Just a question to our resident Americans

[henry quirk]

Speakin' only for me: nope.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is your 2nd amendment yes?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."4

I know the Swiss are but how many gun owners in America are in well regulated militias?

Militias worked well enough in England in the late 18th early 19th century. As any reader of Pride and Prejudice knows these were nominally for keeping the peace and guarding against invasion by the French but were deteriorating into officers' social clubs. I am sure militias worked well in the US for a time too , for the adequate reason that central law and order machinery was impossible.

The Mafia seems to exemplify a modern militia.

The point of militias lay very much in what they are not, namely a standing army. This is also the point of the third amendment which prevents billeting of said armies in civilian houses at the homeowners expense. The 2nd and 3rd amendments were a means to prevent the centralisation of power in the hands of the federal government and the presidency at a time when standing armies were a defining symbol of absolute monarchs. Times have sort of changed since those days.

[Belinda]

Thanks Flash.

[Belinda]

I think some people have trouble understanding what civilization is.

A clue: it ain't 'law & society'.

I'd have thought a civilisation was a society or group of societies that have become complex enough to need laws?

I think civilization is the condition wherein each individual can pursue his own goals rather than serve the ambitions of the Crown or the State or the guy down the street.

If the Crown, the State, and the guy down the street were not controlled by laws you could not pursue you own goals.

Some regimes have laws that don't care about you wanting to pursue your own goals unless you are part of the elite establishment.

[henry quirk]

"If the Crown, the State, and the guy down the street were not controlled by laws you could not pursue you own goals."

Generally, the crown, state, and other guy are controlled through violence. Law is pretty meaningless without penalty.

Which carries weight?

Don't murder, but if you do there's no penalty.

Don't murder, cuz if you do we're gonna kill you.

Anyway: my point was that man's desire to be free leads to him shackling those who'd govern him (law is means). Law is not the foundation for civilization; the free man is.

#

"Some regimes have laws that don't care about you wanting to pursue your own goals unless you are part of the elite establishment."

Not civilization, as I reckon it.

[Skepdick]

Sorry did I miss the bit where you said 'lawful contents'?

Your exact words were "I'm making mustard gas, bombs or explosives, sarin, etc, etc...". You've chosen the role of the bomb-builder - play it out.
The components/chemicals used to make mustard gas, bombs or explosives, sarin, etc, etc may be 100% legal to buy and poses. What is unlawful is possession of the end product.

So by the virtue of applying your know-how to the 'lawful contents' of your household you become a criminal.

At what point in the engineering/manufacturing process is it OK for the police to intervene and lock you up exactly? When you bought the raw materials? When you started putting them together? When your bomb was 50% complete? 90% complete? 100% complete? Draw me a line.

My line is intent. I have no intention to use the things I make or poses for immoral purposes. Given this fact - it is none of anybody's business what I do with my property.

That you think ownership/possession of such items signals immoral is your pragmatic necessity at best.

Well presumably some good neighbour or acquaintance has informed the police about what you are up to.

Same question.

If you have knowingly set out to build <illegal things>, surely you have taken precaution to prevent information leaks? How does your neighbour, or your acquaintance know that you are doing something worth reporting to the authorities? And are you telling me that the mechanism by which laws result in the proactive prevention of harm is based on luck alone?

If you had even a modicum of OpSec skills and managed to keep your manufacturing business under wraps - I guess society is doomed...

Still, am I correct in assuming that if guns were made illegal you would stop having one? Being a law-abiding citizen and all that.

I have no idea how to answer this question. Governments are often exempt from their own laws - even in the UK you have armed police.
Extend the Barber's paradox to gun ownership and self-defence.

Is the man who is allowed to protects others using a gun, allowed to protect himself using a gun? Whatever principle you default to for answering this - you are sucking your thumb.

But there is a far more fundamental issue at play here. I can ask you the exact same loaded question regarding any of the rights you cherish.

Am I correct in assuming that if free speech were made illegal you would stop owning books and censor yourself? Being a law-abiding citizen and all that.

Illegal and immoral are not the same thing. Alan Turing is but one example of that.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Generally, the crown, state, and other guy are controlled through violence. Law is pretty meaningless without penalty.

I agree individuals need disincentives to stop them all they might like to do.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Generally, the crown, state, and other guy are controlled through violence. Law is pretty meaningless without penalty.

I agree individuals need disincentives to stop them all they might like to do.

Indeed, and you don't really need to go much further than 'mind your own damn business, keep your friggin' hands to yourself, or else'.

[Belinda]

Henry there are also laws that bind people to help others in need. At sea, for instance sailors must take on board people in danger of drowning. For instance you must help as and when you can if there is a road traffic accident.

[henry quirk]

"Henry there are also laws that bind people to help others in need."

Bad law.

#

"At sea, for instance sailors must take on board people in danger of drowning."

Bad law.

#

"For instance you must help as and when you can if there is a road traffic accident."

Not where I live there isn't.

[Belinda]

Henry, civil laws usually take much of their precedents from religious or traditional moral laws. Do you have any principles? I don't mean sentimentality I mean principles about how to sustain human life as a separate good from the life of Henry Quirk?

[henry quirk]

Sure, but no a one has anything to do with forcing other folks to assist me, pay for me, take care of me.

[Belinda]

Sure, but no a one has anything to do with forcing other folks to assist me, pay for me, take care of me.

But then you must have a very optimistic opinion of human nature, if you think most people will assist other people without being required to do so.

[henry quirk]

Sure, but not a one has anything to do with forcing other folks to assist me, pay for me, take care of me.

But then you must have a very optimistic opinion of human nature, if you think most people will assist other people without being required to do so.

Not really. Most people will help others (family, friends, folks they deem worthy) as they see fit. Thing about compassion is: it's voluntary, and the compassionate rightfully get to decide who's worthy of their largess. This is how it should be, yeah? Your resources are yours to do with as you choose, yeah? Hoard them, squander them: your call, yeah? And: you as the helpgiver make the call on the nature of that help, not the one with hand out, yeah?

Forcing folks to part with resources against their will is just theft. Using those stolen resources to help folks the original resource holder may not give a flip about (or that he overtly disapproves of) is just salt in the wound.

[Belinda]

Forcing folks to part with resources against their will is just theft.

The classic argument against colonialism and imperialism.