Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!cbatt!clyde!watmath!watnot!watlion!sjrapaport
From: sjrapaport@watlion.UUCP (Steven J. Rapaport)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Individual responsible for self-defense?  (Was Re: Rape)
Message-ID: <7785@watlion.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 21:44:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: watlion.7785
Posted: Fri Sep 26 21:44:52 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 02:59:05 EDT
References: <1904@mtgzy.UUCP> <8608050927.AA09486@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <3116@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <121@sri-unix.ARPA> <169@omssw1.UUCP>
Reply-To: sjrapaport@watlion.UUCP (Steven J. Rapaport)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 52
Xref: linus soc.women:121 soc.singles:250

In article <169@omssw1.UUCP> hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) writes:
>> [Does that mean that a shopkeeper who doesn't carry a shotgun is
>> asking to be robbed?] [-my wording  [sjr]]
>Yes.  Here's a dogmatic idea:
>
>	Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their
>	own defense have less violence and less crime than societies
>	(like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities.
>
>Remember, kiddies, the cops can't be everywhere! 8-{)}


Don't usually get into these discussions, but this requires a second
thought:

	Even assuming, Kirk, that your dogmatic idea can be backed up
with statistics,  (Which societies do you use, anyway?),  I am a bit
frightened by your conclusion.  

Going from "society will be less violent if everyone is required to
defend themselves" to "people who don't defend themselves are asking
for it"  (Please correct me if I've missed the spirit of your argument)
may be a faulty logic step.  Is this your argument?:

P1-> societies that require individuals to be resp. have less violence

P2-> (contrapositive) societies that strip the individual of the
ability to defend themselves are more violent

P3-> (missing premise) individuals should take responsibility for their
     own self-defense even if their society prohibits this.

C'n-> individuals who do not take responsibility for their own self-defense
      are asking for violence.

As  far as I can see, your argument falls apart without P3, which I think
is a  bit antisocial (literally).  You slip by  without it only by confusing
an individual with their society.  Please tell me (if possible, in
well-reasoned logic) where my analysis is incorrect.

My own thoughts:  One of the definitions of evil is " a heirarchically
organized system in which position in the heirarchy is determined by
power."  Cf.  Dungeons and Dragons.  For examples, read Tolkien, etc.

How far is "everyone is responsible for their own defense" from
this definition?  Admittedly, in such societies, there may be less
violence.  But who wants to live that way?

(The above is not guaranteed to be bug-free logic.  Please feel free
to debug.)

-Steve Rapaport,  University of Waterloo,  !watmath!watlion!sjrapaport