From: "John Smith" <jsmith58@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 02:19:57 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
Message-ID: <199708281809.LAA22962@f37.hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jonathan Wienke:

>It really isn't that hard to figure out that shooting a guy breaking
>through your bedroom window at 3 AM with a crowbar and a TEC-9 is a 
Good
>Thing, (at least if you value your continued existence, and that of 
your
>family) while shooting someone giving you the finger on the way in to 
work
>is a Bad Thing.  In the second case, there is no threat to your life
>involved, so there is no reason to kill anyone.  In the first case, 
there
>is.  Is this brain surgery?

Maybe not, but how about the suggestion earlier to shoot people who
are painting graffiti on your property?  What happens if someone gets
shot in that situation, or in some other gray area?  How would you
propose to handle claims that a shooting was unjustified.  Mob
justice?  Get enough people in the streets to storm the house of the
shooter?

Keep in mind that the majority of people may have views about the
proper use of force which differ from yours and mine.  Consider the
roundup of Japanese Americans during WWII.  Yes, a government action,
but one with popular support.

A Japanese man holes up in his house and shoots at those who try to
take him away.  A Caucasian man outside shoots back, fearing that the
Japanese is a spy, whose information will lead to Japanese victory in
the war.  Both men are shooting, both fear for their lives.  And in
each case, the fear could arguably be justified, based on the
information available to each man at the time.

How does your simple rule solve this case?

"John

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com