Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:39:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Absolute Anarchy=Government


At 04:25 PM 1/14/2002 -0800, Kristopher K. Barrett wrote:

>Hmmm. I'm in agreement that a death for a death is pointless, but should 
>the friends and
>relative of the victim have to share the same planet with the murderer? 
>I'm not sure of the
>answer to that one myself. Some folks would refuse an opportunity for 
>retribution, and
>some would seek it at any price. Who decides which is right? The victim's 
>family?
>
>I just don't know....

The problem i have with the argument that the "family" of the victim (in 
cases such as murder where the victim is not around to speak for himself) 
should decide what is to be done with the perpetrator, is that I fail to 
see why shared genetic material should entitle/obligate one person or 
persons to "resolve" the situation.  Such a claim seems more in line with 
"duty" than "responsibility" (as described below).

I guess one could argue that those individuals in a murder victim's 
immediate household are, economically, directly affected by his death and 
so the "crime" is an offense against them as well.  But somehow i don't 
think that this was the sort of logic that advocates of vengeance=justice 
had in mind.

Moreover, i fail to make the connection between anarchism and a society 
where groups of people judge and punish the actions of others.

So would applied anarchy lead to open season for murderers?  I don't think 
so, but I'm afraid that i can't come up with a satisfactory solution either.

>I feel that when folks decide something is a right, then it becomes their 
>responsibility to go
>to the wall to defend it, and to not abuse it.
>
>Rights don't exist in a vacuum. The protesters at Tianamen Square 
>demonstrated that they
>considered freedom of association and speech to be basic human rights, by 
>putting their
>lives on the line to try to defend them.
>Gun owners in the US may soon have to own up to the responsibility that 
>goes with gun
>rights, both by not abusing them, and by showing a willingness to defend 
>this right from
>state encroachment.
>
>We create rights and responsibility as individuals and cultural groups.
>
>The State merely imitates this with privilege and duty.
>
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Kristopher Barrett

Makes sense to me.  Thanks for clarifying.