> The solution that Kathryn & Comapany would like will take nothing
> more than a totalitarian regieme that would make the communist and Nazi
> regiemes look like naughty cubscouts. The solution that I propose is
> that people acknowledge that violence is enough of a genetic thing that
> we will never be able to wipe it out and remain expansive, extropic
> creatures. Given this acknowledgement of truth, individuals should
> accept the responsibility to a)defend themselves, their property and
> their loved ones in a way that minimizes risks to themselves and their
> selfsame loved ones, b) work to reduce or change their own actions that
> could incite or lead to violent action by others.
I don't think that has to be true.
First, you don't distinguish between aggression, and violence. They
aren't the same thing. Aggression has biological and psychological
functionality. Violence may not. In a world where children are
treated as chattels of their parents, and subjected on a horrifying
to abuse and 'child-control' procedures of stupefying cruelty and
destructiveness (usually 'for their own good', natch), it's not
morally possible or socially-practicable to take a 'laissez-faire'
position. If we don't protect your kids' bodies and minds
adequately, they can grow up to kill or enslave _us_.
Second, you don't really take into account the use of social
innovation to address these problems. I advance the idea that
_no-one_ has a _right_ to impose upon another person a _risk_ of
harm that cannot be fully and immediately compensated for (on a
standard indifference-curve restitutive basis).
In practice, this means that everyone gets to carry fully-reinsured
insurance cover for the harm that they may inflict on other people.
For people who in practice _don't_ inflict harm on others, the
insurance is trivially cheap -- a few dollars a year. Premiums rise
in line with claims records; and if claims of certain kinds get out
of hand (hurting people in bar fights, say), insurers may impose
restrictions -- like staying clear of alcohol, etc., unless all the
barflies consent to the risk of harm. Insurers may also
specify recovery of claims payouts from the offender.
Also: you could readily get insurance for concealed-carry of a 9mm.
Browning Hi-Power, -- but probably _not_, for toting a thermonuclear
suitcase bomb. This seems eminently sensible. >:-}
/ /\ \
--*--<Tony>--*--
Tony Hollick, LightSmith
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora (LA-Agora Conference)
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation)
http://www.nwb.net/nwc (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)