RE: [lpsf-discuss] gun control

You seem still to be wanting to define abstract rules to cover all cases, and that is just what I am trying to get away from. I'm not sure we need a rule that defines all parody as protected, or as injurious. Why not let the parties involved in each case settle it, without imposing the constraint that everybody's solutions have to be the same? Guidelines evolve as case law, so I think in general people would have a pretty good idea where they stood.

I like this approach.

In a utopian anarchistic society, I expect that everyone would have differing opinions on most everything; there would be no need for any central law. I would hope to publish a list of suggested rights, which when followed, will probably work well in your dealings with other people, but would certainly be viewed differently by different folk, improved upon, or completely ignored, at no loss to anyone who relys on themselves and defends their own.


Acree, Michael wrote:

Dilger & Mike,

  I admit that this flexible approach, dsicarding hard and fast rules in favor of more appeal to negotiation and common sense, has some attraction for me as well. However my reservations are even stronger. This would mean moving away from the "rule of law" to something more like the "rule of man."

  One of the advantages of the rule of law, and having rights guaranteed by that law, is predictable, uniform outcomes. This reduces risk and creates a certain level of stability (important from a business perspective), and ensures that the powerful and the weak receive relatively equal treatment (important if you're the little guy).

  The dilemma mirrors my earlier observation about rights being essentially meaningless in an anarchy. I'm not comfortable giving up my rights when I don't know what will replace them. I don't know that I'm comfortable with a society in which everything is negotiable, and you're never fully protected by the law in anything. It seems like that's the direction we've been heading already, with the explosion of lawyers and lawsuits. In the U.S. at least these days, if you hire a good enough negotiator or defender, you seem to have some chance of getting away with almost anything. Suing gun manufacturers for crimes committed with their products, for example. I'm open to arguments, but you'll have a hard time convincing me this change has been a good thing.

  Then of course there is the tough issue I've brought up previously — how do you compel people to face justice in the absence of legal coercion? If I murder your family, what incentive do I have to agree with you to appear in any court of arbitration?

  If you're wealthy, of course you could just hire someone to come after me. Dragging me into court might be only a little more expensive than simply killing me, which might naturally lead you to consider options other than a fair trial. But it seems to me that if you're poor, you might not be able to afford what this would cost in a free market, especially if I have an ample ability to defend myself. Is your "protection agency" going to be willing to take on my small private army in exchange for whatever small monthly premium you're paying them?

Yours in liberty,
              <<< Starchild >>>