> Sam wrote:
> > The point being that violence begets violence; even if there arise
> > situations that leave us no alternative but a violent response, those
> > situations have come about because of poor judgement, mistakes or plain
> evil
> > intent earlier on in the process. The only way to make things better is
to
> > stop the cycle of violence escalating, and work towards reconciliation.
> > Personally, I don't think the widespread presence of firearms helps in
the
> > endeavour.
>
And Glen responded:
> A question; Do you think the state would have been correct in interviening
> when the gang of people was trashing your friend? The mainstream media in
> the US is curiously silent about the people who successfully defend their
> homes and person with firearms. All the media does is popularzied the
rare
> wacko who shoots up a McDonalds or school. If you can't differentiate
> between a group of criminals (biological vs. social) and disident college
> professors (intellectual vs. social) maybe you should re-read Lila (Lila
> Chapter 24).
>
Sam responds:
The substantial question Glen raises is about the role of the state. There
is a significant degree of "teenage tension" in my area (to put it in no
stronger terms), and I was recently discussing the situation with one of our
local police officers. He commented that the police have to rely on a
certain level of 'social control' - in other words the informal restraints
exercised within a community by those with authority. (This is called social
capital by some theorists). The real way to deal with the situation that my
friend encountered is to ensure that it is less likely to happen in the
future - through better education, a higher quality (= more moral)
upbringing and the freedom for local groups to have some measure of
authority in their own areas. My view is that what has really caused the
great increase in violent crime etc has been the state getting involved in
all aspects of violent conduct. As there are now strong laws against any
form of physical aggression (eg against smacking children) there is no
longer any means of developing self-discipline in young men growing up. (The
specific example I was discussing was related to an immigrant community,
whose teenage sons were causing problems and bringing their community into
disrepute. The elders of the community wished to take their own measures to
enforce good behaviour but it was illegal in this country (the UK)). And the
fact that it IS young men who cause the vast majority of the problems is
just one of the reasons for thinking that it is a biological problem
(hormonal overload) which requires, at least in part, a biological solution,
meaning the exercise of physical restraint. Without those low level
biological controls the situation is bound to escalate, and where firearms
are present, people will be killed. This question about firearms isn't one
that can be neatly reduced to biological v social against intellectual v
social. I am not a complete pacifist (as my comment in the earlier post
should have made clear) but I do put a high value on human life. Where there
are firearms widely available then conflict is more likely to have a fatal
outcome. To look at it purely in MoQ terms for a moment this diminishes the
resources available for the intellectual level and is therefore a low
quality environment, it is one in which the potential to move to higher
levels and experience DQ etc is diminished. The situation is therefore more
nuanced than you have appreciated (as a close reading of Lila would have
indicated ;) )
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
