[JerryLove]

Shooting someone is illegal.

There are, however, some justifications for breaking that law. One is self-defense.

One of the requirements for self-defense (in most states) is that the situation was unavoidable. If you see a guy who has always hit you, and you walk over to him, and he hits you; shooting him was not self defense.

There's an exception to that requirement too. It's called Castle Docterine. Basically, Castle docterine says that, if there's a burglar in the next room in your house, you can open your locked door, walk over to him, and shoot him. You still need to be in danger, but you can have put yourself deliberately in danger and still have it count as self-defense.

A little while back, Florida passed a law that basically applied castle docterine everywhere. I am no longer required to attempt to avoid or extract myself from danger to be able to claim self defense.

Immediately, almost ever pro-gun group I knew started saying that this law was great and protected people. Equally immediately, every anti-gun group started saying this law was awful and that (to quote a Bradey Billboard near the GA border) "People in florida are not allowed to walk up and shoot tourists".

I'm not aware of anyone who has died because they avoided an encounter... and the law doesn't allow the use of deadly force where you couldn't before (you still have to be presented wth deadly force to respond), so both marketing campaigns were wrong; but what strikes me is that everyone lined up upon "party" lines (in this case, pro and anti gun more than Dem and Rep).

When did we give up our individual opinions on individual issues? Why does the pro-gun group support every law that puts more guns out or more rights to shoot. Why does the anti-gun group oppose every law that clarifies rights for guns?

It's not, technically, even a gun law (the FL law never says "firearm"). Every anti-gun group opposes a law which expands self-defence, while every pro-gun group supports a law which increases the circumstances under which you can kill someone. That's not a coincidence.

And it's not just this law, this political issue, at hand. Pro-choice groups seem to oppose *anything* that makes any abortion harder, even if it's reasonable. Anti-abortion groups support anything that makes abortions more difficult even if it makes no sense (and even if it fails to lower abortion numbers).

Is the enemy of our enemy that much our friend? We should fall into far more shades of grey than this. We should support good ideas and oppose bad ones even if, on the surface, they support "the other guy". Why is there even an "other guy".

As an example, and since I'm thinking of guns: There is and needs to be a regulation of weapons. Some are too dangerous to allow (anthrax), some are too ubiquitous to govern (a rock) and some come in-between. We should be checking the backgrounds of whom we sell firearms to. The second ammendment was not intended, to m reading, to support an individual's right to a specific weapon. On the other hand, I do think we should allow citizens to arm themselves. In particular, I support handguns and concealed-carry permits. I believe that security comes through empowerment of the good citizens (on 9/12 I would have started handing out knives at airports, so the next terrorists would simply get killed by the passengers).

I think FL's extension of castle docterine was a mistake that will result in unneccessairy deaths. I think FL should remove their reciprocity of force rules. Am I the only one not on either side?

*NOTE I'm not trying to discuss gun laws. I'm trying to discuss the phenomina of this "our side - their side" overriding reason and individuality*

[Bryan]

its interesting that you post this. recently a good friend of mine who happens to be a staunch republican/neo-con criticized me because there are times I agree with people who aren't Christian. here's what he said:

Furthermore, you have theological views that also fall well out of the mainstream. I've taken some issue with those, but not overly so. What I'm asking you to do, is to take a look at the people you've sided with politically and ask whether or not these are Christian people who hold to the fundamentals of Christian values and beliefs.

your post just made me think about this email argument we had. I like you think that we should evaluate an idea on its own merits and what other groups may or may not think about it shouldn't be a major factor. Oh the libs support this so I can't do support it too. I might be associated with a lib.

[Chrysostom]

I'm reminded of (a couple of the following details may be hazy) an episode a few months ago where Bill Maher had on this Danish environmental scientist who said that (a) humans are primary contributors to climate change, but (b) we will have trouble doing anything about it because any changes in the developed West will just spark more pollution in the burgeoning economies of India and China. He was treated with real spite, as Maher and his guests thought it was just mindless right-wing propaganda to say that humans didn't have a significant role in climate change. Of course, he didn't say that at all, but they couldn't break their narrow thought patterns and actually track with him.

Why is there no imagination?

At least one factor, I think, is that so many people have so much faith in civil politics that their civil identities become very fundamental to their personal identities. There is a strong modern tendency to define the Self over against the Other -- "Republican" means "Not-Democrat," etc. (The irony here is that "Republican" and "Democrat" are only marginally different when viewed from the perspective of world-historical cultures.) So since my identity is x and I define that as the opposite of not-x, x must be Pure Righteousness and not-x must be Pure Evil.

If room is made for imaginative difference then I might have to reconsider whether x is Pure Righteousness and not-x is Pure Evil. It might turn out that I'm not on the side of the Forces Of Light engaged in an epic eschatological battle with the Forces Of Darkness to create a future of goodness and right and prevent a future of hopeless disaster. And, since my personal identity is so fundamentally bound up in my civil identity, that might mean that my own personal identity is not so clearly defined as I thought it was. And that just sounds like a future for me that's not too simple, and certainly not very fun.

Augustine argues in the City of God that only a person who isn't sold on the State can have the imagination to rule it justly. I don't think I would ever make a good ruler, but I can see this in my own life -- for instance, I think the homeschooling movement is kooky, I don't believe in "rights" language at all, and I have next to nothing invested in American civil politics, and for these reasons I can actually have the imagination to follow their claims and interests.

But of course that doesn't mean that the ideal should be for us to become detached, neutral observers. This destroys the preconditions for imagination because imagination is rooted in concrete engagement. (Further, such a social anthropology can only produce a fragmented, anti-social society.)

Hmm. I should pare down this post and add more thoughts, but it's bedtime. Interesting subject. J and B, do you think that Us Vs. Them is central because it provides the individual with an identity? Or do you think I am wrong?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Bryan

its interesting that you post this. recently a good friend of mine who happens to be a staunch republican/neo-con criticized me because there are times I agree with people who aren't Christian. here's what he said:
your post just made me think about this email argument we had. I like you think that we should evaluate an idea on its own merits and what other groups may or may not think about it shouldn't be a major factor. Oh the libs support this so I can't do support it too. I might be associated with a lib.

Well, I'll post just this quick comment because you made me think a bit more. By creating "political views" we try to focus everything on immaterial ideas. We're trying to isolate the ideas and argument from actual socio-political existence. But true human action is of necessity socio-political and cannot be compartmentalized into mere ideas and arguments, so people search for that socio-political reality and find nothing other than Us Vs. Them, petty party power politics. So by turning political questions into conversations about merely "the issues," "the arguments," etc., do we create and feed the Us Vs. Them monster?

[bobthecockroach]

I'd have to agree. Thinking individually makes sense. Picking and choosing what to support makes sense. I support practically open immigration, but not abortion. That basically tosses me out of the running for being a strong democrat OR republican.

[JerryLove]

I don't know if you are right, but you may well be. I do think there's a strong tendancy to define as what we are not (not-them).

I'm eqally interested in... iI don't know a word for it... let's call it "collectivisim".

That is to say: the pro-death-penalty groups are full of people (it seems) who don't think any form of execution is cruel and unusual, and want to shorten the verification process. The anti-death-penalty groups (it seems) won't be satisfied that and form of execution isn't cruel and unusual (which is neccessairy if their anti-DP poisition is based on the claim that execution itself is C&U, but that doesn't seem to be the case).

I see a lack of people standing up saying "I support the death penalty... but I think there are too many people getting executed, and I think some forms of execution are bad", "I want to restrict abortion but not outlaw it", etc.

Though too, I think the execptions to "collectivism" are going to be the majority of the people posting on this thread.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I don't know if you are right, but you may well be. I do think there's a strong tendancy to define as what we are not (not-them).

I'm eqally interested in... iI don't know a word for it... let's call it "collectivisim".

There is a term 'Collectivism' , but I'll use your little-c 'collectivism' in this thread according to your meaning (it's a fine word choice for what you're saying, after all). (Incidentally, Libertarians refer to basically everybody else as some form of Collectivist, and believe that any form of Collectivism will lead to the kind of problems you're talking about here. FWIW, I am classified by Libertarians as some sort of Collectivist. The Libertarian ideal is, I think, closest to your ideal here.)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That is to say: the pro-death-penalty groups are full of people (it seems) who don't think any form of execution is cruel and unusual, and want to shorten the verification process. The anti-death-penalty groups (it seems) won't be satisfied that and form of execution isn't cruel and unusual (which is neccessairy if their anti-DP poisition is based on the claim that execution itself is C&U, but that doesn't seem to be the case).

I see a lack of people standing up saying "I support the death penalty... but I think there are too many people getting executed, and I think some forms of execution are bad", "I want to restrict abortion but not outlaw it", etc.

US politics promotes and sustains this kind of polarization, because it views people as naturally so conflicted that violence is the only possible result so the State has to mediate between everybody (using the threat of violence, of course). This way, each person/group just relates directly to the State, and the State sorts everything out. But if that's the case then you want to whine and complain as loudly as you can because with a really drastic position you're more likely to get the more moderate things that you really cared about in the first place -- and the squeaky wheel gets the grease, after all. So the US conception of government creates this type of polarization, because it doesn't really require people to be at peace with each other -- just with the State, which constitutes a merely de facto peace which each other.

[Jfool]

I agree that people tend to be entirely too caught up in being on one side of a particular fence. I personally lean to the right on most issues, but I am on the left when it comes to issues involving sustainability and the environment... too important to leave to chance or the free market (although I believe the free market is still going to be the mechanism, just needs "persuasion"). The consequences are too severe if we go down the wrong road far enough. I DO believe however that the government needs to tread softly and work WITH business and communities in order to effectively ensure a future on the planet, and not just regulate business into the ground.

More to the question:
I think the overall issue may be rooted in our fear of oppression. I think many Americans are tremendously distrustful of government and/or opposing groups. If you believe in your particular issue with enough passion, you will be adamantly against anything that comes close to threatening it.

[Ax]

Individuality died with George Washington's presidency. Truly, If you look at American history... it's soo much less nasty now than it used to be.

[S.B.Nichols]

Individuality died in high school; everyone wanted to to be different, but all ended up looking and acting the same. CGR often reminds me of high school.

[Chrysostom]

It's mostly composed of high-schoolers and college students.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I'd have to agree. Thinking individually makes sense. Picking and choosing what to support makes sense. I support practically open immigration, but not abortion. That basically tosses me out of the running for being a strong democrat OR republican.

Same here. I'm against abortion, but I'm also against capital punishment. I'm for extending our mission in Afghanistan for as long as the Afghan government asks, but only as long as there's measurable progress. So I'm not really a liberal, but not really a conservative either. And I'm okay with that, but there are others who aren't. I remember a couple years ago here on CGR, I questioned another poster's praise of the Tories' scrapping of the Federal Firearms Registry, and was promptly told about how bad the Liberals were, and how much money they wasted. That's what irritates me - having other people accuse me of brand-loyalty based on one or two issues.

[Than]

I think individuality is just about a myth nowadays. Not to sound like Mr. Resident Paranoid Marxist, but even that idea's been subverted by the market. We are given the illusion of choice and empowerment in our selection of purchases while the market coopts everything from pop-culture and niches to try to personalize certain products and marketing strategies.

9/11? We were told the best thing we could do was go shopping. It seems like the body politic tries to define itself more and more by what it consumes. [/rant]

[Victus Mortuum]

Not to sound like Mr. Resident Paranoid Marxist,

?