, legalised horror.

Last of all is the complete lack jury nullification. This is a concept in common law where a jury can decide that even though the defendant committed the crime, they should not be punished for it. It's not some obscure fiction either- last year a prominent Black Lives Matter protester was spared a prison sentence via jury nullification in the US. In practice, we exercise it in our daily lives all the time- everyone knows at least one person who takes illegal drugs, but we don't report them to the cops do we? We didn't have our uni housemates arrested for theft because they drank our last soda bottle. Sometimes it is just not worth the hassle- other times the crime is entirely justified. But this would not be the case here. Every infraction that can be classed as battery makes a person disappear, no matter how minor or justified it was. And, frankly, some people deserve a slap every once in a while.

So no, I wouldn't. This button is incompatible with the existence of free people.

Jury nullification is a two-sided sword really. What’s to stop its use in a racist way? In a misandrist way? In a politically biased way? If there’s a law against battery and someone gets charged (as they should where there’s no complete defense), play down the years with legitimate mitigating factors when assessing damages and years (up up a reasonable and measured extent). Jury nullification is too great a power. It’s not consistent to say “they are guilty but we as jury refuse to convict.”

The System’s exact workings would vary on where the person commits the said offense. It’s not a force of cultural homogenization. It’s not here to say “Hey Indonesia you’re going it wrong.” “Hey New York State you should do it like California.” It’s not here to make these judgements. It’s here to charge and convict with accuracy, taking into account all statutes and common law factors and calculate the objective proper outcome (minus procedural laws relating to the inefficiency of a courtroom).

For something like wrestling and recreational sports, I’m sure there are common law factors and if not, then maybe those sports shouldn’t exist.

Protestors are allowed absolutely no leeway unless the law carved out special exceptions. They only get away with as much as they do now in many places (starting fights, smashing shops etc) because the government is worried about escalation and/ or doesn’t have the manpower present to round and sort it out. This system will greatly help with law and order in that regard. In the vast majority of cases, the protestors are the aggressors. They can’t win with the vote/formal process so they group up and destroy/unsettle things, hoping the state hesitates/is unable to react and to force their way across. Where the police responds, it will also be governed by The System to the extent reasonable force is allowed in the jurisdiction. Again, if the laws are unworkable, the state can always change/update/clarify the laws and The System would update. It’s a work in progress but in the whole at a great starting point.

As for children beating on each other, the System shall act as a major deterrent against bullying. Of course, the juvenile statuses will be taken into consideration in the calculations.

The whole thing is worth it alone just to free up a huge chunk of the bloated court system to focus on other crimes once the System can tackle the entire domain of battery.

---

If I get punched in the face and pummeled, I’d very much like the System to quickly and accurately penalize the said party. I wouldn’t want to wait months/years through this inefficient court process, hire lawyers to pursue civil damages, have to go through testifying (and being trolled on cross examinations), seeing through boring procedures only to get something down the road that may not be objectively fair. And this entire process enriching the lawyer class.

The System round benefit me and I certainly have zero intentions to physically assault anyone so I could only benefit. And most like most/all posters on the forum too would win.

Before, this was a narrow decision. You've just made it overwhelmingly clear that pressing this button would make the world a worse place.

Jury Nullification is a double edged sword... as are all freedoms that can be granted to a people. Alcohol can destroy lives, free speech can destabilise a political system, free assembly allows everyone to organise, whether for good or for ill. If there were no risks, nobody would want to restrict them. Ditto here. And I agree that it's not consistent- but that's the point. Laws have to be allied with mercy, humanity and respect for the circumstances for them to be truly just, otherwise they are just a straight jacket. Occasionally breaking the law is the right thing to do, and a law code that does not allow for those exceptions to exist is a lawcode incompatible with a free society.

This susceptibility to laws will ensure the existence of pro-battery states. Imagine, say, the government of Monaco or Fiji legalising torturing people if you are a foreign millionaire. Right now, we universally condemn sadistic behaviour like that to illegality because those influential people who want to enact such sick fantasies can hide their acts. But if every act of battery always leads to disappearances in accordance to the law, then there will be places where the law will change- and that is not something I want to see.

Condemning the entire sphere of human knowledge around fighting to the past in fear of the disappearance button is an appalling prospect. There is a lot of value, even if just cultural enrichment and mental health (of which there is a BIG positive impact), in the existence of martial arts, sword fighting, boxing, wrestling etc.

You been in a kindergarten? Sure, the bullying would drop off but you're also going to see every 4 year old child disappear or wonder why little Jenny just disappeared, and whether they can go play with her again if they hit someone. A society built from a people that all experienced prison before their 5th birthdays is not going to be a healthy one, that's for sure.

Of course you support protestors being disappeared, of course. And that will automatically make me virulently against it. Like it not, governments are not always correct nor always deserve to stay in power- the existence of violence as a method by which to keep them in check is critical as an absolute last resort. In the world of this button, we would very quickly find governments becoming totalitarian, kleptocratic and exploitative with absolutely zero recourse to get them. They might write that speaking out against them is legally battery- and poof, eternal dictatorship with no hope for the future, no light at the end of this tunnel.

And thanks to that war exception, we would see the United States (as the strongest military power) declare war on each bit of the world until it conquers all. Insurgency impossible, since that is considered battery, secession unthinkable. Nuclear war would be absolutely worth the risk for an award as large as this button would allow- a totalitarian, one-world government, untouchable, for all eternity. NO THANKS. DESTROY THIS BUTTON IMMEDIATELY.

[Ifreann]

Of course you dream of a world where the government can literally disappear anyone they want at any time.

The public policy objective of the Zero Battery State is the elimination/deterrence of the tort and crime of battery. This is what it aims to do.

Governments can rewrite laws to define anything as battery.

[Infected Mushroom]

The public policy objective of the Zero Battery State is the elimination/deterrence of the tort and crime of battery. This is what it aims to do.

Governments can rewrite laws to define anything as battery.

Not to any greater extent then they can already do now.

If you don’t trust the law-making institutions of the state, it’s simply a problem that carries over. The same institutional, social and cultural checks remain.

[Ifreann]

Governments can rewrite laws to define anything as battery.

Not to any greater extent then they can already do now.

If you don’t trust the law-making institutions of the state, it’s simply a problem that carries over. The same institutional, social and cultural checks remain.

But now there is some magical power which will instantly imprison people who do anything which the law defines as battery. No trial, no possibility of resistance, no possibility of escape. A government could define battery as the crime of being Jewish and then poof, instant genocide.

[Chan Island]

Not to any greater extent then they can already do now.

If you don’t trust the law-making institutions of the state, it’s simply a problem that carries over. The same institutional, social and cultural checks remain.

But now there is some magical power which will instantly imprison people who do anything which the law defines as battery. No trial, no possibility of resistance, no possibility of escape. A government could define battery as the crime of being Jewish and then poof, instant genocide.

And because of the war exception, a government will eventually be able to conquer the world with no insurgency issues and have such a law in force for the entire world. Want to define battery as being Chinese? Poof, all of them gone.

[Huron League]

Man, if I pressed the button I’d feel powerless

You should feel greatly empowered because now you can walk around and there’s basically an invisible sign on you that says “You. Cannot. Hit. Me. Without. Being. Convicted.”

Before pressing it, people could beat you up and hope your follow some social norm to “man up” or not report it. Even if you reported it, maybe you’re ignored, maybe the authorities tell you to get over it. Maybe it goes to trial and you win (after months and years) and get little to nothing, they get little to nothing. Or maybe they with good lawyers. Oh, and some overpaid bully in a suit gets to troll you for entire days to undermine your credibility.

But we get to skip all that now.

That was attempt at a dad joke lol, but I could see the allure of the button, yet I think that it is sliiiightly overreaching it’s boundaries.

[The Holy Therns]

Man, if I pressed the button I’d feel powerless

You should feel greatly empowered because now you can walk around and there’s basically an invisible sign on you that says “You. Cannot. Hit. Me. Without. Being. Convicted.”

Before pressing it, people could beat you up and hope your follow some social norm to “man up” or not report it. Even if you reported it, maybe you’re ignored, maybe the authorities tell you to get over it. Maybe it goes to trial and you win (after months and years) and get little to nothing, they get little to nothing. Or maybe they with good lawyers. Oh, and some overpaid bully in a suit gets to troll you for entire days to undermine your credibility.

But we get to skip all that now.

This isn't empowering. This is scary.

[The Blaatschapen]

Wait, so this button means that I can't beat up people and get away with it?


But that's my whole job! How will I then earn money.

I'm a battery ram.