BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

The Breeding Exam - what would you put on it?

  
  

Page: 1 ... 56789(10)1112

 
 
Lurid Archive
14:21 / 24.04.03
You keep going on about a moral "good", leap, when it is at best only marginally relevant to the practice of policing. The police and justice system are institutions that serve purposes which are determined by government and ultimately the electorate. Systems of checks, balances and accountability serve to keep them honest. This is in part aided by the separation of the role of enactor and supervisor -actually, this is murky and is often an area of criticism of police complaints procedure.

Your argument

But what keeps the "guards" good? Is it innate moral superiority, or is it that they are in turn watched over by "the people", and if so why are the people not able to do the police's job anyway?

doesn't hold up. The "people" aren't doing the police of the job - the police are. The "people" are, at best, expressing levels of (dis)satisfaction electorally and through public demonstration. However, there remains a good deal of disagreement over what should and should not be law, for instance.
 
 
Leap
14:22 / 24.04.03
Quantum -

The police ARE people. To reverse your argument, if we are good enough to be police then police are good enough to be police.

If we are, in the main, able to take on the polices role, we do not need a formal police force. The presence of such a force in such a situation would seem both reminiscent of the pigs from animal farm (strangely enough!) and an un-necessary imposition upon us.

If they need watching, we need watching, if they don't, we don't. I believe we do need watching so they need watching, which is why there is an internal affairs department in the police force. They watch each other is the short answer (which is what you would have everyone do)

So you are saying the police watch "internal affairs" and "internal affairs" watch the police. Why do we need to institutionalise this situation (bringing to mind a certain Bishop Occam's shaving tool....)
 
 
The Natural Way
14:23 / 24.04.03
Just another reminder for Leap that Haus HAS tackled loads of his stuff on page 7. The most lengthly point by point response he's had so far. So Leap if you'd kindly can the "if you'd kindly address my questions" stuff.
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:30 / 24.04.03
If we are, in the main, able to take on the polices role, we do not need a formal police force

This is a non sequitur. Anyone can join the police, which is a institution that enforces laws. This does not imply that the institution is not required. The institution may not be required, of course, but you can't use the fact that the people who join are not part of an institution to deduce that the institution serves no purpose.
 
 
Leap
14:33 / 24.04.03
Kit Kat –

I realise we mostly disagree, but I do thank you for not slipping into the childishness that appears so readily in here at the hands of others.

i. Who here believes that in order to make people behave 'well' we must be 'policed' in some way by a specialist body (police force, Inland revenue, welfare system)?

I believe that we need a policing system, but not to make people 'behave well'; rather we need them to ensure that the laws of the land are kept. These laws are enacted and maintained by precendent in the courts (preferably through trial by jury), and by the representative body of the nation, i.e. Parliament. Salus populi, suprema lex. The laws of the land are not unalterable, and should in fact be flexible to keep up with changing circumstances, but the right to have recourse to them is, or should be, inalienable.

They do remain largely a matter of morality though (law and order, welfare state provision).

ii. Are these people a moral elite (who themselves do not need policing) or are they subject to the policing of "the people" (ie: the rest of us)?

The people who enforce the law are not an elite and are themselves subject to the laws of the land. In ensuring that the laws of the land are kept, they enact the will of the people as expressed through the representative body of the nation.

Okay I can see what you mean here.

iiib. If they are not a moral elite, but are essentially the same as us, why do we need them rather than being able to act 'well' ourselves without being 'policed'?

Because individuals cannot be relied upon to put the interest of the nation as a body above their personal interest. We may behave well or badly, as we choose, within the laws of the land, but in order to maintain the government of the nation policing is necessary. It is not a question of moral government but of civil government.

What keeps the police in line though? THEY are putting the interests “of the nation as a body above their personal interest” are they not? If they are “of the people”, rather than a moral elite, yet do not need policing, then it follows that we do not need it (as a rule) as well. If they are policed, as quantum suggests, by another body, why can we not simply live as that (instead of relying an over-structure (funded by OUR taxes))?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:53 / 24.04.03
They do remain largely a matter of morality though (law and order, welfare state provision).

I'd argue that civil and criminal law is less about morality in terms of 'good versus bad' than it is about protection - of lives, liberties, and property. Welfare provision is probably best thought of as property - part of the property of the body of the nation, if you will - which is why cheating the welfare system is regarded as an offence, I think.

What keeps the police in line though? THEY are putting the interests “of the nation as a body above their personal interest” are they not? If they are “of the people”, rather than a moral elite, yet do not need policing, then it follows that we do not need it (as a rule) as well. If they are policed, as quantum suggests, by another body, why can we not simply live as that (instead of relying an over-structure (funded by OUR taxes))?

Well, funded by their taxes too! As members of the body politic, it is in the interest of the police, as private subjects, to maintain the laws of the land. It is in their interests as public servants because it's their job. It is in the interests of the body of the nation to devote a part of the property of the nation (derived from taxation) to maintaining civil order.

I can agree with you that, if your system were to be established, policing of local communities would be all that was necessary (as vagrants would move out of your local jurisdiction as soon as they left community boundaries); it would be wildly inconsistent, I suspect, across communities, but I doubt that would bother you! But in any system which transcends the local, some kind of over-arching policing system seems to me to be necessary.
 
 
Leap
15:03 / 24.04.03
But are they a necessary expence (in terms of both money and liberty/responsibility)? Or are they un-necessary; being an example of what common people are largely capable of in and of themselves without recourse to an institution that both costs tax money and which imposes a state of supervision upon us that is at least mildly patronising.
 
 
Jub
15:11 / 24.04.03
Leap - specifically which parts of the state's policing do you think could feasibly be done away with?
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:13 / 24.04.03
Is a police force necessary? Yes, if you want to have a system of laws that attempt to be consistently enforced. You want them enforced locally, as far as I can see, which isn't such a bad idea. But you want policing to be funded privately, which is.

A small scale privately funded policing organisation is much more vulnerable to influence.

Then again, perhaps you don't want any kind of policing at all. What you are after is lynch mob justice. Notorious for its even handedness and consideration.
 
 
Quantum
15:15 / 24.04.03
To take a slightly different tack, consider in America where criminals run from one state to another to evade the police (or one country to another in Europe). In Leapworld the communities are very small, have little communication and little infrastructure. The FBI and Interpol arose to combat this, and the same goes for a local level. Nomadic criminals can escape local justice.
This is why you need police with more powers than citizens- because criminals are citizens too, and should have less power than police.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
15:26 / 24.04.03
Sorry about the delay - blasted computer crashed in the middle of my deathless thoughts...

But are they a necessary expence (in terms of both money and liberty/responsibility)? Or are they un-necessary; being an example of what common people are largely capable of in and of themselves without recourse to an institution that both costs tax money and which imposes a state of supervision upon us that is at least mildly patronising.

Given that I regard the police as enacting the will of the polity as expressed through the representative body of the nation, I can scarcely regard that enactment as patronising, can I? Also, I don't regard the existence of police as a resignation of liberties or responsibilities: I regard it as a delegation of responsibilities by the body of the nation in order to guarantee the liberties of the body of the nation.

I think it is necessary to expend taxes on this, because basically the existence of the police as an institution governed by the laws of the land removes (or should remove) the possibility of individual interest, corruption or prejudice affecting the process of the enactment of the law. If the laws are enacted by individuals acting in their own interest there is actually a greater chance of abuses passing undetected (indeed, who would detect them at all?) than there is if they are enacted by a public body.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:30 / 24.04.03
Well, it's compentence, isn't it? A farmer is trained to be competent in growing crops, a shoemaker is competent in making shoes. So, a policeman is, logically, trusted to police, by which presumably we mean attempt to ensure that the means by which peopel pursue their self interest is not excessive, by which we in turn mean violating the social contract.

Of course, with EDUCATION, everybody would be able to police themselves, because we would all have perfect knowledge of right and wrong and always act correctly (as I have mentioned before, this position comes from Plato), so there would be no need for policing - any aberrant factors could be disposed of by discriminating use of shotguns. Free Tony Martin, anyone?

Leap, in answer to your question, we tend to discuss ethical questions in a far more directional way in the Head Shop, but to be honest by now if you had conducted yourself as you have in this thread you would probably either have been moderated or the thread moved into the Conversation, as this one was when it wandered off the topic and became diffuse.
 
 
Leap
15:36 / 24.04.03
Jub -

For starters a role they claim to fill but are highly ineffective at; crime prevention. They are in no way able to stop you from being mugged, raped, assaulted, murdered, burgled - the most effecive means of doing so is personal armament (like I said, predators target the weak).

Secondly the role of welfare state; which is currently one that is largely indiscriminate (both in terms of how much they take off me (bordering on the edge of what I can afford to have taken from me whilst still housing myself and my family) and interms of who recieves it (rewarding the feckless (those who REFUSE to work or who use children as a meal ticket), supporting 'law and order' in the face of layoffs by businesses who care for little beyond the bottom line, and creating and maintaining a national transport infrasructure that is primarily a means of enabling big-business to price out small local businesses by either undercutting their prices (through big-business buying en masse and shipping through the infrastructure) or supporting weaker stores wih stronger one).

And that is off the top of my head

Lurid -

Is a police force necessary? Yes, if you want to have a system of laws that attempt to be consistently enforced. You want them enforced locally, as far as I can see, which isn't such a bad idea. But you want policing to be funded privately, which is.

No, I want personal armament (answerable to the whole community if given an accusation of reclessness) and personal charity.

Then again, perhaps you don't want any kind of policing at all. What you are after is lynch mob justice. Notorious for its even handedness and consideration.

Why are the people from whom the police spring more likely to resort to this?

Quantum -

Nomadic criminals can escape local justice.

This is only a big problem in a society that leaves their prey largely disarmed. When their prey is armed they very often do not get the chance to run away And lets face it, have you checked out the detection stats in THIS country?!!

Kit Kat –

Given that I regard the police as enacting the will of the polity as expressed through the representative body of the nation, I can scarcely regard that enactment as patronising, can I?

By taking away a role that you can do yourself, taking away your personal and direct responsibility to yourself and your community whilst claiming that you cannot do it but they can; they are being patronising, and I do wonder why you do not see it as such. Would you consider that they are conning you with a bit of an “emperors new clothes” argument?

Also, I don't regard the existence of police as a resignation of liberties or responsibilities: I regard it as a delegation of responsibilities by the body of the nation in order to guarantee the liberties of the body of the nation.

But is it necessary to do so, or is it wasteful to do so (and ultimately less effective (as I said they are a detection force not a protection one).

I think it is necessary to expend taxes on this, because basically the existence of the police as an institution governed by the laws of the land removes (or should remove) the possibility of individual interest, corruption or prejudice affecting the process of the enactment of the law. If the laws are enacted by individuals acting in their own interest there is actually a greater chance of abuses passing undetected (indeed, who would detect them at all?) than there is if they are enacted by a public body.

Why are the police more capable of resisting corruption (!!!!) than the rest of us regular folks (unless of course you do not believe that the police are part of us “just regular folks” but are instead a moral elite who are our “betters”?!

Haus –

Well, it's competence, isn't it? A farmer is trained to be competent in growing crops, a shoemaker is competent in making shoes. So, a policeman is, logically, trusted to police, by which presumably we mean attempt to ensure that the means by which people pursue their self interest is not excessive, by which we in turn mean violating the social contract.

Why do you assume a farmer of cobbler is unable to adequately recognise right from wrong, and unable to adequately defend the former from the latter?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
16:14 / 24.04.03
By taking away a role that you can do yourself, taking away your personal and direct responsibility to yourself and your community whilst claiming that you cannot do it but they can; they are being patronising, and I do wonder why you do not see it as such. Would you consider that they are conning you with a bit of an “emperors new clothes” argument?

I don't regard policing as a role that has been taken away from me, nor do I regard the existence of a police force as taking away my responsibilities to myself or my community. I do not regard myself as competent to deal with situations relating to law and order, or as an arbiter in such situations. As a member of the body politic I have, through the representative body of Parliament, delegated the enactment of laws to the police, because I regard them as the appropriate and competent body to deal with them. What is patronising about that?

If I chose, I could study to become competent in policing or in law as a profession, and so could anyone else; but that is my choice to exercise.

But is it necessary to do so, or is it wasteful to do so (and ultimately less effective (as I said they are a detection force not a protection one).

It depends whether you regard the enactment of laws as a process which takes place before or after the fact. There are, of course, problems with both of these, and one of those is that if the enactment takes place after the fact of the crime, the crime has still taken place. I, personally, still prefer that to a more preventive model as I can't see how this would work - I have visions of all the problems associated with 'stop and search' being exacerbated and perpetuated. I consider that it is better, and less of an infringement on the liberties of the body of the nation, to tackle crime only when it can be proved to have taken place, or can be proved to be taking place.

I think it is necessary to use a police force to do this for the reasons I outlined in my last paragraph:

I think it is necessary to expend taxes on this, because basically the existence of the police as an institution governed by the laws of the land removes (or should remove) the possibility of individual interest, corruption or prejudice affecting the process of the enactment of the law. If the laws are enacted by individuals acting in their own interest there is actually a greater chance of abuses passing undetected (indeed, who would detect them at all?) than there is if they are enacted by a public body.

Why are the police more capable of resisting corruption (!!!!) than the rest of us regular folks (unless of course you do not believe that the police are part of us “just regular folks” but are instead a moral elite who are our “betters”?!

The police as individuals are obviously just as vulnerable to corruption as the rest of us. But my argument was that, because the police exists as an institution, it is answerable to the body of the nation and can be held accountable for its actions in a way that private individuals could not be, and that that should be a check against corruption and private interest. And again, I don't think it's about imposing a moral system but about ensuring the civil government of the nation according to the laws of the land.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:20 / 24.04.03
wow. You really are talking about a lynch mob. Which is so forensic in its application of justice that it doesn't allow "criminals" to run away.

Why are the police more capable of resisting corruption (!!!!) than the rest of us regular folks (unless of course you do not believe that the police are part of us “just regular folks” but are instead a moral elite who are our “betters”?!

Because they are scrutinsed? They have paper work and accountability and due process. In your ideal world, anyone with a gun can exact "justice" using a personal firearm ensuring that the "criminal" - not suspect, mind - does not escape. But I forgot. In leapworld no one could ever countenance abusing their powers. Decisions are always right and fair, and people always act for the purest motives except for the feckless minority who will be starved to death and shot on sight if they complain. This is becoming increasingly ridiculous.
 
 
Leap
16:56 / 24.04.03
Kit kat –

I don't regard policing as a role that has been taken away from me

You do not regard it as your direct and personal responsibility to see that you are a responsible member of your community nor do you see it as your direct and personal responsibility to act against those who are not (most notably in matters of self-defence and the defence of your family and property), but instead delegate this role to a specialist body?!!!

Do you not consider this (and I do not mean this in a nasty or provocative way) a little ‘sheep’like; a little ‘childish’ (in the sense of running to ‘mummy’ rather than taking direct responsibility for, and dealing with, things yourself)?!!!

As a member of the body politic I have, through the representative body of Parliament, delegated the enactment of laws to the police, because I regard them as the appropriate and competent body to deal with them. What is patronising about that?

But then even in such a role you are responsible for choosing those who will create laws; and as such show yourself capable of choosing such laws yourself do you not?

If I chose, I could study to become competent in policing or in law as a profession, and so could anyone else; but that is my choice to exercise.

Do you think recognising good and bad, and responding to such in an appropriate direct way actually require professional specialism rather than being a general capability across the majority of humankind?!

I consider that it is better, and less of an infringement on the liberties of the body of the nation, to tackle crime only when it can be proved to have taken place, or can be proved to be taking place.

So you find it better to be a victim than a vigilante? I am genuinely shocked. So long as people think like that do you not think that it is a case of “open season” for (note: ‘for’, and not ‘on’ criminals?!

The police as individuals are obviously just as vulnerable to corruption as the rest of us. But my argument was that, because the police exists as an institution, it is answerable to the body of the nation and can be held accountable for its actions in a way that private individuals could not be, and that that should be a check against corruption and private interest. And again, I don't think it's about imposing a moral system but about ensuring the civil government of the nation according to the laws of the land.

i. So is it better to have a Global unified police force or a national one?

ii. Why is an institution more accountable (to the body politic) than an individual is accountable to their community?

iii. What are “the laws of the land” if not a demarcation of appropriate/required and inappropriate/banned behaviour; a “moral system”?


Lurid –

They have paper work and accountability and due process.

And so, logically speaking, anyone that does not have this is UNTRUSTWORTHY?! My god; Bureaucracy as a moral grounding?!!!!!!
 
 
MJ-12
17:14 / 24.04.03
So you find it better to be a victim than a vigilante?

Well, I find that there is nothing in my home worth shooting someone over. But you may have a cooler stereo than I do.

The question of whether the police perform a crime prevention role effectively can only be assessed in comparison to the crime rates in areas which have no police presence, and in my limited experience of police removing themselves from an area, things get ugly very quickly indeed. Granted that those have been in situations which were already very charged, and did burn themselves out within a few hours, but they did not pump me full of confidence in my fellow man's better nature.

Also, if there is any restriction on an armed general citizenry, why do you suppose that at any given level of permitted armament, the genuinely predatory criminals will not be better armed than the general citizens?
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:33 / 24.04.03
Do you not consider this (and I do not mean this in a nasty or provocative way) a little ‘sheep’like; a little ‘childish’ (in the sense of running to ‘mummy’ rather than taking direct responsibility for, and dealing with, things yourself)?!!!

There are many necessary functions in our society, that are both important and specialised. Are you seriously contending that you consider anyone who doesn't carry out all of these functions for themselves "childish" and "sheeplike"? You seem incapable of imagining human society as cooperative, which is just as well, since it renders you incapable of bringing about any of the nightgmare scenarios that you consider utopian.

They have paper work and accountability and due process.

And so, logically speaking, anyone that does not have this is UNTRUSTWORTHY?! My god; Bureaucracy as a moral grounding?!!!!!!

You are almost touchingly naive. Let me try to get this straight for you. Some people, other than the feckless who you think you should killed, sometimes do *bad* things. I can see that you probably will not accept this is the case, so I suggest you read a newspaper. You may, if you want, label anyone who has ever done anything morally questionable as "immoral". I'd suggest that there would be few people left over.

OK. So it tends to be best to have some accountability in place, especially in roles involving power - like deciding life or death at the point of a gun.

Your insistence that people are "good" or "bad" and so should either be completely trusted or not - to shoot someone on sight, for example - is laughable.

Conflicts of interest? Unintentional crimes? Impartial process? Irrelevant in leapworld because the "good" people can be trusted.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
17:35 / 24.04.03
You do not regard it as your direct and personal responsibility to see that you are a responsible member of your community nor do you see it as your direct and personal responsibility to act against those who are not (most notably in matters of self-defence and the defence of your family and property), but instead delegate this role to a specialist body?!!!

I do see it as my direct and personal responsibility to be a responsible member of my community, yes. I also believe that I have a right to act in my self-defence insofar as that lies within the law - for example, by carrying a rape alarm or by installing alarm systems on my property. I do not consider that it is either my right or my responsibility to take it upon myself to enact what I consider to be justice on other people. I do consider that I have a right of recourse to the law in cases where I have suffered an injury, and I believe that that process of recourse should be conducted under the auspices of an independent system of arbitration which ensures that all parties have as fair a hearing as possible. I believe that, if I injure someone else, they have the same right of recourse to the law. I believe that the administration of the law is best conducted by a specialist body with the competence to arbitrate the process in the appropriate way.

Do you not consider this (and I do not mean this in a nasty or provocative way) a little ‘sheep’like; a little ‘childish’ (in the sense of running to ‘mummy’ rather than taking direct responsibility for, and dealing with, things yourself)?!!!

Not in the slightest. I consider it the best way to ensure that the administration of the law is not skewed by the personal interests or prejudices of any participant, including myself.

But then even in such a role you are responsible for choosing those who will create laws; and as such show yourself capable of choosing such laws yourself do you not?

Yes; but I do not believe that my personal interest and prejudices should be inflicted upon other people without their agreement; and that is why it is important that laws are enacted by a representative body: it is a check which ensures that the will of the majority of the body politic is exercised (in theory at least...) rather than that of a single person.

Do you think recognising good and bad, and responding to such in an appropriate direct way actually require professional specialism rather than being a general capability across the majority of humankind?!

Of course I do not think that one needs specialist knowledge to recognise good and bad; but as I've already said, I beleive that the administration of the law is a process of civil rather than moral government, and as such decisions of 'good/bad' or 'right/wrong' are irrelevant: the appropriate distinction is 'lawful/unlawful' and that, I think, does require specialist knowledge.

So you find it better to be a victim than a vigilante? I am genuinely shocked. So long as people think like that do you not think that it is a case of “open season” for (note: ‘for’, and not ‘on’ criminals?!

As I've said above, I think it's perfectly appropriate to take all legal steps to protect oneself. I do not think it is appropriate to attempt to prevent crime by methods which are not lawful - such as intimidation, preventing crime by another crime, etc. I don't think that that indicates an open season for criminals.

i. So is it better to have a Global unified police force or a national one?

If one is attempting to exercise global law, then it should be enacted through a police force representing the global body which passed that law. If one is attempting to exercise national law, then it should be enacted through a police force representing the national body which passed that law.

ii. Why is an institution more accountable (to the body politic) than an individual is accountable to their community?

This is a bit of a red herring, I think. I am arguing that, where laws have bearing on an area which is broader than the basic unit of community (e.g. in your system the parish or its equivalent), institutions are more appropriate than individuals as units through which to enact the laws because they can be answerable and accountable to the representative body which enacted those laws. If, as in your model, the only unit of government is the local community, which has no jursidiction whatsoever outside its boundaries, it is perfectly feasible that individuals could be sufficiently accountable to the community.

iii. What are “the laws of the land” if not a demarcation of appropriate/required and inappropriate/banned behaviour; a “moral system”?

I consider, as I said elsewhere, that they are not a moral system so much as a set of means by which we protect our lives, liberties, and properties. I think that that is the basis of the system. I agree that morality does have an effect on laws, but it is not the fundamental point of them; and as such, it is perfectly possible to exercise the law without using a moral compass.
 
 
Leap
18:28 / 24.04.03
Kit kat –

I do not believe that my personal interest and prejudices should be inflicted upon other people without their agreement; and that is why it is important that laws are enacted by a representative body: it is a check which ensures that the will of the majority of the body politic is exercised (in theory at least...) rather than that of a single person.

Is there a difference between you doing that and a ‘majority’ doing that (I assume you are at least somewhat familiar with the “tyranny of the majority” arguments)?

decisions of 'good/bad' or 'right/wrong' are irrelevant: the appropriate distinction is 'lawful/unlawful' and that, I think, does require specialist knowledge.

But do you not think that lawful/unlawful is itself not a system of good/bad?

I don't think that that indicates an open season for criminals.

You do not think that a criminal will always choose an unarmed victim over an armed one?

If one is attempting to exercise global law, then it should be enacted through a police force representing the global body which passed that law. If one is attempting to exercise national law, then it should be enacted through a police force representing the national body which passed that law.

But if a national police force is better than personal action accountable to a community, does it not follow that a global police force is better than a national one (being even more ‘central’ in its perspective)?

I am arguing that, where laws have bearing on an area which is broader than the basic unit of community (e.g. in your system the parish or its equivalent), institutions are more appropriate than individuals as units through which to enact the laws because they can be answerable and accountable to the representative body which enacted those laws.

Whilst I am arguing that as it is we who are deemed able to create the govt that the police answers to, as well as the police themselves, we do not need to create them as we are obviously trustworthy enough to act on our own volition (and answer to our community when accused of being reckless behaviour). Cutting out un-necessary middlemen.

I agree that morality does have an effect on laws, but it is not the fundamental point of them; and as such, it is perfectly possible to exercise the law without using a moral compass.

By representing our values the law is inescapably a moral/immoral ‘thing’.
 
 
Leap
18:55 / 24.04.03
MJ-12 –

Well, I find that there is nothing in my home worth shooting someone over

You? Your wife/husband? Your children? Your aged grandparents? Your hard earned money without which your family will go hungry? Your sense of security and thus your ability (and that of your family) to sleep at night?

Also, if there is any restriction on an armed general citizenry, why do you suppose that at any given level of permitted armament, the genuinely predatory criminals will not be better armed than the general citizens?

One bullet is generally enough.

Lurid –

You seem incapable of imagining human society as cooperative, which is just as well, since it renders you incapable of bringing about any of the nightmare scenarios that you consider utopian.

Ah, right…..so one moment What you are after is lynch mob justice whilst the next You seem incapable of imagining human society as cooperative .

Please make your mind up Lurid.

No, I consider some responsibilities to be something you cannot delegate (although you can SHARE them). The right/responsibility to self-defence (including defence of family / home and property) is one of these. It is something we are capable of, and well placed to enact.

Your insistence that people are "good" or "bad" and so should either be completely trusted or not - to shoot someone on sight, for example - is laughable.

A gun is an option, an “empty holster” is a lack of an option.
 
 
MJ-12
19:07 / 24.04.03
If I had children in the house, that seems like a more compelling reason not to have firearms, as they do seem to be able to get into all sorts of places.

One bullet is generally enough.

Two or more attackers, the remaining ones being increadibly pissed that I've kneecapped their bud?

At any rate, the question victim or vigilante, presents a number of excluded middles, not the least of which is to maintain a police force.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
19:09 / 24.04.03
Is there a difference between you doing that and a ‘majority’ doing that (I assume you are at least somewhat familiar with the “tyranny of the majority” arguments)?

Yes. If I do it I am exercising my (single) will in an arbitrary way; this is not the case with a majority of a representative body. (The type of representative body is important, I think - some bodies are more representative than others! - but a discussion of that would be better elsewhere). I am aware of the tyranny of the majority argument, of course, but I still believe that this system is preferable to others. I assume that in your communities there would also be disagreements, which would be resolved by some form of majority decision? If not, how would they be resolved?

But do you not think that lawful/unlawful is itself not a system of good/bad?

Not really: I can lawfully plant a huge leylandii hedge which casts my neighbour's garden into shadow (but it's not necessarily 'good'); I cannot lawfully possess cannabis (but it's not necessarily 'bad').

You do not think that a criminal will always choose an unarmed victim over an armed one?

I don't think this is relevant. Regulation of weapons possession doesn't mean open season for criminals. As someone has pointed out, if possession of weapons is legalised, criminals are simply likely to acquire bigger and better ones - and it will be easier for them to do so.

But if a national police force is better than personal action accountable to a community, does it not follow that a global police force is better than a national one (being even more ‘central’ in its perspective)?

A national police force is better when laws enacted by a national body are being applied on a national scale. A global police force is better when laws enacted by a global body are being applied on a global scale. A community policing system is likely to work better when laws agreed by a community are being applied within that community (how could a national force function if there was no national government?). I don't think we're arguing really here: it's just that you think community government is desirable and I don't.

Whilst I am arguing that as it is we who are deemed able to create the govt that the police answers to, as well as the police themselves, we do not need to create them as we are obviously trustworthy enough to act on our own volition (and answer to our community when accused of being reckless behaviour). Cutting out un-necessary middlemen.

No, because we are acting as private individuals in your scenario, rather than exercising the will of the representative body of the nation - there is no guarantee that your personal action is taken according to that will, and there is no recourse to independent arbitration of the process.

By representing our values the law is inescapably a moral/immoral ‘thing’.

I agree that some aspects of the creation of laws may be governed by moral judgements, but the administration of that law cannot be affected by moral judgements. We do not ask 'is he a good man or a bad man' or 'did he do a bad thing or a good thing', we ask 'did he or did he not commit a crime'.

I am now going to the pub.
 
 
Ganesh
19:13 / 24.04.03
We seem to be getting into Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good now. It's all fitting beautifully into my growing appreciation of LeapWorld, as originally conceived by Gary Gygax.
 
 
Leap
19:50 / 24.04.03
MJ-12 –

If I had children in the house, that seems like a more compelling reason not to have firearms, as they do seem to be able to get into all sorts of places.

That is why they should be locked away when not in your immediate possession [the guns not the kids! ]…….

Two or more attackers, the remaining ones being incredibly pissed that I've kneecapped their bud?

Excuse me, but if they were going to attack you in the first place, in a group, I respectfully suggest that they were intending to move beyond ‘harsh language’ themselves…………

Also this is a reason why I generally would advocate a ‘melee’ weapon as well as a ‘projectile’ one.

Of course you could always just go unarmed and make attack all the more likely……….

Kit Kat –

this is not the case with a majority of a representative body.

A majority can trample over you just as well as an individual; indeed I would fear a mob over a man.

I assume that in your communities there would also be disagreements, which would be resolved by some form of majority decision? If not, how would they be resolved?

Firstly as a matter of personal choice.
Secondly as a matter of personal agreement between the parties involved.
Thirdly by consensus of democratic assembly of the whole community.

I cannot lawfully possess cannabis (but it's not necessarily 'bad').

Some would say that that is because it IS ‘bad’…………

As someone has pointed out, if possession of weapons is legalised, criminals are simply likely to acquire bigger and better ones - and it will be easier for them to do so.

Criminals already do this (with you being unarmed and they being armed). The addition of a firearm on your part would even that out (they may go for ‘bigger guns’ but that would not ever make as big a ‘gap’ as the chasm between an armed crim and an unarmed victim!

I don't think we're arguing really here: it's just that you think community government is desirable and I don't.

To be accurate I advocate a majority of SELF-govt and a minority of local democratic govt.

we are acting as private individuals in your scenario, rather than exercising the will of the representative body of the nation - there is no guarantee that your personal action is taken according to that will, and there is no recourse to independent arbitration of the process.

If a govt is made up of such individuals why is that govt needed in the first place – is it not a superfluous level of management?

I agree that some aspects of the creation of laws may be governed by moral judgements, but the administration of that law cannot be affected by moral judgements. We do not ask 'is he a good man or a bad man' or 'did he do a bad thing or a good thing', we ask 'did he or did he not commit a crime'

Choosing to administer the law, and standing by it, is a moral judgement.


I am now going to the pub.

Because you choose to, or the govt says you can?

Ganesh –

Go and play Baldur’s Gate for god sake
 
 
MJ-12
20:48 / 24.04.03
Excuse me, but if they were going to attack you in the first place, in a group, I respectfully suggest that they were intending to move beyond ‘harsh language’ themselves…………

There is a world of difference between getting my ass kicked and being beaten to death. The introduction of firearms to a situation instantly raises the stakes from unpleasant to life threatening.

Of course you could always just go unarmed and make attack all the more likely………

Having been grabbed from behind before with a knife put into my ear, I can tell you that it would not have mattered if I'd had a knife, a handgun, or +1 magic nunchucks, I was in no position to draw it, much less use it. A criminal is not going to meet you in the middle of the street and say "draw, Pilgrim!" They are going to open your head up and after taking your wallet, they'll take your gun along with it. Unless you choose to draw and cover every stranger you see coming, increasing the level of armament you're carrying is going to make very little difference. This is equally the case in your advice to Kit-Kat that carrying a gun will "even things out."
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:17 / 24.04.03
Please make your mind up Lurid.

Yeah, sorry. I wasn't really thinking of a lynch mob as a cooperative entity, but given that it is the only time you really approve of people working together I guess that isn't fair.

Also, I keep forgetting that you see the might is right arguments as universal in their expression of dignity and so forth. I couldn't disagree more, but then I tend to think that cooperation doesn't demean, that society can have positive values and that a wholesale rejection of technology, health and education wouldn't really be that good a thing.

Also - though I hate to spoil this by actually having real examples - there have been times and places where government was small and people have taken defence and justice in their own hands. I've heard many a story from family in the south of Italy where the community was better known as the Mafia. Never saw any crime when the Mafia was around, because they were all natural and far from childish. Perhaps the wildwest would be a better example - mind you, that was probably far too organised for leap.

I note that the only crimes are ones that are dealt with by use of guns. Admittedly, if we are to have no infrastructure, no national companies, roads and so forth then this becomes a bit easier. But still, there are non-violent disputes over land, for instance. Dealt with by gun slinging? Because if you had a court, that would make them morally superior? Which is a bad thing and should be left to the individual. With a gun.
 
 
Rev. Orr
21:25 / 24.04.03
I've been busy for a couple of days covering extra shifts at work and I come back to find that the true genesis of Leapworld has been revealed. All humans are skilled and capable of performing all the services and functions necessary to their own existance without the 'patronising' co-operation of others. Leap - you are Tom and Barbara Good and I claim my 72 Drachma.

Personally, I enjoy being a 'drone', a 'specialist' - part of a diverse community. I appreciate the opportunity to buy food that other people have grown, harvested and transported closer to my home. I'm grateful that other people pipe fresh water to my flat and dispose of my sewage and waste products in a sanitary manner. I'm bloody glad that any medical, dental or psychological problems I may have can be dealt with by someone who has dedicated themselves to their study and treatment and not by my ham-fisted guess-work. I don't have to generate my own electricity, write my own software or manufacture every item of furniture, equipment or machinery that makes my life viable, let alone comfortable. The society I live in, where people accept varying functions and rely on the professional services of everyone else allows me to experience a standard of living higher than that of the hunter-gatherer.

Is this childish of me? Am I abdicating my responsibilities or demeening my natural, noble nature to want to live in a city, not a tribe? If I'm burgled again, I want to ring the police, not start a manhunt of my own which would be doomed to failure. I didn't think you were advocating personal subsistance living at first, Leap, but your increasing demands for the individual to assume direct responsibility for all areas of their life is saying just that. No education (just EDUCATION), no policing, no health service, no welfare state, no government - we're left as an isolated sprinkling of crofters turning our backs on centuries of human development, technology and culture.

I'm shallow. I don't want to cart my own trash, bury my own dead and patrol my own streets. I want to flick a switch and have the lights come on. I want to have art, culture, science and leisure. I honestly can't see how the hell I'd fit everything into my day if I had to do everything myself. I want my, I want my, I want my MTV.

And, in passing, as we seem to have let the slappers pass by the wayside now, could we possibly do the same for the myth that all welfare is destined for 'those who refuse to work'? I cannot imagine that you have gone through you entire life without at least knowing someone who has tried to claim benefit, let alone live on it. You must know that, even in its current incarnation, the system is far from indiscriminating and open-handed and that the life it affords is hardly comfortable or desirable as an option. You're not stupid or ignorant and I know that it's just a shorthand to bolster your position in passing, but as someone who's recently experienced the reality of the welfare system it's coming across as grossly offensive. We all know your position on benefits, can we just use the term and skip the judgemental and innacurate sub-clauses? Thank you.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
21:41 / 24.04.03
What he said.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
22:26 / 24.04.03
Seconded.

Well, I'm back from the pub, and in answer to your question, I went because I wanted to (an act of personal responsibility) and I stayed for a whole five minutes after drinking-up time, so sucks to you and suck to the government.... [insert winky smiley]

Therefore I may not make as much sense as usual, but I want to answer this today because I need to work tomorrow. Forgive me...

A majority can trample over you just as well as an individual; indeed I would fear a mob over a man.

Crikey, I wasn't talking about a mob trampling on you. I was talking about a majority in a representative system, of which you would be a member, which would have checks and balances such as an elected second house. Now, there are obvious problems with my argument here, such as the existence of Section 28. BUT on balance I would still argue that a representative system is less likely to abuse people than an system which allows arbitrary jurisdiction.

Firstly as a matter of personal choice.
Secondly as a matter of personal agreement between the parties involved.
Thirdly by consensus of democratic assembly of the whole community.

Am I correct in assuming that the third option involves a majority decision?

Some would say that that is because it IS ‘bad’…………

They would, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily correct. The fact is that it's unlawful, and that therefore I have committed a crime - that's the only thing that matters in the eyes of the administration of the law.

Criminals already do this (with you being unarmed and they being armed). The addition of a firearm on your part would even that out (they may go for ‘bigger guns’ but that would not ever make as big a ‘gap’ as the chasm between an armed crim and an unarmed victim!

I just don't buy this, sorry. I think MJ-12 is correct when he says:

Unless you choose to draw and cover every stranger you see coming, increasing the level of armament you're carrying is going to make very little difference.

To be accurate I advocate a majority of SELF-govt and a minority of local democratic govt.

Fair enough - but I still think it's impracticable, and disagree with it (but I suppose you knew that... not really the point)

If a govt is made up of such individuals why is that govt needed in the first place – is it not a superfluous level of management?

Because private individuals are subject to personal interest and prejudice. The representative body of the nation acts in the interest of the polity, of the body of the nation, and as such is not subject to the vagaries of individual interest and prejudice. It is contained within a system of checks and balances which prevent interests which are contrary to the interest of the nation from gaining excessive power. As such it is the best way of ensuring that the laws of the nation are enacted by an independent arbiter which nevertheless reflects the will of the body of the nation, and thus guarantees the liberties and rights of the individual according to that will.

(please note: I am NOT claiming that the current political set-up of the UK actually does this. It is clearly in need of reform. That is, however, another thread)

Choosing to administer the law, and standing by it, is a moral judgement.

I think it is a pragmatic judgement, made according to an individual's view of his or her interest and potential benefit (on the part of the private individual as either law-abiding or law-breaking), and made by the body of the nation according the the needs of government as determined by that body. Who benefits from administering the law and upholding it? The nation as a body as well as individuals. It is a matter of civil government.

[I hope that made sense... beer...]
 
 
Leap
10:48 / 25.04.03
I suppose it all comes down to whether or not you value security over liberty. If you are a pessimist, and think that life is basically ‘bad’ but with occasional good bits, and that people are in the main prone to failure (people need govt – and only an elite few are capable) you will value the former, security, more. If you are an optimist, and think that life is basically ‘good’ but with the occasional bad bit, and that humans are generally basically capable, and that the incapable are then the few rather than the common case, you will value the latter, liberty, more.

If you believe the former (are a pessimist), then it follows that you expect the elite to arise and take charge “for our own good”.

If you believe the latter (are an optimist), then it follows that an elite is an unnecessary and patronising encumbrance.

I am an optimist; I hold that the commonality of humankind, in the main, is one inherently directed towards a life based in privacy/vigilance[defined earlier]/egalitarianism/personal direct involvement/community(sharing, not delegating), to be directed by modesty (the drive towards the 'exceptional' is a 'thing' of elitism and the higher level of luxury/wealth an elite society can generate) and a sense of perspective, and thus leads to a ‘good life’ (to make use of Orr’s accusation – well, the term if not the situation).

The pessimist meanwhile would say that the commonality of humankind, in the main, is one marked by a need for supervision/policing/elitism/a professionalised life/sociality(delegating rather than sharing), directed by specialised managers (to make up for the 'inferiority' of generalists) in order to attempt to make up for the general level of ‘badness’ of humanity and the world.

Agree? Disagree?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:09 / 25.04.03
Kit Cat Club- I cannot lawfully possess cannabis (but it's not necessarily 'bad').

Leap Some would say that that is because it IS ‘bad’…………

So "some" get to define our moral absolutes of good and bad, then? Who chooses them? "Some" would argue that certain behaviour is an illustration of "good character". "Some others" would probably argue otherwise. Which "some" is the right one? I'd hate to join the wrong angry mob, y'know.

Do tell.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:10 / 25.04.03
Fails utterly to take into account any of the many arguments reconciling a faith in human nature and/or human capability with the desire for a state to exist. Fails to consider the arguments put forward that public servants need not be considered an "elite". Actually, fails utterly to take into account in a meaningful way any criticism levelled at the entire project, while wanking out the same abstract nouns, the validity of which as a complete depiction of the human race has been comprehensively criticised, which criticisms have (don't tell me, let me guess) been neither adequately answered or indeed adequately acknowledged. Sets up a simplistic binary of "optimist/pessimist" and another of "good/bad", rather than exploring any of the more nuanced propositions.

So, not really relevant to the discussion at the stage it has reached to be agreed or disagreed with.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:12 / 25.04.03
Anyone fancy pitching this one to the networks as a reality TV show? THEN we'd get to the heart of the matter.
 
 
Leap
11:22 / 25.04.03
Fails utterly to take into account any of the many arguments reconciling a faith in human nature and/or human capability with the desire for a state to exist.

Such as?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 56789(10)1112

 
  
Add Your Reply