From: "res02iqa-AT-gte.net" <res02iqa-AT-gte.net> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:23:25 -0700 Subject: Re: whither -AT- list On 17 Apr 01, at 19:19, danceswithcarp wrote: > At 02:03 PM 4/17/2001 +0000, john bechtel wrote: > > >Damn good point there Thomas. I think a legit arguement can be made > >against a 'military' POV; if humans are going to cooperate we are > >going to need to get past the idea of violent resolution of our > >problems. The militarys prime function is shoot first, not exactly a > >'do no harm' policy. > > > I've seen this claim many times. If you somehow make this leap of > "military=leaders=coercion" then I think you miss the point of > self-defense. Violence in the name of self-defense is not > anti-social in any way I can construe. Of course this begs the > question of what is legitimate self-defense? Can self-defense be > pre-emptive? This is the thicket the rabbit must run. It would have to be the "reasonable person" defense. Would a reasonable person be justified in acting in self defense, and was the force used reasonable in these circumstances? Ultimately, if you act unreasonably, most other reasonable persons or volunteer militias will decide you are a "bad guy", and start acting appropriately. If there is an argument between militias or individuals concerning borderline actions, the parties involved can always pick a person or group who's judgment is respected to adjudicate the dispute. The advantage to such adjuication is that obtaining a good decision will encourage support from non-involved groups for the actual victims, rather than the victimizers. Regards, Kristopher K. Barrett
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005