From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*lib.org)
Date: Tue Jul 01 1997 - 20:58:43 MDT
As I said, I manage to entertain some doubts that the recipe you describe
is a reliable one.
Permit me to not miss the point you're actually making, regardless of the
point you think you're making:
>>The arguements as to the need for self-defense against predators in our
>>society is best answered by having professionally trained law enforcement
>>officials in each community.
>
>No doubt Marshal Petain would agree with you.
>Certainly Pol Pot would find your answer a winning one.
I seem to recall that the Vichy police and their German masters were
professionally trained, official, and present in the community.
Your point begs the question of what right behavior is if the "officials"
are the predators. Is my point now clear?
As I pointed out in another post, rough parity is needed in order for
cooperation to be a viable evolutionarily stable strategy. This does not
imply violence, merely its capability.
>I manage to entertain some doubts.
I see no reason to change my view here: it's, if anything, more open than
yours appears to be.
>Each community is different.
>Feel free to live wherever you are comfortable.
I see no reason to change this view either--it strikes me as eminently
tolerant. Feel free to explain why it's not.
>When respect for one's fellow man is strong, arms are an utter non-issue.
>Absent that respect, what remains?
No response from you on this? I rather expected more.
>Dear fellow extropians and michael,
Sarcasm! I bleed, I die! Where is my "second"?
>It seems there is always someone who chooses to miss the point.
>Possibly, it's out of a simple need to act as devils advocate.
>I somehow doubt that either Petain or Pol Pot would agree with me on most,
>if not all, political issues.
Indeed, but most is not all. Your doubt is not mine. But unilateral power
corrupts, even in the short term, and there is evidence that leaving
self-defense up to authorities is an invitation to same.
More: Perhaps you're unaware of this, but American jurisprudence is quite
clear on this point: law enforcement agencies and officers have, absent
what is called a "special relationship", *no* obligation to protect
citizens. None, zero, zip.
>It seems that they both advocated conformity of mind and action and could
>not tolerate dissent.
Worse than that: Pol Pot reputedly had people killed because they were
found to be _wearing glasses_. Intellectuals, don't you know.
>The open mind indicates open discussion and debate of all issues in order
>to increase human understanding.
I was not calling you Petain or Pol, I was saying they'd agree with you. I
was under the impression we were engaging in open debate--that there are
(at least) two parties speaking here... but perhaps it's not open debate
unless I agree with you?
>Shooting or otherwise killing someone does not get them to think.
>In fact, the reverse is true.
"Shooting or otherwise killing...?" Sorry, you just went into left field. I
didn't even mention guns in my post. Only abuse of power and your freedom
to choose to live wherever you're comfortable. And my doubts about police
being perfect guardians.
I did mention _arms_, but I might as well have said "tools", for they are
ultimately indistinguishable.
I'm concerned with helping to create a world that
a) I wouldn't mind coming back to, and
b) wouldn't mind bringing me back.
I would mind coming back to a world where a select class of armed
individuals herded human cattle around. You may now proceed to convince me
that
a) I'm wrong, and I'd *love* that kind of world, or
b) such a world (or community) can be guaranteed not to come into existence
once
>>self-defense against predators in our
>>society
is made impossible, courtesy
>>professionally trained law enforcement
>>officials in each community.
Oh, I beg your pardon, you did say "...best handled...".
Very well, I humbly retract, I agree with you totally.
MMB
PS: And dental hygiene is best handled by dentists,
because brushing and flossing are soooo ...*yucky*.
Too bad if your teeth rot out in between appointments.
BOUNCE WARNING: A simple reply to the above address will fail. If you wish
to send me a _noncommercial_ message, kindly substitute a hyphen for the
asterisk.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:32 MST