I liked The Penguin History of Philosopy by D.W. Hamlyn. The reviews though are not favourable. lol.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/166553.The_Penguin_History_of_Western_Philosophy

I still think the best way is through an introductory course, taught to you live. Even though it might be shallow, it gives you an overview, something to work with and you are motivated to work your way through the texts. Philosophy is still very dialogical I feel.

Well, to complicate the picture even further, the branches of governemnt are themselves not untitary. For instance the executove branch is usually comprised of different departments and these departments might start ars of all against all as well. So even if the executive 'wins' the war you describe, the question is which department has won control of the executive branch. You might be thinking of the president, but no president rules alone. So the queestion is still one of influence.

To curb this from happening, a number of institutional checks and balances are normally built in, like negotiations, often behind closed doors. Still, it is not an uncommon sight. In the European Union for instance, there is frequent infighting among the different departments headed by the various commissioners. In the legislative branch similar tugs of war are imaaginable, especially in multi party systems. In the EU further complicated by national allegiances.

So yes, Hobbesian wars of all against all are imaginable and these squabbles generally do not result in more efficiency unless a power grab takes place perhaps. If you are more intereste in this topic I suggest taking a look at the literaure on governance, there is a wealth of information out there.

We always try to gauge what we deserve and what others deserve, but how is any such thing measured objectively? Do we deal in just more or less than one another or can we find real world measurable things to compare in reference to deservingness? We certainly live different lives and experience different outcomes, but can we ever really determine we deserve our lot in life? — TiredThinker

Deserving is not objectively determined, but politically determined. I tend to look at Michael Sandel's 'Justice' when analyzing deserts, because A. he does not downplay the question of desert, and B. his account is historical and discursive instead of actuarial.
I think we cannot avoid questions of desert, even though we might disagree on the question of free will. We are creatures of value and we relate the actions of others to ourselves. We tend to value actions we consider virtuous and condemn those we consider vicious. what we consider virtuous is no constant matter but depends on the society in which we live and what it concerns virtuous. Those depend on political eliberation, custom, habit etc. That is not to reduce them to whim or to say they are 'merely' socially constructed. They are social constructions but they are necessary cnstructions nonetheless since valuation is I think part and parcel of our phenomenological 'embodied' experience of the world. As such some measures of desert seem to be more or less constant, even though they show a different face. We tend to value those that do not harm us and protect us over those who cause us pain.

Every society therefore has to engage in determining what virtues it tends to reward and what vices it tens to punish. A society that thrives on warlike traditions might reward military bravery and prowess while a society that thrives on trade and non violent conflict resolution might value persuason and argumentation. There is therefore no 'objective' in the sense of ahistorical way of determining deserts. What we can say though is that determining who deserves what is a necessarily political question and being cast out of the process, having no voice in other words, deprives you of some necessary feature of belonging to a society an therefore limiting of your 'being at home' in society.

I therefore disagree with @180 Proof when he states that deserving is just getting what you can take or what you cannot avoid. Even criminals might concur that there punishment was just even tough they tried hard to avoid it. Similarly, one feels the waiter deserves a tip, even though this is harmful to you and can easily be avoided. We tip even if we know we will never see the bar again. The reason is that we tend to value living virtuously, even though we not always do. Everyone does embrace values, even though that means limiting their own will. What we do want is our chance to reflec on them and to have a say in choosing them. We want the opportunity co command, instead of only following.

Well my immediate reaction is that you are depressed and therefore you see their optimism in a negative light. The question you ask should in principle be rephrased, "why are idealistic, optimistic people depressing to me? That has psychological causes. You feel you are stuck in life and they seem not to be. That causes resentment and further depression.

That said: a lot of 'optimism' we see nowadays, for instance in slogans like 'life is what you make of it', or 'you just have to be yourself', 'success is a choice', are not really optimistic or motivattional, though they are shrouded in motivational garb. They lay responsibility at your own feet and do not give you any clue what to do with it. In that way, for someone who is depressed they add insult to injury because if you are not successful (or feel you are not) than you apparently have not been paying attention or tried hard enough. That of course depresses. In the OP you seem to switch from discussing optimistic people to the agruments they give. These should be kept apart. I think perhaps you have nothing against optimistic people but the phrases they use nowadays. The depression those words cause is unfortunate, but not wholly unexpected. You becoming depressed over them has to do with them speaking to you on an emotional level, but you did not yet unmask them for what they are, hollow phrases that have in fact nothing to do with optimism.

From my point of view, I think, according to Ockham's razor that both Objective and Absolute Idealism are the same:

- One absolute being.
- the Objective things are present Objectively, but not Materially.
- The One absolute being is both the Perceiver and the Perceived. — Salah

Thanks @tim wood :)

Care to unpack these sentences because theymake no sense to me. Do you think that for absolute idealists things are not materially present?

@god must be atheist Well... I am not thinking the end of the world is nigh yet. And I am also sorry for switching my chosen song,, from the brilliant Zager and Evans to the euqally brilliant Cohen. It is chilling, yes, I agree. I also think constant monitoring is far more invasive than an obligation to be vaccinated. I do not know if it is a 'test' for a roll out in the West. I do think that governments are always prone to resort to mass surveillance. This surveillance system is 1984'ish.

Too much nuance, my friend, for somebody else's homework. :smirk: — 180 Proof

True 180, but I needed the jogging.... has been ages since I dealt with this stuff. And I am a procrastinator at heart... Now back to grading someboy else's homework...

In the year 2020....

2021 is simply a continuation of the epoch that has started after 2020. We are in the throes of scientific, social and religious change. We could call it, borrowing a term of Ulirich Beck, reflexivity, but it is a reflexivity on steroids. We have had a number of realizations that indicate the frailty of our instututions. Science cannot find a (social) cure for corona, democracy is under threat in the US and the EU and a chasm has opened up between the old with their faith in techo-fixes and the young with a sense of hedonistic romanticism.

Lenny said it all...

How come you know the truth?

This sounds like a homeowrk question, but ok. I define does notions a bit different than 180 Proof does. I think the differentiation is made by Hegel himself actually when he described Firchet's system as subjective idealism, Schelling's as objective idealism and his own as absolute idealsim.

In his view, Fichte, localized the relation we have in the world too much in the 'I', in the subject. Every experience for Fichte is localized in consciousness and so the world as it appears to consciousness is the world as it is. Philosophy therefore is the reexamination of self cosciousness, what does consciousnes do when it constructs a world out of its data.

Schelling in turn prioritsed the objective side. Consciousness is only consciousness within a world that develops itself within a certain way. As far as I know Schelling coined the term 'world spirit' to indicate that the world develops in a certain rational kind of way and from this development emanates the structures and institutions that define our reality, law, the state, science etc.

Hegel tried to reconcile the systems of Fichte and Schelling stating that it is neither subject, not object that should be prioritized, but that these are terms that themselves develop from the way the that thinking (the idea, or 'the movement of the concept') develops. The subject and object are different and at the same time essentially the same, or at least springing forth from the same source (the absolute). The difference between the two is both ineluctable and untenable. It is untenable, because we know consciousness is consciousness of a world and in itself it is empty. What is given is given to it by the world (object) that it examines. At the same time though we can never see ourselves as merely part of that 'world spirit', we also take ourselves as different from it. 'The world' does not exist, only my world exisst. So between subject and object there is a tension of different, but also a realization of identity.

The difference in a nutsell being that for Schelling and his objective idealism, subjectivity is encompassed by the objective and itself mostly illusory, delivered to the whims of objective reality, while for Hegel the subjective and objective are both poles that should not be absolutised. They stem from a unity, a world that is itself both subject and object, comprising an inner tension as it moves and develops in an objective way. but does not do so whimsical, but self reflectively, through our work and objectification within it (in domains like work, science, religion, law).

↪Tobias
Actually my post was directed toward Bret and the op. I just inserted a line from your post. so I put quotations to give proper credit to you, for that phrase. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ohh, I misinterpretete that in that case. My apologies :)

I suppose if the causal connection between the person's will, and the occurrence could be established, then the person is legally responsible. But doesn't "magic" imply that the causal connection remains hidden? So I think "magick" is an oxymoron. You are saying that the person is necessarily the cause, in a situation where there is no evidence to conclude that the person is necessarily the cause. And the legal issue you raise is just a sham, because you are asking if the person ought to be held responsible in a situation where the person cannot be proven to be responsible. Of course that is a non-starter. — Metaphysician Undercover

You did not read my post very carefully. A. your definition of magick is not wildly shared. Magick does not mean that the causal connection is hidden, though in our world the mechanism would be pretty miraculous. However, as I did in my post, assuming that magick does exist, if I may by way of reciting certain formulas cause a creature to appear I am just as much the cause of its appearance as I am when I call my dog and command him to attack.

B. The legal question whether someone is to be held responsible is a different question from whether his or her responsibility can be proven. If some commits the perfect crime and murders his wife, then he is still responsible for her death. He still needs to be acquitted of the murder because it cannot be proven, but that does not mean he is not responsible for it. You may well object that magick does not exist, as assumption I share, but the whole point of the post was to show what could or would happen if it did. Such exercises are not uncommon. The pentagon drafted a scenario analysis of what to do in the case of a zombie apocalypse. By creating such what if scenario's you may understand your own legal and political arrangements better.

The forces of the law are authorized to use any form of magic in pursuit of their duties.

Tobias is a plant for the council of Sharn confirmed. — fdrake

Hah! That is cool. However do consider the anti-constitutional nature of the last line. It is the criminal code of magick a police state would draft. I have no protection against true seeing spells, against clairvoyance, I might be charmed into cooperating against my own interest or to extort a confession etc. It would accommodate a society of mass magical surveillance.

I do not believe magick is real, but that does not make the question of regulation less interesting. Such hypotheical question can give rise to interesting puzzles related to regulation. A colleague and I were toying with the idea of organising a conference on zombies and law for instance (think zombies and inheritance law, does the property return to the undead or is being undead suffieciently different from being alive? do they have rights to bidily integrity in the same way as live humans etc?

I am sure that if magick were a feature of current society it would be regulated, just as everyhing else, but it brings its own special problems. First we would need to know if the use of magick is detectable. For instance clairvoyance or mind reading might contravene rights to privacy if practices, but if it can be done undetected we will have a problem with reinforcing norms against practicing it. I guess there will be information campagns informing the clairvoyant about how to practice their skill ethically. If it can be detected the authorities might well outlaw the practice of magic and reserve it for professionals who have had an education in its use, but ban it for everyone else.

With more interfering magick such as changing weather patterns and summoning wild animals etc. laws need to be in place governing it because that might have severe social consequences. Imagine the impact on sea and air travel when whether patterns could change willy nilly. Imagine also the magickal conflicts that would take place when say a farmer summons rain and a hotel owner sunshine for his guests. The summoning of wild animals of course depends on the animal summoned. Summoning a wild bear in the streets might well lead to a manslaughter charge if the bear indeed kills, or reckless endangerment if it does not, but could. There would of course also be rules for the well being of such animals summoned by the conjurer in question.

The state would of course use claivoyance in the tactical police units mentioned by Jamalrob but that leads to interesting questions in regard to the principle of legality in criminal law. Can I be arrested if I ahve not committed the act yet? Or should such teams limit themselves to changing the conditions in the situation in order for a suspect not to commit a crime. Guidelines will certainly have to be issued.

A further question to consider is if everyone will have such magickal capabilities or only a few. If a few have than some individuals will be qualitatively different then others in a scale not seen here. How do we regulate them in orer for them not to grab power and how do we regulate the others not too mistrust and hate them? In short we would have to weave a dense web of regulation, but no doubt that would be done if magick was real.

edit: in some countries the use of magick is still regulated. In Iran magick and witchcraft are outlawed and fall under ' hudud crimes' on a par with a felony.

@clemogo

This is a quote from German Philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte: “What sort of philosophy one chooses depends, therefore, on what sort of man one is; for a philosophical system is not a dead piece of furniture that we can accept or reject as we wish, it is rather a thing animated by the soul of the person who holds it.”

Philosophers, just like anyone else are children of their time. It is impossible to overcome every bias and indeed, what you hint at with 'you can never know if you have overcome your biases' is known also as the problem of self reflection. We might engage in self reflection but we need self reflection to know if the self we are refecting on is really accurately represented, an infinite regress.

However, I think you push the envelop too far when you say that "the only reason they ascribe to these theories is because of their personal arbitrary bias". They base themselves on arguments and these arguments themselves have their base in logic or in any case on some intuitive level that people grasp through a certain like mindedness. We are all biased, but we also have a lot in common. It is through this commonality (of having a world for instance, of being placed in time, of having bodily needs and desires, of recognizing the laws of logic etc) that philosophers construe arguments. So while one has to be as far as possible be aware of bias, this needs not be absolutized into full blown relativism.

Indeed many philosophers have tried to come up with non contextualized systems and arguments, Rawls for instance and Kant. They are not the be all and end all of philosophy or impervious to critique, but their arguments still appeal to us, even though we live in a different time from them. At the same time one can have more affinity with a Rawlsian line of reasoning, or with someone like McIntyre. We all have philosophical tastes, but that is no problem as long as our arguments are sound and persuasive.

A world with evil and goodness in it is definitely a more interesting place than a world devoid of evilness. — Wittgenstein

A world with only goodness is untinkable. the least good would by definition be evil. The concepts define themselves opposite to each other.

Suffering from evil has its own joy and lessons. — Wittgenstein

Really? I think they are lessons I can do without, at least by my own experience. And those lessons are useful only because evil exists, if it wasn't there there would be no need for lessons.

Activism and passive acceptance are both inadequate when it comes to creating a strong force in life, they should exist but under the service of a higher blind unjustified drive. — Wittgenstein

I do not understand this jump. Why should anything exist "under a higher blind unjustified drive"?

We should replace marxist utopian ideals and gritty realism/ pragmatism on the other hand (overall contemporary attitude) with an irrational blind will and let it take its direction.That is not to say we should view people who hold different viewpoint from us as being right in their own way. — Wittgenstein

The problem is that that irrational blind will often leads to destructuve directions and opposes the blind irrational will of others leading to clashes. Most people do not like those ensuing conflicts and channeled this blind irrational will. It is still there of course, but more domesticated, easier to control.

Post modernism has a big fault, it doesn't allow an individual or a group to assert itself in a forceful manner. — Wittgenstein

That is hardly PoMo's fault. Christianity was not big on it either.

We must learn to admire fundamentalist, terrorists, extremists AS FAR AS their determination and solidarity is concerned. — Wittgenstein

Sure and then lock them up. Well not fundamentalists and extremists per se, people are allowed to hold extremist views, right.

Ironically, a terrorist can live a more meaningful life compared to an average person held hostage by postmodernism — Wittgenstein

I very much doubt it. the biographies of most terrorists read like long list of failures in society, addiction, mental health problems etc. Before you know it you find your leg blown off by a US drone as well. Nahh, just romanticism.

I can almost feel a return of religion in a new shape once the postmodern period is over. People will become religious once again in the sense of having unshakable convictions. — Wittgenstein

That is well possible. People like ushakable convictions.

Goebbels was the minister of propaganda, no? There is no paradox. Goebbels did not say everything he said was a lie, he just iterated what every good propagandist knows, that if a lie is reiterated long enough, people will eventually believe it. What he thinks about anything is irrelevant. He might have believed them, or he might not. Maybe it shows some sort of relativistic spirit, but that is not necessary. He just indicated that people could be made to believe anything, making him a master of propaganda.

That was my point. I don’t know exact ins and outs and it seems to vary from state to state. — I like sushi

That is correct and such concepts are hard to wrap your head around if you are not from that legal system. I find provocation a very elulusive concept. We do not have it in Dutch law, that expplains it. The theoretical problem for me is that provocation seems to provide an excuse, not a justification. There is a difference between the two. My conduct is understandable, because I am seeing my wife getting raped and that causes a fit of rage or overwhelming desire to free her. I am being rpovoked, and so mentally I am not culpable (no mens rea). Yet, on the objective side my conduct is than still wrong, not justified but excused. I would rather say that in such a situation my conduct is justified, because I fear for the life of my wife. I was in fact acting in lawful defense of others.

The difference in practice is this: if my conduct is merely excused than countervailing force might itself be justified, because my attack is not, it is merely excusable. If I am justified though, then automatically his counter attack is unjustified, because he responds to a lawful attack on my part, by killing me. However, I ffully acknowledge I am no expert when it comes to the rules on provocation. Moreover, US criminal law seems little concerned about the difference between justification and excuse, much to Fletcher's dismay.

The results are often very similar though and the hypothetical I gave isquite paradigmatic for conflicting self defense claims. As saidd, under US law it may also be settled via the felony murder law, every loss of life resulting from a felony is attributable to the one committing the felony (out of my head).

A more accurate scenario would be if you and the X went to a BLM protest, saw Harry, a weird teenage kid wielding an assault rifle, and chased after him in a threatening manner with the intent of disarming him, and perhaps beating him up a bit for good measure.

A weird teenage kid once pulled out a rifle on me when I was a teen. I got the hell out of there because I knew he was stupid enough to use it, regardless of the consequences. — praxis

No, it is not a more accurate scenario because it is a much more muddled situation. I am not passing judgment on the Rittenhouse case, but merely illuminating a point of law about self defense. In between the extremes there is often an area with 50 shades of grey. The point that I was making is that it is not always the case that one may respond with defensive force in a life threatening situation. Not whether in this particular situation the defendent might have responded with defensive force.

First, how does the husband know that his wife is being raped and not a masochist cheating on her husband?

It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act.

The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring. — Harry Hindu

Not at all, you asked a theoretical question (is defending yourself from being killed always justified) and I am giving you a theoretical answer through an excample. It is indeed not always justified.

Moreover, you are changing the hypothetica, in that case it would be putative self defense of the part of the husband, but it is of no concern since that was not the point of the hypothetical.

If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here. — I like sushi

I would find that very hard to belief. Self defense generally requires defense against an imminent and unlawful attack. Me rescuing my wife is in fact defense of others, his counter reaction therefore is not a response against an unlawful attack. The terminology might be diifferent but unless I see it I hold on what I have learned from Fletcher''Rethinking Criminal Law', a great theorist from whom I learned what I know of anglo/American criminal law and of course from my dear colleague, a US lawyer who taught together with me in Amsterdam .

But well, maybe in the US they construct it through provocation, but with their strict felony murder rule I think you would be hard pressed as a lawyer when you are on the rapist's team.

Then your position is that all rapists deserve to be killed by their victim's (X-)husband? — Harry Hindu

Not al all, nor is that an implication of my position

Strange that you interpret a factual statement as a demand. Maybe the information in this thread is inaccurate, biased, or doesn't take into consideration all facts that have been given. There is no problem in asking questions. You didn't have to answer. — Harry Hindu

That is true. There is useful information though in this thread, also addressing your questions. Well, any information on a philosophy forum, might be inaccurate of biased ;). Anyway sorry if I came off as harsh, but I reacted to not telling anything useful. Of course you may always ask questions, fair enough.

This doesn't tell me anything useful. What are the circumstances in which it is OK to defend yourself vs not being OK to defend yourself?

It seems to me that if you have the right to life, liberty and happiness, then you have the right to defend yourself from others trying to take these things away from you. — Harry Hindu

Well now Harry, think, think.... what could those circumstances be.... Ohh I know. Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is not a real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead!

Now, witness hwat happens in court... You get convicted for manslaughter (non-premeditated murder) or even felony murder. So no, unfortunately Harry you did not have the right of self defense in that situation.

By the way, it is not my duty to tell you anything useful. You frame it as a demand, but normally I get paid to provide legal education. You could have found this information in the thread.

It's not a matter of what someone deserved. It's a matter of do you have the right to defend yourself from being killed? — Harry Hindu

And the answer to that question as offered up so often in this thread is sometimes you have and sometimes you do not.

My apologies for derailing the thread. I should not debate this kind of stuff in the Rittenhouse thread so, by all means go back on topic if you like. I belief that such a discussion with NOS4A2 is something like a broken record on the forums, it is still a bit new for me, but again sorry to derail the thread. I will from now on only answer points of law in this thread.

It was only a criticism of the idea that by paying tax dollars you are somehow working with others, coordinating your defence. That’s not the case, to me. It appears more like ignorance, in the sense of “not knowing”. Since one is unable to follow his tax-dollars to their final destination, so he is unable to say he is coordinating education, a police force, or the toilet paper in a public washrooms. Far from coordination, he is ignorant of it, and has no say in all coordinating aspects of its application. — NOS4A2

Well, that is the case you are working with others. everyone pays taxes so everyone chips in to a pool of resources which are then use to facilitate the creation of public good. It is a simple reduction of transaction costs because if you would have to contract and negotiate with everyone individually it would cost you enormous time and resources. In addition somehow you will have to deal with the problem of free riders, a notorious economic conundrum when it comes to the creation of pubic goods.

Of course, you do not know everything that happens to your tax dollars. However, that is a situation we are in since the onset of modern society. You do not know what happens to your tax dollars, but also not what technology corporations install in your mobilie phones, or god forbid, in coronav accines or in basically everything we use for modern living. It always requires a leap of faith scary though it may be.

Some would rather delegate the responsibilities and the means for their defence on to others, to “professionals”. So in times when defence is required, he has long absolved himself of any responsibility and can let others handle it for him. Far from efficient, it’s laziness. It isn't without irony that we find a dutch John Oliver ridiculing Americans and their guns while benefiting from the liberation and defence of American firepower. — NOS4A2

Well, actually in every naton state we delegate the defense against foreign invasion to professionals. And no that not necessarily absolves you from responsibility as you may be indeed drafted into the army in times of acute crisis. That is another civic duty coordinated by the state and for good reason. If every hamlet had to organise their own defense force and negotiate procedures with every other hamlet, your country would not last long. Yes, the Netherlands has benefitted and still benefits from US firepower and - aside - when the US complains about the Eruopean countries not pulling their fair weight they are right! However that oly goes to show how tenacious the problem of collective action is. As Tin Wood pointed out, it simply has nothing to do with gun laws since the US army would be equally strong if there was no second amendment.

And since they confer their responsibilities to the state, they correspondingly confer it the power to govern their own lives. The monopoly on violence hints at who is serving whom. — NOS4A2

Well in a democratic state we both serve and are being served. That is the reason why democracy demands people having votes and being eligible for political functions. I am not working in the sevice of the Dutch state. Well in some sense I am, but everyone that is employed in education in the Netherlands is. The point is trivial, I could just as well say the state is serving me because it basically pays me to think.

I used legalism in the pejorative sense. I mean that ethics is dismissed in favor of appeals to law and authority. Law shapes the "mindset of the people", rather the other way about. I fear we cannot discuss the ethics of defending oneself from a mob or a right to bear arms without limiting ourselves to state-sanctioned principles, many of which are younger than the disco era. — NOS4A2

Still, I have no idea why you attrribute this view to me. I think the point of view is eminently ethical in as far as it takes the relationships with other people into account. The libertarian ideology, at least in the variation you espouse, seems to do no such thing. Instead it believes in some God given rights. Also it is not the case that law shapes the mindset of the people but comes out of thin air itself. It is actually also shaped by the mindset of the people as well as by other things, like technological development. Law is, here it is again, a social practice. The problem is in your world view there is no accounting for that, therefore law must come out of nowhere. Like your right to bear arms seems to come out of nowhere. Your view though leads to that absurd assumption though, not mine.

The point, anyways, was that in the view of my erroneous ideology I have yet to see anything better on offer. — NOS4A2

Well, NOS, you live in something better, the lord be praised! No society holds on to your ideology as it would revert us back to the stone age. Look around you at all the things tax money got you. Just for one minute comtemplate the traffic light and consider what a boon it is that central planners have limited your freedom and that of everyone else on the intricate system of roads we have...

I’ll just say that there is a fine line between efficiency on the one hand and laziness and ignorance on the other. — NOS4A2

Well, what woudl be an indicator of ignorance? Hard to pick, but say, literacy rates. And lo and behold, you are right there literacy levels or so much higher in the US than in the Netherlands. Ohh... they aren't? Could have fooled me. Ohh that is right because we use tax money to fund education.

Compare these two reports:
https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20United%20States.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20Netherlands.pdf

You would rather delegate the right to bear arms and to defend yourself to other people. — NOS4A2

One does not have a right to bear arms granted by nature. And yes, I think allocating the defense of my rights to others is indeed practical. Just like I delegate my right to bake bread to others and my right to search for clean drinking water.

You don’t know where your tax money is spent—out of sight, out of mind—but are confident authority will spend it on some “public good”. — NOS4A2

Well, not always. We have our problems with the tax service. However we also have reasonably transparent instritutions and a judicial system that is in general open. The Netherlands is a rather pleasurable country to live in, our infrastructure is not crumbling, so indeed, I think it is reasonably well spent most of the time. What is true is that most of our European defense is borrowed from the US which is an Achilles heel. In general though yes the distribution of public goods is of a high quality.

Your sense of justice has been reduced to strict legalism. — NOS4A2

Huh? Where does that come from? Can someone explain to me what NOS means? In any case, if not I just point out the non-sequitur and let it rest.

In short, Tobias, your ideology is servile and unjust and immoral. — NOS4A2

Who am I serving? I feel the creation of public goods is not servile. It is called working together. And yes, working together is usually more efficient when coordinated through the media of well ordered institutions, with democratic checks and balances. I thought that was what countries were ideally made of. To what standard of justice is that ideology unjust or immoral?

It’s true, high murder rates are not a good thing, but neither is a monopoly on violence, the inability to equalize force, the inability to defend one’s property, an so on. At each step, from the shooting of Jason Blake onward, the professionals failed in Wisconsin. Frankly, I would much rather take my chances. — NOS4A2

Of course a monopoly on violence is a good thing. The ability to equalize force... as if that's gonna happen. A bunch of trained professionals will always outgun the untrained masses wielding AR rifles, not to mention their access to truly heavy weaponry such as tanks and armored vehicles. Defending one's own property... nahh, ridiculously inefficient. A. Most people do not even have property worth defending B. Allowing everyone guns just ups the ante because also your attackers will be armed as well. and C. isn't defense of public order and property not a public good? We pay something called taxes (maybe you should look up the concept) and pay it to the government in order to arrange for cetralized property defense. Much more efficient then everyone trying to build their own little fortress and with less chances for error. "Ohhh golly, I thought he was tresspassing, I did not know he sold bibles! sorry for the holes in your head".

Really NOS you are not a stupid guy, but your ideology is so incredibly erroneous, down from its metaphysics up to its practical results, You must be a masochist to defend it. Libertarians are just hopeless romantics I guess.

Our idea is that everybody requires strict parental supervision when handling such weaponry, or at least has some kind of permit, attesting to their mental health, professional capacity etc. As I pointed out to you the murder rate in the US is at least 5 times of that in the Netherlands. And no NOS, that is not a good thing. In general yes, we think indeed assault rifles are safest in the hands of professionals. Actually we think the same about law...

edit: the last remark was a snipe at the jury system, not anyone at the forum.

Goths unite...

A key difference is that, in your analogy, an actual crime is being committed by the rapist, whereas the attempts to disarm R were to mitigate the threat of a crime, one which, in the end, R would be found not guilty of anyway due to staggering and wilful cognitive dissonance. — Kenosha Kid

Well, in the scenario I outline (of which I do not know whether it was the prosecutors take) all hangs on whether the defendant had a right to be there at that point with that weapon. A rapist does not, so far is clear. I think it is found in the R. case that he had. If that was the case than an attempt at disarming r. is unlawful and constitutes an attack on his person from which he has the right to defend himself.

Therefore all hangs on the qualification of his behaviour prior to the shooting, i.e., being there with that weapon. The first job of the prosecutors would be, in the strat. I put forward to argue he provoked the attack by hsi wanton behaviour, or if recklessness is the category, that he acted reckless by being there with that weapon at that time. That would be known under Dutch law as 'culpa in causa', being guilty of having a hand in the tragic situaton occurring. I do agree with some of the others that the prosecutor's job is a hard one. We can not look in the defendent's mind and his political views do not matter in a court of law. We only know something about the outward manifestation of his state of mind. It being legal in Wisconsin to carry fire arms, even those kinds, to scene's of conflict does not make it easier.

Another strat. indeed would be to argue that the protesters acted in legitimate self defense. If they did than the defendent's claim would not fly. However, it is not easy I guess to make that claim because one would have to prove that they faced an iminent unlawful attack. So the defendent's behaviour must make it credible that he was about to shoot the protesters.

Another line would be to argue the proportionality of the violence. Was he much heavier armed than the protesters and could he have avoided the situation with lesser means. these are known as the proportionality and subsidiarity principles under Dutch criminal doctrine. Self defense has to be proportionate to be justified. I.e., being threated with a potato peeler doed not justify emptying your revolver and there must not be other means available, including flight. Since it was not difficult for him not to be there in the first place, his self defense claim would already run into potential difficulties there. However I gather the law of the state of Wisconsin is different.

So in the Netherlands, they would convict someone of manslaughter for an action that was in direct defense of the defendant's life? — frank

It totally depends on the facts of the case of course and the situation is hard to compare because bringing an assault weapon on the scene would be prohibited in the Netherlands anyway. If, resulting from that action, you find yourself in mortal peril, yes then your self defense justification would probably not fly. I think it is also probable in the US though, not in this case perhaps but in others it is. Say a man was raping your wife. You come to her rescue with a lead pipe and the assailant, fearing for his life because of your imminent attack shoots you. Than the asailant is in credible fear of his life, though his justification of self defense will not fly because he acted wrongful in the first place. So indeed not every defense out ot fear of your life being taken is a valid justification.

This one didn't threaten. It spiraled. Stores were closed across the US afterward because looting for the fun of it had become a thing. — frank

Certainly! All the more reason not to allow also the presence of counter protesters.

That would make sense. You can see how the failure of local governments to protect life and property shouldn't affect our judgement if Rittenhouse, right? — frank

Those are two different matters. One is about he failure of the authorities and one is about the possible mens rea of the defendent. One could argue in the following way, as was outlined earlier in the thread. The defendent being there with that weapon is not illegal. However, he willingly put himself, armed in a very dangerous situation. When one carries a fire arm to a dangerous situation, it is foreseeable that such a fire arm will need to be used. When it is used, it will result in injury or death. So the defendent acted wantonly when he went there armed with a deadly weapon.

Similarly as I would act wantonly leaving my rat poison on the table unattended while a children's party is taking place. Me having the rat poison is not illegal and if nothing happens in that situation no wrong doing has happened, however when a child eats from it an dies, I am face with a charge of manslaughter (the exact term depends on the state where this takes place). Of course I do not know if US law sanctions such a line of reasoning, but it would not be an unreasonable line for the prosecution to take in many legal systems. Again I am not arguing for or against the Rittenhouse verdict, but again pointing out a theoretical point of law.

I have doubted about posting thss. I am in doubt, because I do not wish to offend anybody and it is annoying if other people make fun of one's country while not being based there, I understand that. It might also come of as arrogance and aloofness. That is not intended. The reason I do like to post it, is not to ridicule, but to show how different the perspectives are. The guy who made this video could be considered the Dutch John Oliver. He learned a lot from him I reckon. So it should be seen in this light, as political satire. It is made a couple of years ago, four I think, so well before the Covid pandemic.

You can't arrest someone because you think they're about to become a vigilante. You have to wait until they actually have done it. — frank

No, you do not. In fact that is a very unwise course of action in such a siuation. In the Netherlands a mayor would immediately issue an emergency ordnance prohibiting people carrying fire arms from the city center. The point is a bit moot because obviously the carrying of assault rifles in the city center is forbidden already. However, this is what happens when protests threaten to spiral out of control: groups of protesters that are likely to clash are separated. That is very much in accordance with the rule of law because mayors have such competencies granted by law.

It's more that a suggestion that we put aside the rule of law is anathema (if that's not what your were initially doing , I apologize, but it seemed like it). — frank

For me, keeping the streets safe from vigilantism is exactly that, upholding the rule of law, it is the rule of law not of man and therefore, it is up to the state to protect the rights of each of us equally :) What you are doing is presupposing one interpretation of the rule of law as 'the rule of law', but no European lawyer would agree with you that that is what the rule of law requires. Here too we see the same anathema, concepts which seem to mean the same are interpreted very differently.

Wait, what? I thought America was the center of the universe and everyone everywhere hung on every word and video that came from America. Are you telling me there are other people out there, with intelligence, and lives, and countries that matter? :gasp: — James Riley

Nahh, I would not dare to tell you such herisy! ;) I lectured on principles of law for international students and principles of criminal law, also for international students. I also lecture Dutch law students and it is remarkable that no Dutch law student becomes acquainted with international cases. Well, in one course, one or two US cases are studied, but that is about it. No US student of law would read a European case, I gather. It is funny because of of course, like you say the judicial interpretation displays well articulated arguments that hold sway in society and signals how things ought to be. Yet we hardly ever study the arguments of the others, each of us trying to find our own pearls of wisdom and taking them for granted as the only way things should be.

They are usually (not always) heavy on the philosophy, and well thought-out. Especially when it comes to the right to protest, seek redress, mingle, travel, etc. — James Riley

I lectured on snyder v. Phelps, among others, but I am the first to admit that not being American is a hindrance. My co-lecturer was an American native criminal lawyer and we would have endless discussions... :) miss those times! Just aside...

Entering into a volatile situation and advocating a position counter to the overwhelming majority is a dangerous idea, but it can't be criminalized unless you're willing to do it uniformly, as would require, for example, the arresting of BLM protestors at a volatile Klan rally. — Hanover

Not unreasonable no, when BLM protesters wield attack rifles. It is funny how law does shape the mindset of the people. For the posters from the US, arresting armed protesters near rallies of the opposing partes is anathema, a clear violation of rights of protest and arguable the second amendment. Not arresting them is anathema though to the posters from Europe.

We had riots in the streets of major cities against covid-19 policies. I am just imagining the looks on the faces of the mayors when they were notified a contingent of civilians armed with assault rifles are about to arrive on the scene to 'restore the peace'... :lol: "Fuck, NOOOOOO" would be a mild reaction and then immediately a call to whatever division of the police would still be out there in order to block the entrance to the city...

It is interesting for me to see that even though we post in the same language (sort of for us non-native speakers) and there are many topics that are easy to discuss, our like mindedness runs into limits quite unexpectedly. I am not saying any system is better. With law it is the same thing as with driving and with prowess in the bedroom, everyone things they do it satisfactorily. Two cultures, similar in a lot of ways might have such a clash over such a fundamental principle as to how to construct a well ordered society.

So instead there must be a circumstance breaking that causality, eg. a supervening event. The jury must have found that in the way Rittenhouse was approached — Benkei

Perhaps. Though if the wanton disregard rests in bringing that gun to a situation of conflict, than an approach such as occurred would not be out of the bounds of foreseeabiity. In fact, it is precisely because such an event might occur, that he might have been said to act wantonly. I guess actually the jury did not find bringing the gun a wanton action, as per Sushi's remarks.

To say anything more specifically legalese I should study the whole verdict.

In the Netherlans we have a comedian, Tim Franssen, who does philosophical stand up comedy, mixing in both deep ideas with black humour and sometimes very unexpected vulgar jokes. I saw his show about Kantian morality on stage and it was really good.

During the first waves of the corona pandemic he recogded a series of podcasts, called "Civilisation, the Aftertoughts". The dutch word is is 'nabeschouwing' which is unfortunately hard to translate but it is what sports analysts do when they comment on a game after it has been played. He also acts like that a little, giving commentary on the game.

I think it is a good combination actually. humour helps us cope in practice with the absurdity of existence and jokes confront us with missmatches between our idealized world of aims, ideas and endeavours and the every day stumbling and fooling around we engage in in practice.