From: Michael Lorrey (mike@lorrey.com)
Date: Mon Dec 14 1998 - 16:13:33 MST
Dan Fabulich wrote:
>
> This approach is innovative, and one for which I don't have an effective
> response. My first thought would be that, by this definition, all of the
> nations of the world that aren't currently at war are operating under a
> PPF... I'm not sure what consequences this might have on the argument.
> Additionally, what if my right to protect myself is worth more to me than
> the protection a PPF can provide? Presumably, then, the PPF would have to
> pay me to leave. If so, how could a market mechanism be developed by which
> a fair price could be determined?
Not necessarily. It can pay those who wish to be able to defend themselves the
right to do so provided they also act as undercover deputized security
personnel, responsible to defend others in a criminal or other security
situation. This is essentially what is happening in states with right-to-carry
concealed weapons laws, as private citizens carrying concealed weapons act as an
implied and unknown threat against potential criminals, thus acting to deter
crime against all, and benefitting the PPF. Under the US Constitution, all
individuals between the ages of 18 and 40 are members of the militia who can be
drawn on by local law enforcement personnel as deputies to form posse's for the
purpose of fighting local crime. These are two examples of self defense in a PPF
situation.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:00 MST