In a message dated 5/27/99 2:02:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
martinanso@xtra.co.nz writes:
<< This may be a weak argument, but to me there seems to be little
extropian value in enslaving oneself to a gun. Making a gun one's first
defense to any threat, imagined or otherwise, is hardly developing
yourself as a human. Non-violence, while less spectacular and seemingly
slower to get results, is (in my opinion) always to be preferred to a
violent approach. >>
I much prefer non-violence. I would bet that everyone on this list prefers
it, also. I would also bet that the maroity of humans prefer it.
But the fact at issue here is not non-violence vs. violence (or violence as "
one's first defense to any threat, imagined or otherwise" ), but whether or
not individuals ought to be allowed to own guns.
The problem with banning guns is, ultimately, that one's life is one's
responsibility to support and defend. Just as one ought to be free to make
*protect* that life. And so long as there exists a threat of a forceful
attack on oneself, it is quite prudent to have the means to protect your
life.
A completely centralized protection agency (like police) is inefficient in
the same way for the same reasons as a completely centralized economic
planner. The problem of information ( Who needs protection? How do I choose
amongst competing claims? ) ultimately makes centralization fail (among other
reasons).
Finally, besides personal responsibility and central inefficiency, I think
that thinking that one can legislate virtue in a populace is incorrect. A
society emerges from a group of people, and a virtuous society emerges from a
group of virtuous citizens. Its a "bottom-up" phenomenon, not a "top-down"
Well, I hope I've added something constructive here.
William
PS- What are some good "top-down" phenomena? That is, what are some systems
that work well in a "top-down" way?