From: Max M (maxm@maxmcorp.dk)
Date: Tue Dec 22 1998 - 07:29:54 MST
Comments a from Mike Lorrey and Dick Gray.
> >"I do not advocate the initiation of force to promote social or
> >political goals."
I do believe it is a fine thing to live ones life after. Furthermore I
believe that in most civilized countries it is the way things happens
allready. But in real life it is not simple as the statement implies. If
somebody comes running at you with a gun it is NOT force. It is an implied
threat of the use of force. Stil I would stop him any way possible if given
the chance.
>Notice the statement reads "to promote social or political goals". This
>doesn't in any way preclude defense of self or others from threat of
>attack.
But it is ok to use force for personal goals then? Either you use initial
force or you don't. A war fought in another country can easily be thought of
as a way to remove an implied threat. A war that might otherwise would have
been fought in your own backyard.
Or how would you define social goals?
>As the evidence shows, carrying concealed weapons has a significant
deterrent
>effect on the population as a whole, while openly carrying weapons deters
crime
>from the individual carrying. You don't need to initiate force to have an
>effect.
Carrying a weapon is an implied threat. If not, how else could you see a
mugger/carjacker ... as a threat when they havn't touched you yet? I don't
see much difference in the threat of using force and actually using it. Se
my example above of the gun carrying mugger.
Organised crime probably benefits far more from the threat of violence than
from actually violence. Carrying a concealed weapon is an implied threat, or
else it would not have a deterent effect.
>As 50 years experience showed, Mutual Assured Destruction did a fine job of
out
>blinking the potential agressors.
Well the jury is stil out on that one. Most of the bombs, or at least
enough, are still around and can be put to "good" use yet.
>> I can think of so many exceptions to this rule that it is hard to take
>> seriously. It is a good ideal though, and one that I think many of us
live by
>> whenever we can.
>Please come up with some more concrete examples of why this would not work.
The
>two you cited are obviously inadequate.
The problem is defining "force". Is it only actual force or does it include
the threat of force? If it includes only the actual use of force we would
have to wait to defence ourself until we are actually attacked. This is
clearly not yours or mine idea of intelligent behaviour.
If on the other hand it also includes the threat of force we will be on the
same slippery ground as real life politics are now.
1) If you firmly believe that someone is going to hurt you or your loved
ones you will stop them. But maybe you are wrong. Then you have initiated
force.
2) When you are trying to stop another country from attacking your country
you are initiating force against innocent civilians. This can be an evil
nessecity.
3) When you are in a police force and trying to solve a crime. You sometime
has to intiate force to bring in a suspect while solving the crime. The
suspect might be innocent, if so, then the police force is initiating the
force on behalf of you. And I do believe some kind of police force is
nessecary.
4) Somebody kills somebody you love by negligence. You want them punished.
Can you do this without initiating force? The culprit didn't do anything,
thus no intiation of force, but what he didn't do killed somebody.
5) somebody in a group of known violent offenders (Mobsters, Bikers ...)
walks into your store and tells you that you live in a dangerous
neighbourghood and they would love to protect you for a fee. You refuse.
Your shop catches fire and your wife dies in the flames. The police
investigations shows that it was a fire that somebody had set deliberately,
but they cannot show who did it.
Somebody you know about has initiated violence but you cannot proove that it
was them. How are your feelings about revenge here? is it an intialisation
or is it a retributal?
The phrase: "I do not advocate the initiation of force to promote social or
political goals." is an absolute. I don't support many theories of
absolutes. It's usually impractical rethorics and farfecthed ideals.
Real life happens in a grey zone where you can only strive to do your best.
and in that situation the above sentence is a good ideal to strive for when
possible.
Max M Rasmussen
Denmark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST