packbat | Alchemi's Political Survey Intermeme

alchemi posted this mid-last month.

Questions:

1. What is the appropriate tradeoff between liberty and security?
2. What does the Right to Bear Arms mean?
3. What does Free Speech mean?
4. What is your position on abortion?
5. What about consentual crimes such as drug use?
6. What do you think about the death penalty?

1. What is the appropriate tradeoff between liberty and security?

To as great an extent as possible, liberties should only be denied to persons known (or, in rare cases, believed with confidence) to be security threats, not to their potential victims. Reasonable exceptions to this rule arise when an individual is known to be in significant danger for a limited period of time (e.g. protective custody for witnesses) and when a target is so vulnerable that not running screenings for major hazards presents an unacceptable risk (e.g. x-raying carry-on luggage on a plane).

2. What does the Right to Bear Arms mean?

Guns are dangerous. So are cars. In both cases, it is (or should be) illegal to prevent someone from owning and operating one without strong evidence that the individual would present a significant danger to the lives of others. That said, it is important to prevent those who would present such a danger from using one.

3. What does Free Speech mean?

No speech is illegal that is not likely to or intended to cause significant harm to others.

Examples: to say "Osama Bin Laden was a good guy", to burn an American flag, to hold a rally demanding that President Bush be impeached, and to make claims about what is true and what is not are all examples of free speech, and to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or to slander someone are not. Education is a big special case: teachers should be legally obliged to provide as accurate and fair a presentation of established truth as possible. This means, for example, that a science teacher who is creationists should still teach evolution, since that is the established scientific theory. [Edit: noneuklid has noted that these last two sentences contain some major flaws. See comments.]

4. What is your position on abortion?

At present, I believe the decision of Roe v. Wade is entirely reasonable, both in its argument and its conclusion. Beyond that, I have no solid opinion.

5. What about consentual crimes such as drug use?

See my statement above, about free speech. (Note that driving under the influence of the wrong kinds of drugs counts as 'likely to cause harm to others', for example.)

6. What do you think about the death penalty?

Morally, I oppose it. Pragmatically, I believe that the harm executions do to those who must carry them out, even if they do so voluntarily, outweighs the few demonstrated benefits capital punishment has over life imprisonment without parole.

Not bad questions, I think.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Education is a big special case: teachers should be legally obliged to provide as accurate and fair a presentation of established truth as possible.

You realize that, depending on how one interprets this, evolution might have never originally been brought into classrooms at at all? It wasn't until it started getting taught at at least the university level that it started to spread beyond a fairly small group of naturalists...

A. to make claims about what is true and what is not [is free speech]
B. to slander someone [isn't]

A does not include B?

You realize that, depending on how one interprets this, evolution might have never originally been brought into classrooms at at all? It wasn't until it started getting taught at at least the university level that it started to spread beyond a fairly small group of naturalists...

Oh, good call. And sometimes in education it's necessary to simplify the truth, teach the common special cases (e.g. Newtonian mechanics). I guess there should be a sliding scale, then – in elementary/primary school, teach simplified but accepted truth, and as one advances towards and through college, when the students are better equipped to understand and question what is being taught, introduce advanced and controversial material. I guess most sciences are taught this way already.

A. to make claims about what is true and what is not [is free speech]
B. to slander someone [isn't]

A does not include B?

A includes B, but the special rule of B supersedes the rule of A. B – slander – doesn't include statements like "

noneuklid is a nimrod"; it's restricted to statements like "

noneuklid is a rapist", which can do major harm. (In some precincts, you could even get onto the sex offenders lists from no more than an unfounded accusation!)

True, but if one believes the slander they spread -- for instance, if you had reason to believe I was a rapist -- wouldn't it be your duty to report me to the police?

Yes, but there's a few key factors there. One, since I have reason to believe it, it's not a lie. Two, I'm not yelling it to the world, just reporting it to the police (who are responsible for investigating it themselves). You're right, though – it's not just the nature of the statement, the degrees of support and of publicity are also critical.

Yeah, I guess I was a little heavy-handed. Sorry. =/

No trouble!

(And, incidentally, Lapine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapine_language) is a fictional language invented by Richard Adams for the story "Watership Down", if that's what was confusing you.)

It's also an adjective used to refer to anything having to do with rabbits, esp. in the furry community, where it occasionally describes anthropomorphic bunnies (see Furcadia (http://furcadia.com/)).

Ah. I knew the former, but not the latter. Thank you.

(I meant Richard Adams in my profile, though.)

Alchemi's Political Survey Intermeme

You speak 'Bunny'?

What do you mean, "speak 'Bunny'"?

Your omnicode lists "Lapine" as a language.

Oh, right. Well, I don't know _much_. I could probably get directions to the bathroom...

Re: Oh, right. Well, I don't know _much_. I could probably get directions to the bathroom...

no subject

no subject

no subject