Quote:
If some good use for them is found in the future, then that's something to explore then.
Quote:
I'd guess from the absence of legitimate applications for hand laser cannons that none exist.
We actually agree on both of those statements, though not from the same angle I think (have you read Candide I wonder...). I really did try to make this one short!
Because you want to do something is a good (dare I say the only) reason to do anything in my opinion. When people cannot consume, digest, and produce the data they want, they suffer. That is all suffering means to me. When people can consume, digest, and produce the data they want, they are happy. That is all happiness means to me. The more powerful, by definition, are happier and suffer less. You can take that to the bank. All desires (aka values, needs, wants, etc.) are individual, just as an individual is defined by their desires. The main function of societal representatives is ideally (get ready for it...) representing the people who enable their function to do so. If the majority (however you would define that) of all the Jacks and Jills want something as a feature in their society, the formal laws will ultimately be validations of that collective desire in one manner or another (the informal laws will validate by definition, which oddly enough is often is how the formal laws accomplish the same task when they stand in opposition).
Your points on utility are practical observations even under my model; it's just not the only thing a craftsman ever wants to hear. When a product comes to a marketplace, the individuals are ultimately deciding whether (or rather how) they approve or disapprove of the product-service through their attainment, usage, and disposal of it. There is a real reason why not every product-service on the market stays on the market indefinitely (some do in a sense), and there is a reason why new versions of products-services come onto the market and old ones are retired. If necessity is the mother of invention, then it would be reasonable in my mind to say the same for destruction and maintenance in their various forms as well. It's just that it can be quite painful (or pleasureable) to realize for a lot of people.
Weapons in the innumerable forms and contexts they have existed in + do and will exist in (Merriam-Webster and Julian define weapons as: "a means of contending against another", which provides plenty of leg room for defining a weapon within a non-weapon and vice versa... and assumes very little about the collective appearance or genetic content of either) are completely "legitimate" things to produce, use, and dispose of. Murder is legitimate in the sense you are using the term, otherwise sanctioned executioners would not be able to legitimately murder people (or meter maids write parking tickets for that matter). The reason an executioner is enabled in that function is not because they are acknowledged as more highly qualified to make the judgment for when to do so appropriately. In whose defense is a person who performs the lethal injection committing murder? Would you argue self-defense? Define self. Define society. (I'm on record in the weather channel thread (ironically): "The behavior of all matter in existence is selfish; discrete identity is defined solely by matter defining its own via behavior in the context of the environment in which it functions. It's kind of like black holes... or something. Just my opinion of course.") Every push is also a pull (so to speak); the vast majority of people just tend to think heavily in terms of like affecting like.
The (legalized) action of citizens of common experience are limited in this area, and when an "injustice" (for now, anything but a "fair fight" in the spirit of true evolution) does occur, they are often required (read: forced by people with power in that context) to use a specific procedure to attain balance which is deemed in their greatest interest. I have absolutely no problem with this as long as it actually is. Jack and Jill define desire, and Jack and Jill (should) ultimately define (formal) law. Common desires define societies. If the government does not serve the will of the people whom does it serve? People in positions of authority are ultimately either genies or tyrants (which is not to say you can't have bad genies and good tyrants... this concept extends well beyond the scope of this discussion). Catering to special interest groups (I use a very, very broad definition here) is basically a societal coping skill which is useful when the society refuses to or cannot to adapt to (people seem to automatically associate this term with retraction) their desires. It is not possible, nor would even be necessarily desirable to excommunicate every person who does not uphold every single collective value, and furthermore, neighboring societies would likely not appreciate us forcing these people off into their own in the instances they violate their own as well. That is one of the fundamental reasons we send people to prison (or kill them): because we value inter-societal relations. Societies are not self-contained entities, and anyone who regularly operates under the philosophy of Maggie's brother in an open system is a tyrant to some degree, plain and simple. People are not self-contained entities. People create, use, and destroy things, and when a group of people finds common interests in what those things happen to be, they form a society. When I am king (any day now), I suspect many of my rulings will end with: "Sorry, but
we just don't want people doing that here. Try Imaginationland, the leper colony, California, the ocean, H-E-double hockey sticks, etc."
The laws (or their upholding, rather) of a society do not restrict any freedom for the people who create, maintain, and destroy those laws; they function as an enabler of those people. The idea that laws are somehow always immovable pillars of morality is nonsense (as with products-services... and there are many analogies here), and that sword cuts both ways. To the degree someone works their will over the will of another (including resistance) they are tyrannical, by definition. A very old problem: even people who are born into a society will not necessarily have desires which reflect those of the society they are born into. Another very old problem: there is a finite amount of desirable, accessible consumables for individuals and societies (and societies within societies) to utilize for their own benefit. Get out your pencils and work from there.
Pretend you have a group of people who all want to make soup, and they each have their own ingredients... perhaps they aren't sure what kind of soup they want or are even able to make, or perhaps they are (who only eats one kind all the time anyway... even if you could, and even if you have favorites). They collaborate, and based off of their own experiences, decide what to put in the soup, how to prepare it, and how to serve it. If it turns out pretty good in the majority's opinion, they might write down a recipe (and if it doesn't, they might write down a recipe too). Not everyone in that group will have their ingredients used in one particular soup. If the only ingredient some people have to offer is dog [censored], they might want to move to a society that makes and eats dog [censored] soup. If the dog [censored] eaters like the soup the original group made but still have no ingredients on hand but dog [censored], they can perhaps help everyone out in some other fashion (turn dog [censored] into fire, set the table, chase rabbits from the garden, etc.) and if they like eating the soup and earn their bowl one way or another, it doesn't matter to me whether or not the only ingredient they have to offer is dog [censored] anymore than I wouldn't put bacon in tomato soup (although now I kind of want to try that, maybe with really big croutons... lol). Maybe they can trade with the dog [censored] eaters next door and get better spoons for the group or something. I really don't even care if they chow down on a big bowl of dog [censored] as long as they don't make a mess of the kitchen and at least brush their teeth afterwards or something. The best scenario for the dog [censored] eaters in the original soup group would be if some of the members of the original soup group were dogs, I imagine. And blah, blah, blah, blah (I mean you could really go on forever with this). Anyway, get the idea?
Quote:
Unless we're talking about manual strangulation (or other similarly gruesome "manual techniques"), people enabled with devices that make killing easy, kill people.
This smells suspiciously like the consumptive or productive chiral view to mine regarding education. I agree, though I would add a caveat, and one which would also go a long way towards supporting the need for administration in either of our perspectives: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Anyway, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it" (which makes no sense, as possession is indeed an act... depending on how you define constipation, of course) is a very interesting and pervasive mentality in my opinion. If you must think of it in these terms, I would say I am generally much more thoughtful about what I take away from other people than what I give them (so to speak), which perhaps comes as a surprise to some people? (Again, that's not really a great mentality in my opinion, but some people don't seem to understand the ideas behind either one).
