The victim has been maltreated, inadequately responded to. Bearing the title of victim implies the need or demand for reparation, making adequate. So, the victim, implicitly, is one with need and demand.
Need is demand. Demand can only ever be met with by supply. Supply always has cost. Thus, the victim is the one, implicitly, who demands, who needs, and so who must pay.
“No, no! You have it all wrong! It is the offender who must pay.” I understand the response. But the response misses the cost of making the offender pay. He who bears that cost will not do so sacrificially, at least not normally. He will look for “fair” trade.
What are the motivation of those who invite us to victimhood status? I do not deny that there are real cases of victimhood, only that it there are costs that come with meeting the need, and those selling the supply for that needs will get payment.
It would be something to learn that just as advertisers have in so many ways sold so many things through marketing and framing just so that victimhood had also been successfully sold.
Who would want to increase demand for the satisfaction of the demand for justice? That is a powerful demand, and the use of the power to coerce is maybe never stronger because never more justified than when the cry for reparation for wrong goes out.
What does the victim purchase in the purchase of victimhood status? Alienation from condition. The victim is he who is not at fault, who may point and blame. The victim is he who feels that his condition would not be his if it weren’t for whoever has been purchased as the offender.
And what kind of purchase is made? It is most often the vote or loyalty and swell of numbers who will look the other way when vengeance is taken on whomever has been made the offender. He who purchases purchases excuse and passing the buck. He who takes vengeance on behalf of the victim most wants the victim to not cry foul when he attacks he who the victim and vengeance taker have decided to make the offender.
I of course do not deny that there are real offenders and real victims. I do assert that the trade among those who trade in victimhood and vengeance taker may or may not take those positions legitimately. They are sweet and good feeling roles. The one gets to pass the buck and point fingers. The other gets to slay evil. What is not to like?
Do those accepting victimhood status know that they will be asked to pay? Those who provide the service of reparation will only do so for trade. Who is he who comes in shining armor, with power, with judgment, with the properly balanced scale of justice, with the authority to say “Thus is right and good and balanced”. Who is he who guides the victims eyes to the offender, who directs anger, who fertilizes and grows anger and rage? How did his motives end up looking so glossy clean? How did he find himself able both to wield such power and to overcome the temptations of its misuse? Or, are his motives pure? Are there other reasons he seeks to expand the status of victim, hurt, in need of supply? Is this the creation of a market where the demand for supply only grows and so the profit for the supplier looks all the more bountiful?
The Puritanical Libertarian recommends wariness toward the spreading the gospel of victimhood, who claims to come with clarity about “us” and “them”. The Puritanical Libertarian sees most often that he has been the victim of himself and knows not how to untie that knot. But it is enough to work on without falling prey to the victimhood gospel which seems to always portray the victim as an innocent lamb and the offender as wolf. Being both lamb and wolf is more complicated…but more honest.
Finally, real victims are the ones who will ultimately be undone. The trade in fake victimhood and unwarranted vengeance will only ruin the market for real victims by muddying the waters and reducing the probability that anyone encounters the real victim given he is fewer in a pool of maybe victims.