OT: Celebrity advice (was: Advice to a Junior in High School?)

G

Gerrit Holl

Terry said:
" Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and
how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what
makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt
at any time."

Do you disagree?

Yes.

Maybe a government needs to use violence to enforce people getting
into prison if they refuse to obey the law. But a prison is not
lethal (at least, not in civilized regions like those in Europe
and some parts of the USA).

If a community decides to build a road, it has nothing to do with
lethal force. Nor does it to strengthen the dikes, or cut taxes,
or even create more strict gun laws. This statement by ESR is
absolute nonsense.
Or are you one who doesn't the 'people' to notice the
elitist hypocrisy of being 'anti-gun' while supporting the bearing
*and use* of guns by 'govern-men' the elitists hope to control?

I am against all violence. But because we don't live in Utopia, the
government sometimes needs to use violence to enforce the law. The
difference is that, in civilized countries, the law is (mostly)
democratic and (for a large part) fair. Government violence is
something absolutely different from person-violence (I don't know
how "eigen rechter spelen" is called in English).
(I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
private persons acting alone.)

That is probably true. But do you seriously think that the Dutch, Swiss,
American or Japanese government can be compared with those of Hitler, Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, etc.? Weapons in hands of idiots can
cause dozens of deaths. Power in hands of idiots can cause millions of deaths.
Does the latter mean the former isn't true?

Gerrit (socialist).

--
168. If a man wish to put his son out of his house, and declare before
the judge: "I want to put my son out," then the judge shall examine into
his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be
rightfully put out, the father shall not put him out.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
 
P

Peter Hansen

Gerrit said:
Yes.

Maybe a government needs to use violence to enforce people getting
into prison if they refuse to obey the law. But a prison is not
lethal (at least, not in civilized regions like those in Europe
and some parts of the USA).

But if you refuse to go to prison, things get lethal pretty quickly.
That's what "ultimately" refers to above.
If a community decides to build a road, it has nothing to do with
lethal force. Nor does it to strengthen the dikes, or cut taxes,
or even create more strict gun laws. This statement by ESR is
absolute nonsense.

I thought about that statement carefully when I read it, and at first
it does sound ludicrous. Imagine, however, (using the law part of that
statement and leaving the politics part out for now) that you received
a speeding ticket, but decided to "opt out" of any negative effects
because of it. Can't you see how short a path it is from there to
an armed standoff with police (inevitably resulting their application
of lethal force), if you ultimately insisted on avoiding *any* negative
effect from that speeding ticket? If you didn't pay, refused to show
up in court, attempted to prevent anyone from garnisheeing your wages,
and so forth? I think the key word in the above is "ultimately", and
I can see why ESR would (I think validly) state what he did above.

-Peter
 
G

Gerrit Holl

Peter said:
But if you refuse to go to prison, things get lethal pretty quickly.
That's what "ultimately" refers to above.

Well, I don't think they get very lethal, they get painful at most.
I think the key word in the above is "ultimately", and
I can see why ESR would (I think validly) state what he did above.

Ultimately, the state will use violence. But this violence should not
have lethal consequences.

If 'lethal' would be replaced by 'using violence', this statement is
reasonable for some sorts of government decisions, but only for those
involving law (e.g. not involving building roads (however, roads *can*
be quite lethal ;)).

Gerrit.

--
156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her,
and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and
compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She may
marry the man of her heart.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
 
G

Geoff Gerrietts

Quoting Gerrit Holl ([email protected]):
Well, I don't think they get very lethal, they get painful at most.

It depends on the case. Several times in recent history, the American
FBI has deployed lethal force when it was insufficiently provoked
(Ruby Ridge, Waco).
Ultimately, the state will use violence. But this violence should not
have lethal consequences.

If 'lethal' would be replaced by 'using violence', this statement is
reasonable for some sorts of government decisions, but only for those
involving law (e.g. not involving building roads (however, roads *can*
be quite lethal ;)).

Government derives its power initially from its control over the death
of its subjects, from its ability to inflict death upon its subjects.
Sometime in the last 500 years -- I want to say the 18th century? --
this evolved. While most governments do still have the authority to
kill one of their subjects, governmental authority is more usually
asserted in increased measures of control over the subject's lives.
This control is based on the underlying principle that the governing
body has access to overwhelming physical force.

For a fascinating and horrifying read on this topic, I heartily
recommend Michel Foucault's _Discipline and Punish_, a discussion of
the evolution of police forces and the prison, and the ramifications
that has for governmental power.

I don't mean to suggest support for either side of the argument here;
I'm not sure exactly where I stand. I think an awful lot of things are
being assumed, and many more are being oversimplified, all to support
positions which are, at base, emotional.

--G.
 
B

Bob Gailer


OK; I'll bite. Why do you quote from Hammurabi, Code of Law?
156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her,
and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and
compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She may
marry the man of her heart.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law

Bob Gailer
(e-mail address removed)
303 442 2625
 
P

Peter Hansen

Gerrit said:
Well, I don't think they get very lethal, they get painful at most.


Ultimately, the state will use violence. But this violence should not
have lethal consequences.

No, you're not taking the word "ultimately" far enough. First the state
tries to get painful on your ass, so you resist. Then they get really
violent, and still you resist. Picture the nature of this resistance,
which usually would have to involve standing up to armed police by
this point. Now tell me how, you plan to avoid *ultimately* getting to
the lethal stage, without giving in first.

-Peter
 
T

Terry Reedy

Gerrit Holl said:

I knew someone would ;-)

I'll just note that George Washington has been quoted as saying
something nearly identical about the time he retired.


Back to my understanding of what started this subthread and my concern
thereof. Budding CS student A asks for advice about going into CS.
Person B suggests that A read various CS-related writings by CS
celebrities, including C. Poster D says something like 'No, Don't
read C' because he has written 'dangerous' stuff on other topics
(disconnected from CS). Quite aside from my disagreement about the
'dangerous' characterization, is the boycott suggestion sensible and
legitimate, or just flamebait?

Let's consider celebrity K(nuth). I believe he has written something
on a somewhat different non-CS topic (religion ). Suppose I were to
read it (I have not as yet) and view it as 'dangerous nonsense'.
Would that justify me suggesting to A, on this newsgroup, that he not
read K's CS writings?

Terry J. Reedy
 
G

Geoff Gerrietts

Quoting Terry Reedy ([email protected]):
(disconnected from CS). Quite aside from my disagreement about the
'dangerous' characterization, is the boycott suggestion sensible and
legitimate, or just flamebait?

I think you could fairly consider that flamebait, if the situation
were as you characterized it. This situation is specifically when a
given author writes scholarship -- or invective, whatever -- into two
totally separate and readily distinguishable fields.

The key in my mind is distinguishable. You can draw the line between
Knuth's CS writings and religious writings. In some cases, it's more
challenging: polemic and scholarship blend freely within articles that
waver between analytic description and propaganda.

I don't think it makes sense to avoid (say) ESR entirely; I do think
that his work should be approached with some care and some capacity
for critical analysis. It usually takes a year or two of college
(often more!) for a student to acquire enough domain-specific
knowledge to be able to evaluate a text and sort opinion from fact.

As such, some writers (particularly the sort who love to speculate on
fields they have no training in, or who get sloppy with their facts)
are best left for when you can tell when they're talking out their
ass, and when they actually know what they're talking about. Maybe ESR
belongs to this category of writer?

--G.
 
G

Gerrit Holl

Geoff said:
Quoting Gerrit Holl ([email protected]):

It depends on the case. Several times in recent history, the American
FBI has deployed lethal force when it was insufficiently provoked
(Ruby Ridge, Waco).

"Several times in (American) history" is, of course, not the same as
"every dicision", "ultimately".

Gerrit Holl.
 
L

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

|No, you're not taking the word "ultimately" far enough. First the
|state tries to get painful on your ass, so you resist. Then they get
|really violent, and still you resist.

Just as a question of biology, a person can be locked in handcuffs, or
in a metal cage, and be neither dead nor have the power to kill others.
This limit comes not out of the compromise and will-power of the
detained person, but simply out of physics and anatomy. In most
"ultimate" cases of state-sponsored violence, this is what happens...
not someone being killed.

Someone upthread recommended Foucault... I strongly second reading his
looks at "technologies of control."

Yours, Lulu...

--
mertz@ | The specter of free information is haunting the `Net! All the
gnosis | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into an unholy
..cx | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their chains. Unite
| against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy regimes!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
P

Peter Hansen

Gerrit said:
OK; but the last lethal stage is reached *only* if the civilian involved
*also* defends himself with the same means as the government. So, things
will get lethal ulmitately *only* if the civilian owns the same arms as
the government. Consequently, ESR's statement is only applicable to the
situation he promotes.

If I resist and keep resisting using only my fists or even a knife, the
Dutch police will be able to take me to prison without killing me. A
qualified police force should even be able to do this even when I am
using a gun, but does not always succeed in this.

You just aren't cut out for this resistance stuff, are you? ;-)
If I had a knife, I'd grab the nearest bystander (one of those types
who hasn't chosen to opt out with me, and is therefore not "innocent" ;-)
and I'd hold him or her hostage. After a while, the state would get
tired of this and just shoot me.

Lulu talks about biological and physical restrictions, but also ignores
the process needed to *get me into those handcuffs* in the first place.
I could be pretty imaginative in finding ways to avoid that, which did
not involve a gun, if you insisted.

But at this point the discussion quickly degrades, because my sole
point was that ESR used the word "ultimately" for a good reason, to
try to communicate to his audience a link between personal choice with
respect to laws and such, and lethal force. I accept his point as
made, even if I agree more with you guys that generally speaking it's
a bit of a reach.

-Peter
 
A

Alex Martelli

Lulu said:
|No, you're not taking the word "ultimately" far enough. First the
|state tries to get painful on your ass, so you resist. Then they get
|really violent, and still you resist.

Just as a question of biology, a person can be locked in handcuffs, or
in a metal cage, and be neither dead nor have the power to kill others.
This limit comes not out of the compromise and will-power of the
detained person, but simply out of physics and anatomy. In most
"ultimate" cases of state-sponsored violence, this is what happens...
not someone being killed.

That depends on the determination of said person and his friends to
resist arrest -- with what means and to what extent. If the state's
power to arrest is not to be merely theoretical, it must be backed by
military ability (and will to exercise it) which exceed those of the
people's meant to be arrested.

People who do not understand this may not have lived their lives in
the land of the Mafia, I suspect -- when the prospect of a group of
organized criminals commanding armed power [[which is admittedly a
mere fraction of the state's, a limitation which however is partly
compensated by far higher readiness to use it in lethal ways]] is
not a theoretical conumdrum, but a living and vivid reality. And as
a consequence the corps of Carabinieri, midway between the normal
Police (also armed and quite ready to kill, but not a full-fledged
military organization) and other corps such as the Army, Navy etc.


Alex
 
A

Alex Martelli

False, even if one where to concede the part before your "consequently".

"The situation [ESR] promotes" is one of LEGAL ownership of firearms by
law-abiding citizens. The fact that some civilians own firearms is an
absolutely inevitable fact -- not even the most repressive and intrusive
government in the poorest, most-deprived country in the world has ever
been able to stop THAT since technology made firearms cheap & light
enough (note this doesn't cover the historical period where Japan, for
a while, did manage to wipe firearms off their islands -- including
their use by governments / armies / etc, of course). Therefore, the
possibility that some civilians WILL use firearms to achieve their aims
must be taken as an absolute given under present circumstances. The
trade-off on which ESR and I do disagree is between the somewhat more
limited availability [to anybody, including criminals] promoted by
gun-control measures, and the wider availability _to law-abiding
citizens_ promoted if gun-control measures are weaker/laxer; in any
case, ESR's (and Hayek's, and Mao's, ...:) "ultimate foundation of
power" in terms of potential for violence is undisputable.

You just aren't cut out for this resistance stuff, are you? ;-)
If I had a knife, I'd grab the nearest bystander (one of those types
who hasn't chosen to opt out with me, and is therefore not "innocent" ;-)
and I'd hold him or her hostage. After a while, the state would get
tired of this and just shoot me.

Good point. More significant, perhaps, why talk of individuals when
"MOB" action is quite a possibility? Half a dozen policemen may well
be able to take to prison a single individual who's resisting arrest
when, say, sticks and stones represent the upper limit for everybody's
armament -- but who's to say we're talking of a SINGLE individual?

Doesn't he have friends, relatives, people who agree with his ideas,
willing to pelt the police with said stones? How many policemen can
the state field against the mob? It's unusual that the numbers can
be SO much in favour of the police that the mob can be dispersed or
arrested without weapon use *or threat*. Besides, individuals today
possess powerful, dangerous weapons known as CARS -- even though
direct use of cars as weapons is unusual, filling bottles with gas
and setting them on fire before throwing them at the police is quite
common. Are you going to ban cars to avoid this possibility?

In the end it does come down to (at the very least the possibility
or threat of) military confrontation. If the weapons available to
both sides, government and protesters, are somehow equalized (be it
down to sticks & stones, midway to "Molotov cocktails" and teargas,
or up to firearms on both sides), the government can prevail (in
the actual or potential "civil war" acts we're talking about) if,
and only if, they can field superior military power _anyway_ -- e.g.
through better training, organization, logistics (mobility of
forces to concentrate on points of clash), and the like.

Again, I suspect these are very theoretical possibilities for most
discussants. People who were in Bologna in 1976, on the other hand,
have witnessed these issues first-hand: with the "mob" of protesters
having nearly taken over the city, the government acted rapidly and
decisively by sending in the armed forces, with abundant tanks to
occupy and hold the city's key strategic points. In this way, it
was made militarily indifferent that the protesters had gained a
substantial amount of small arms by raiding shops, barracks etc;
none of those pistols &c were, obviously, any match for the tanks'
armour, guns and machine-guns -- to the point that *not one single
shot had to be fired* from those tanks' main guns in order for the
army to take the city... the psychological effect of the govt's
clear determination to do whatever it could take was enough. Even
though at the time I had (and in a sense still have) lots of
sympathy with the protesters' reasons (basically, the police had
shot and killed in cold blood a student who was loudly protesting,
and probably [this will never be proved either way] had thrown a
stone or two at the police -- the news of this murder inflamed the
full-fledged revolt which immediately followed), I _am_ admired at
the way the government managed to restore calm without any more
deaths on either side after that "triggering" one. Overwhelming
military force may not need to be USED, if it IS overwhelming in
an obvious-enough way to scare the shit out of the enemy (it DOES
depend on the enemy's motivations, of course -- make him bitter
enough and he won't be scare-able any more). Apparently, the role
of military preponderance in establishing the state's authority
can in fact be "deep" enough to become NON-obvious to otherwise
bright and perceptive people!-)

Lulu talks about biological and physical restrictions, but also ignores
the process needed to *get me into those handcuffs* in the first place.
I could be pretty imaginative in finding ways to avoid that, which did
not involve a gun, if you insisted.

Just get a crowd of friends and little imagination will be required.

But at this point the discussion quickly degrades, because my sole
point was that ESR used the word "ultimately" for a good reason, to

I fully agree (and I'm pretty sure Hayek expressed himself quite
similarly, though, darn it, I can't find a relevant URL).
try to communicate to his audience a link between personal choice with
respect to laws and such, and lethal force. I accept his point as
made, even if I agree more with you guys that generally speaking it's
a bit of a reach.

I don't agree about the "bit of a reach": again, I suspect that having
lived in Italy most of my life (and being in Bologna in particular in
1976) is what makes a difference -- what's theoretical to you guys is
obviously true to me because of real-life experiences.


Alex
 
T

Terry Reedy

Gerrit Holl said:
No; reading Newton is also perfectly valid.

Cute.

For those whoe don't get the joke, Newton, the great mathematical
physicist who helped spur the 'Age of Reason', also spent decades
'practicing' and secretly writing about alchemy and related magic,
which writings would now (and even then) be considered rubbish to
most. (They only became public in the 1930s.) Ironically, his
magical beliefs probably helped him conceive of gravity and its
'magical' action at a distance.

Terry J. Reedy
 
G

Geoff Gerrietts

Quoting Gerrit Holl ([email protected]):
"Several times in (American) history" is, of course, not the same as
"every dicision", "ultimately".

And neither is it "they get painful at most", which is the point I was
making. ESR overstates his point to make his point; you're doing the
same. Whether either point can be made is a different question, as is
whether either should be made.

--G.
 
A

Andrew Dalke

Alex Martelli
Again, I suspect these are very theoretical possibilities for most
discussants. People who were in Bologna in 1976, on the other hand,
have witnessed these issues first-hand: with the "mob" of protesters
having nearly taken over the city, the government acted rapidly and
decisively by sending in the armed forces, with abundant tanks to
occupy and hold the city's key strategic points.

Another datum for the discussion is Iraq. In Slate at
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080201/ and with reader responses
at http://slate.msn.com/id/2081185

In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes
in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun."
This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing
for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms
ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from
becoming a police state.

Note also that the US allows Iraqis even now to own AK-47s,
which isn't legal in the US. The US tried an amnesty program,
for people to turn their weapons in, but only a few hundred of
the estimated 5 million were turned in.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/15/1060936052309.html


Andrew
(e-mail address removed)
 
T

Tom Plunket

Alex said:
That depends on the determination of said person and his friends to
resist arrest -- with what means and to what extent. If the state's
power to arrest is not to be merely theoretical, it must be backed by
military ability (and will to exercise it) which exceed those of the
people's meant to be arrested.

How did Gandhi do it then? Was it just that the British decided
that they weren't mean enough to take it to its "ultimate"
extent, or was it truly that there was a way to "go to the
ultimate" and take back India in a nonviolent way?

-tom!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top