Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Thank you for your most recent reply!

First, please allow me to circle back to this older post that I think I misunderstood

[...]

Then I'm sorry; I must have misunderstood.

I believe I have made a simple point here. Admittedly, I use [British] English, not American, but my language shouldn't compromise your understanding, I hope.

Weapons are instruments of harm and death for other living things; this is their sole purpose. There are few, if any, non-disingenuous justifications for possessing weapons. They are unnecessary, and their absence would benefit all. Therefore, I recommend that all weapons be discarded and destroyed. And, as I have already admitted, it is the sad truth that people will not give up their killing-tools, so my suggestion is impractical.

"Disarmament" describes the transition from weapon-ownership to no weapon-ownership. I purposely did not include a qualification, such as "mandatory disarmament", but you have jumped to the conclusion that I intend some sort of forcible and coercive disarmament, possibly (probably!) using weapons to enforce it. That was, and is, not my intention.

[Belindi]

Pattern-chaser, when you recommend disarmament do you mean disarming police and the general public, or do you mean disarming states so they don't threaten foreign states? Or both?

Looking back thtough man's past it seems that hunter gatherers needed no weapons to use against other men because hg's had portable and few possessions and also because the ranges were so large compared with numbers of hunter gatherers.
Then later when incoming cultures brought domestication of animals we needed territorial rights for pasturage and then the family needed to elect from their ranks strong young males to guard with weapons.Needs must.Domesticating animals also caused larger families/clans so territoriality was further needed as territories marched with those of other families/clans.

My point is that the efficiency and ethics of intertribal weaponry is very different from weapons used by elites and their policemen against a tribe's own citizens.

Scott's partisanship of weaponry in private hands makes sense when citizens for whatever reason can't trust the state to administer peace and prosperity within own territories.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

"Disarmament" describes the transition from weapon-ownership to no weapon-ownership. I purposely did not include a qualification, such as "mandatory disarmament", but you have jumped to the conclusion that I intend some sort of forcible and coercive disarmament [...]

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Yes, sorry for the misunderstanding. In my anecdotal experience, I've never personally heard the word 'disarmament' used in that way before and am unfamiliar with that usage. Indeed, it is quite likely just a difference between British English and American English or a similar issue of vernacular. Sorry again for my misunderstanding.

My comments were all in regard to the proposition of coercive and/or mandatory disarmament (e.g. a big-government-issued and big-government-enforced ban on gun ownership). Since that's not what you are actually proposing, it was an accidental strawman on my part.


Thank you,
Scott

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser, when you recommend disarmament do you mean disarming police and the general public, or do you mean disarming states so they don't threaten foreign states? Or both?

Both, or maybe "all". As previously noted, my suggestion is highly unlikely to find favour with the many millions of weapon-owners (national ↔ personal) across the world.

[Belindi]

Pattern-chaser, when you recommend disarmament do you mean disarming police and the general public, or do you mean disarming states so they don't threaten foreign states? Or both?

Both, or maybe "all". As previously noted, my suggestion is highly unlikely to find favour with the many millions of weapon-owners (national ↔ personal) across the world.

It's feasible to disarm police and members of the public, apart from criminals. But can a resources-rich nation be safe without its deterrent? After all, there are always going to be nation states that want to expand by force of arms. What might be the carrot that persuades Putin to stop his aggression?

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser, when you recommend disarmament do you mean disarming police and the general public, or do you mean disarming states so they don't threaten foreign states? Or both?

Both, or maybe "all". As previously noted, my suggestion is highly unlikely to find favour with the many millions of weapon-owners (national ↔ personal) across the world.

It's feasible to disarm police and members of the public, apart from criminals. But can a resources-rich nation be safe without its deterrent? After all, there are always going to be nation states that want to expand by force of arms. What might be the carrot that persuades Putin to stop his aggression?

Yes, I have freely admitted that my suggestion is impractical — it won't work, given 'human nature'. And your questions are good ones, but do they deviate a little too much from our topic here, about prisons and their necessity? Perhaps so.

[amorphos_ii]

surely its the current politics and culture - causing the person holding the gun to use it. the world wont dissarm because people will say there are lions or wolves around here, or bad humans. either way such a global request simply wont ever happen, we have to find solutions to the causes and deal with them one at a time.

[Belindi]

Pattern-chaser, when you recommend disarmament do you mean disarming police and the general public, or do you mean disarming states so they don't threaten foreign states? Or both?

Both, or maybe "all". As previously noted, my suggestion is highly unlikely to find favour with the many millions of weapon-owners (national ↔ personal) across the world.

It's feasible to disarm police and members of the public, apart from criminals. But can a resources-rich nation be safe without its deterrent? After all, there are always going to be nation states that want to expand by force of arms. What might be the carrot that persuades Putin to stop his aggression?

Yes, I have freely admitted that my suggestion is impractical — it won't work, given 'human nature'. And your questions are good ones, but do they deviate a little too much from our topic here, about prisons and their necessity? Perhaps so.

The amount of imprisonment within a society is a measure of that society's disintegration. A society is held together voluntarily except for outlaws such as slaves and non-persons. Every man for himself is not a society.

Similarly the disintegration of mankind into tribes is measured by nationalism and nationalism -inspired aggression.

Both nationalism and antisocial behaviour are caused by fear of loss of material resources or loss of proper pride, and so a heavyweight prison system can be avoided by a fully functioning welfare state including fair employment opportunities(especially for young men).

[Pattern-chaser]

Both nationalism and antisocial behaviour are caused by fear of loss of material resources or loss of proper pride, and so a heavyweight prison system can be avoided by a fully functioning welfare state including fair employment opportunities (especially for young men).

Now there's a practical and constructive suggestion, one that might even work! It should, at least, make a worthwhile contribution?

[amorphos_ii]

i agree too.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

a heavyweight prison system can be avoided by a fully functioning welfare state [...]

If by "welfare state" you mean violently forcing pacifists to pay money (i.e. taxes) to allegedly charitable causes and/or the expensive imprisonment of other pacifists, by threatening the pacifists with forced imprisonment if they refuse to pay for your violence, then prisons would indeed be necessary in such a society, to fund the expensive agressively violent big government statism you are proposing.

In contrast, since I would propose no such thing, and instead I oppose all non-defensive violence, and I oppose imprisonment of pacifists, prisons are NOT necessary for anything I would want done.

[LuckyR]

Pattern-chaser, when you recommend disarmament do you mean disarming police and the general public, or do you mean disarming states so they don't threaten foreign states? Or both?

Both, or maybe "all". As previously noted, my suggestion is highly unlikely to find favour with the many millions of weapon-owners (national ↔ personal) across the world.

It's feasible to disarm police and members of the public, apart from criminals. But can a resources-rich nation be safe without its deterrent? After all, there are always going to be nation states that want to expand by force of arms. What might be the carrot that persuades Putin to stop his aggression?

Yes, I have freely admitted that my suggestion is impractical — it won't work, given 'human nature'. And your questions are good ones, but do they deviate a little too much from our topic here, about prisons and their necessity? Perhaps so.

The amount of imprisonment within a society is a measure of that society's disintegration. A society is held together voluntarily except for outlaws such as slaves and non-persons. Every man for himself is not a society.

Similarly the disintegration of mankind into tribes is measured by nationalism and nationalism -inspired aggression.

Both nationalism and antisocial behaviour are caused by fear of loss of material resources or loss of proper pride, and so a heavyweight prison system can be avoided by a fully functioning welfare state including fair employment opportunities(especially for young men).

Huh? If you make rules, there will be rulebreakers, by definition. If you don't want to put rulebreakers in prison, what do you want to do with them?

[Belindi]

Pattern-chaser, when you recommend disarmament do you mean disarming police and the general public, or do you mean disarming states so they don't threaten foreign states? Or both?

Both, or maybe "all". As previously noted, my suggestion is highly unlikely to find favour with the many millions of weapon-owners (national ↔ personal) across the world.

It's feasible to disarm police and members of the public, apart from criminals. But can a resources-rich nation be safe without its deterrent? After all, there are always going to be nation states that want to expand by force of arms. What might be the carrot that persuades Putin to stop his aggression?

Yes, I have freely admitted that my suggestion is impractical — it won't work, given 'human nature'. And your questions are good ones, but do they deviate a little too much from our topic here, about prisons and their necessity? Perhaps so.

The amount of imprisonment within a society is a measure of that society's disintegration. A society is held together voluntarily except for outlaws such as slaves and non-persons. Every man for himself is not a society.

Similarly the disintegration of mankind into tribes is measured by nationalism and nationalism -inspired aggression.

Both nationalism and antisocial behaviour are caused by fear of loss of material resources or loss of proper pride, and so a heavyweight prison system can be avoided by a fully functioning welfare state including fair employment opportunities(especially for young men).

Huh? If you make rules, there will be rulebreakers, by definition. If you don't want to put rulebreakers in prison, what do you want to do with them?

If you have a welfare state with shelter for all, free health care for all, and most importantly top class education and training for all , plus employment opportunities with social mobility, then you have less crime.
If you address the causes of crime you save tax money.
Certainly there will still be antisocial people who should be imprisoned as decently as possible, unless they are mentally ill in which case they should get therapy.

[Belindi]

a heavyweight prison system can be avoided by a fully functioning welfare state [...]

If by "welfare state" you mean violently forcing pacifists to pay money (i.e. taxes) to allegedly charitable causes and/or the expensive imprisonment of other pacifists, by threatening the pacifists with forced imprisonment if they refuse to pay for your violence, then prisons would indeed be necessary in such a society, to fund the expensive agressively violent big government statism you are proposing.

In contrast, since I would propose no such thing, and instead I oppose all non-defensive violence, and I oppose imprisonment of pacifists, prisons are NOT necessary for anything I would want done.

No, violence and pacifism are not what I mean by welfare state. But if tax money is needed to combat causes of crime then it's worth paying extra taxes to do so.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

No, violence and pacifism are not what I mean by welfare state.

I don't understand the above sentence.

a heavyweight prison system can be avoided by a fully functioning welfare state [...]

If by "welfare state" you mean violently forcing pacifists to pay money (i.e. taxes) to allegedly charitable causes and/or the expensive imprisonment of other pacifists, by threatening the pacifists with forced imprisonment if they refuse to pay for your violence, then prisons would indeed be necessary in such a society, to fund the expensive agressively violent big government statism you are proposing.

In contrast, since I would propose no such thing, and instead I oppose all non-defensive violence, and I oppose imprisonment of pacifists, prisons are NOT necessary for anything I would want done.

if tax money is needed to combat causes of crime then it's worth paying extra taxes to do so.

If you personally want to donate your own money to non-violent charitable causes, that's great. If you voluntarily choose to donate your own money to non-violent charities, that's great. But if it's a voluntary donation, then I believe that would typically be called a 'donation' not a 'tax'.

The question is what happens to people (namely pacifists) who refuse to pay the money to fund your proposed "welfare state", and by extension why you call it a "welfare state" rather than a welfare charity. Typically, calling it 'statism' rather than simply non-violent private 'charity' means that violence and prisons will be involved.

In any case, if you proposal entails forcing people (including pacifists) to pay taxes to your "welfare state" to fund the "welfare" by threatening those people (including pacifists) with imprisonment if they refuse to pay that money (i.e. taxes), then absolutely 100% definitely your proposal requires prisons and entails violently imprisoning pacifists, which itself costs more money, which requires more aggressive non-defensive violence, which requires even more money, which requires even more aggressive non-defensive violence.


Thank you,
Scott