From: Mark Phillips (clay8@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jun 05 1999 - 12:12:37 MDT
(The bulk of this message is intended for everyone, not just Joe)
Thank very much, Joe, for your re-cap of my rif, and your comments. I was
typing so fast that I grammatically/logically screwed up alot of it. E.G.:
"2a" should read something to the effect that it is COUNTERINTUITIVE that
an obviously deranged, insane, psychotic (whatever...) person should not be
PROHIBITED/PROSCRIBED from obtaining/possessing/using a deadly weapon. But
Joe and most or all the rest of y'all, obviously "got" it as written anyway;
but I do apologize for the bass-ackward incoherent screw-up! And, Joe, your
added comments were right-on. THANKS again! So what's the controversy,
then? With suitable Deesian modifications and protocols, I would seem
nonetheless to side with Mike, Brian, and, if I've understood his
contributions correctly, Mark Unicorn (though sometimes his stuff seemed a
bit inconsistent--BUT that may well have been my own
MISreading/MISinterpretation due to reading to damn fast and cursorily)
(same goes for Billy Brown's stuff on guns, etc.) The point is, surely
competent persons (adults--but I'd say even 18-yr. olds and maybe even take
it down to, say, 16 or even 15---this is admittedly yet another
"gray"/problematic (sub)area) have a (natural, not merely "conventional")
RIGHT to, as it were, pack heat, if they damn well desire to do so. I
happen, interestingly enough, to NOT (yet, anyway) own a firearm--yet I'm
nonetheless a strong supporter of a rather robust (interpretation of the)
2nd Amendment.
It's a conservative/libertarian cliche--and yet TRUE: If guns are outlawed,
only outlaws (and Der STAT) will have guns--and then heaven help us! (And
I'm NOT at all a conservative, by the way---I vacillate between (a slightly
"leftist") anarcho-capitalist and libertarian anarcho-communist!)
But if we culturally and (meta)jurisprudentially emphasize and concentrate
on ***DEFENSE***, then I think the prospects are pretty good that we can
(eventually) have (evolved) as a standard (i.e., "default")
macro-environmental protocol the kind of macro-level u-fog (or whatever)
"active shield" (of a sort) that is programmed to disallow the initiation of
AGGRESSION against another person or their "property" (I use scare-quotes
just now because I don't want, at this time, to take up (jump into) the
whole "rif" raff (as is were!!) on property, property rights, copyrights,
etc., which, admittedly, needs alot of work/clarification/elucidation).
This is, of course, presuming that we SURVIVE and flourish, instead of
getting snuffed out on the way to nano-Eutopia.
Also, one should note that the above alluded-to macro-level active shield
protocol could certainly be modified/turned(temporarily)-off so as to allow
for people into "Medieval-Times-for-REAL" (so to speak) and/or some sort of
"ULTIMATE-Ultimate-Fighting-Challenge" or "Conan-the Barbarian-for-REAL"
(you get the point), can punch, kick, choke, stab, chop, garrotte, and shoot
the hell outta each other (presumably to be "put back together again" by
advanced nanotech). (Ettinger briefly discusses something very similar in
his book, MAN INTO SUPERMAN, as many or most of you are probably familiar
with.)
One last bibliographic rif: If you haven't already, please check out
Richard Epstein's stuff (especially TAKINGS, SIMPLE RULES FOR A COMPLEX
SOCIETY, and PRINCIPLES OF A FREE SOCIETY) **and** Randy Barnett's great
new work, THE STRUCTURE OF LIBERTY. As I'm sure Tom (Morrow, that is) would
agree, these are very good works to start with to kick off one's own
ruminations on (meta)jurisprudence and (meta) political philosophy. (And,
of course, it's also good to check out Hayek, Lon Fuller, Roscoe Pound, and
Oliver W. Holmes too, just as further background). Also, for
moral-psychological background to social philosophy in general, I highly
recommend Loren Lomasky's PERSONS, RIGHTS, AND THE MORAL COMMUNITY, and the
(LAMENTABLY!!!) late David L. Norton's magnificent masterpiece, PERSONAL
DESTINIES: A PHILOSOPHY OF ETHICAL INDIVIDUALISM.
Best regards always to one and all,
MCP Beyond Eutopia--Toward (Meta)Cosmic Horizons!!
P.S. I'm NOT trying to keep the "gun-thing", so to speak, going, much less
bash the hell out of a comatose equus, but if any do feel that the
position(s) taken herein is(are) somehow flawed/dangerous/stupid or
whatever, then PLEASE, please, send me your thoughts/critiques---this is
serious stuff, because the meta-level principles involved are also involved
in nano-weapons issues, ruminations, etc., so it does help to dialogue on
this stuff, I think. (But no "flamewar" diatribes, please!)
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:00 MST