Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:22:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: ML Duke <mlduke@resumes-by-duke.com>, "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970726133112.12615A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <21172.869900421@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Our judgment about what warrants the use of force may define us as > > individual human beings, but what defines the society is the extent to > > which the gang's use of its guns can be limited and controlled, and how > > one gang can depose another. > > An interesting viewpoint, but one I can't quite share since I don't > see the process of gang warfare moderation as something which is > actually done by societies, hence they deserve no credit for it. > > I believe instead that what limits and controls a gang's use of guns > are the gang hierarchies themselves, deciding as military generals do > what levels of attrition are acceptable and when it's time to call the > guys on the other side and suggest an end to hostilities before both > are left overly weak and open to predation by other wolfpacks. > > In other words, I see this more as a function of natural equilibrium > (and subject to the same instabilities thereof) than of laws and truly > successful sheparding of one's unruly flock at work. > > Jordan The problem with saying that they're all alike and it's all human nature is that it leaves you with no way to decide whether one set of rules, institutions, and so forth is better (according to whatever values you may hold) than another. Because gangs (governments) can potentially do great evil (moving large numbers of people around, murdering large numbers of their citizens, sending people to one kind of prison or another, controlling access to resources and thus the means to communicate, organize, etc.), I prefer arrangements that limit such abuses of power and make it possible to take action (preferably peacefully) when people decide that the gang's gone far enough. It is of course also human nature for people to get together and say "Let's make some rules." And furthermore to design the institutions and processes by which it will be decided who gets to enforce the rules and make new ones, and which rules will be especially hard to change. The rules may determine how one gets to be part of the gang and even what kinds of people are interested in doing so. This is usually a continuing process (called politics), and changes are often marginal. But in the last 15 years or so there's been rather a lot of fundamental rule-making going on (new constitutions, redesigning the government) around the world. How it eventually plays out in any given place depends on a great deal other than what gets put on paper, of course. Annelise
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970726133112.12615A-100000>