> Kel:
>
>>shotgun and refuses to let the ssizzlean in, starts screaming out the
>>window at the pigs, and takes a couple of potshots, well...? or, even if
>>granny doesn't get her gun and just refuses to turn him over, she ought to
>>be kept from harm but, at that point, she's a criminal and no longer
> innocent.
>
> Fine and good, but does this really relate to the present case? What if
> Granny asks the cops for evidence that her grandson is guilty of the crime,
> and if so, she says she'll hand him over? <...>
>
> <snip happens>
>
i think we have now done a couple of loops of analogies and discussions around this! there seems little chance of doug, and those espousing the "ladder of force" argument, showing us some mercy and restating their argument from the beginning. so, i delved into the archives and present below my cliff notes version, for those who may have joined the list in the last few years ;-):
the first shot, and a convincing one, was fired by lou paulsen on oct 18th, at about 10pm. thats a wednesday, and its early in the evening, so the chances are the man was sober and therefore probably not too trustworthy ;-), nevertheless he makes what seems to be a rigorous analysis and a worthy read:
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/2200.html
it is worthwhile to reproduce his ladder and we do so below, with some word wrap thrown in for free:
- limit the war (for now) to Afghanistan - limit the means of the war within Afghanistan (less reliance on
aerial bombing, more on "special forces") - take more care to limit collateral damage (obey the Geneva convention) - conduct the war through the United Nations - limit the war aims to the apprehension and prosecution of al-Qaeda
in the U.S. courts - as above, but conduct the prosecution in a UN-established body - as above, but limit the use of force to that level which could be
characterized as 'law enforcement'
in a humorous segment that follows, the author (lou paulsen) then classifies the standing of various lbo-talk dignitaries on said ladder providing succinct quotes that seek to justify this ranking.
thus far, apart from individual resentment against ladder rank assignment, there is hope for a loving end, but then lou draws the line in the sand: all the ladder inhabitants and their version of the left, he says, are fundamentally different from his version, the fundamental difference being that he opposes any kind of use of force on the part of the US.
lets pause for a second and stress that the word used is "force". at this point, lou speaking for the ladderless, has not outlined any action. now, at the cost of breaking the suspense, i will reveal that at a future date doug would respond to lou on this very point, perhaps not noticing that lou thus far has only opposed force.
well then, you say, what does lou propose we should do? aha! thats where we enter the heart of lou's message. these questions, he says, are compartmentalized ways of thinking with restrictive frames of reference, and belie the real state of affairs. to illustrate this, he provides various examples.
"but what now? what should i do?" you persist. perhaps the first thing you can do is to join the ladderless folks in freeing yourself from these restrictive frames of reference and you may see certain actions that you did not before. carrol cox, in a rejoinder deep in the midst of the thread, suggests something similar, if i get him right, with the notion that we should not do anything *particular* since what happened is part of the current way of the world (the "justice system" as lou might call it). again, the implicit suggestion seems to be that just as you ignore individual events of stonethrowing while addressing the palestinian problem, similarly you must adjust your frame of reference to see this as a problem in the system and address that, and in some sense, that alone.
now one might wonder if any successful argument can be mounted against these impressive criticisms, and many step up to the plate to try to accomplish that very thing:
doug seems to take the "but what now? what should i do?" approach touched upon above.
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/2361.html
some people have threatened my life and yours. does that bother you? he asks. i would guess that the ladder folks would respond that indeed it does to the extent that it bothers me when we threaten someone else's life. the important thing, they would add, is to analyze the situation from a broader frame of reference.
as is common, subthreads emerge on anarchist reactions and the rights of states to exist, which we shall skip only in the interests of space and time, despite their weighty content. and things trot along in this fashion with musings about god and such, until we come to kelley:
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/2205.html
lets bring the war home and take them on our turf, she says. now its not clear to me what she means there (and that might be because she is making a rhetorical point?) since it seems true that in one sense that there are offensive activities afoot within the US, while on the other hand, al qaeda, or whomever is the "them", probably really have no capability to invade the US. a simplistic reading of her post suggests that despite using quotations, she is approaching this thing from an "US" and "THEM" perspective, which immediately faces the "narrow frame of reference" criticism of the ladderless folks. perhaps kelly's post is a pragmatic approach on how to plug to the masses? this whole issue actually gets threshed out in the subsequent responses:
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/2209.html http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/2215.html
there is the other pragmatic question of "doing something about these people who did this" and lou addresses that here:
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/2222.html
then we discuss mcreynolds and china a bit, and touch upon mugging and the validity of analogies.
jim farmelant provides an intersting take on this:
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/2397.html
in particular he says this:
we should apply to public policy the principle from
medical ethics of "do no harm" - that is just because something
terrible has happened we shouldn't do things that will make
the situation worse just because we feel that we cannot do
nothing [sic]
i propose you stop a second and chew on that thought.
now the point made by the ladderless crowd, which seems to be at this count lou, carrol cox, yoshi, jim farmelant (and i mention names only to help identify posts in the threads at: http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/index.html), seems to be fairly consistent and well laid out: yes this is a bad thing. but its part of the way the world is. no we cannot therefore have a particular response to this event. yes, you feel angry and demand justice or safety etc. no, you cannot always have that. yes, the situation needs to be made better. the way to do it is to look at the larger picture. this is a horrendous summary i am sure but remember this is the cliff notes version here.
i must admit, that in trying to summarize the responses to this position, i am unable to find one that actually is a response to the exact points raised by lou in his original and two follow-up posts. it is most certainly my own failings that have prevented me from finding the answer to 1) the pragmatic question of how any ladder member justifies the amount of force at his rung and 2) the general question raised in lou's initial message.
my take is that the ladder folks would answer that: just because i seek to punish an offender today does not mean that i do not also simultaneously examine the event(s) in a larger context. an argument that opposes my use of force as unjustified has to demonstrate not only that i am not examining the larger context but that this lack of examination hides the real culprit. i can subscribe to some aspects of current notions of justice and oppose other aspects of it, and thats ok as long as we both agree that a system of justice is required (and perhaps this is where the discussion of anarchy comes in?). the ladder folks would also add: look here mate, we are with you on the "examine the whole thing" trip but i've got this pressing issue that i kind of want to stay alive and not "take a spore for the anti-empire" (as doug says).
2 cents from a bystander, probably all wrong,
--ravi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.