File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2001/anarchy-list.0104, message 154


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005