independence - egoism

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete!

A limited topic, maybe, but when chatting with our friend coruncianus he told me that americans are very fond of independence. But I ask myself: when does "independence" or "freedom" end and "egoism" or "egocentrism" start?

When you want to be completely free, is it possible to take count of other people? Or do they just slow down your way to freedom?

Valete,

Locatus Barbatus

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve Locate
Independence is not relying on anyone else but yourself and egoism is caring only but for yourself and not for anyone else as only thinking about yourself and not about others. I think we can't really call independence really freedom because the definition of it is to widely spanded. It can be a number of things. We can't really say today that we are free because we have responsibilities like work, study, etc... Even the egocentric person will need to forfill his daily responsibilities. No one can escape from this, so what i'm saying is that freedom only ends when you know you are a prisoner of something like drug addicts are prisoners of the drugs they take until they decide to stop using it.
Freedom, personal freedom doesn't end when you take count of other people, only when they oppress you, your freedom ends but egoism doesn't begin there.
I think freedom and egoism- egocentrism can go hand in hand without needing eachother. This label (freedom) isn't really defined properly where egoism and egocentrism is defined properly.
But than again, i'm just rambling here.
vale
Romulus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Locate,

A limited topic, maybe, but when chatting with our friend coruncianus he told me that americans are very fond of independence. But I ask myself: when does "independence" or "freedom" end and "egoism" or "egocentrism" start?

When you want to be completely free, is it possible to take count of other people? Or do they just slow down your way to freedom?

In a sense, they do.

However, I don't think freedom exists. At least, it doesn't exist in my world. Absolute, complete freedom is meaningless. Man is bound to some physical limits (eg we cannot fly), technological limits (eg we can't travel through time) and intellectual limits (we can't understand how a fourth spatial dimension really works) so we can't be free to begin with.

However, within these limitations, freedom would be perfectly possible at first sight. I am an advocate of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, religion and expression. Still, ironically, this needs to be legislated in most cases since absolute freedom (even within the physical and technological boundaries) would lead to anarchy. So our relative freedom is restrained by legal barriers (even though these have no intrinsic meaning or value on their own - they derive their power from the fact that they are obeyed, that's all). I personally think this is a good thing.

Yes, absolute freedom is a form of egoism. If you do whatever you want, as a completely free man, free of moral precepts, free of commitments and free of legal concerns that could be a philosophical choice. But quickly such people will find themselves hated by other people. In fact, this is, partially, the sort of man Nietzsche advocates. However, even those people will, again, create their own codes, their own visions and own rules they will follow which, again, limits their freedom.

Vale!
Draco

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete,

Draco, just one niggling point. You say that freedom is limited by moral precepts. I disagree. Freedom is the freedom to do/say what you want. As you say, this is limited by our own shortcomings. However, you have the freedom to go against your moral precepts, should you so desire. The reason that people often don't is because of the nature of their moral precepts, which I'm trying very hard not to go into because that would change the nature of the discussion.

However, I have the freedom to pick up a weapon and go and hack someone to death, if I was feeling a little off one day. I don't because I don't believe it to be morally right, but that does not mean that I can't, or don't have the freedom to do so.

Playing philosophical inquisition is...
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

A limited topic, maybe, but when chatting with our friend coruncianus he told me that americans are very fond of independence. But I ask myself: when does "independence" or "freedom" end and "egoism" or "egocentrism" start?

It is interesting that you say this topic grew out of a discussion on an American concept of "independence" and yet you don not have Americans discussing this topic with you so far. It could be interesting, now that the US seems disposed to interject their concepts on other peoples.

For Americans "independence" does have a connotation, at least at some level, of meaning what Europeans have been complaining most about recent US foreign policies. It means unilateralism, unconstrained by any "foreign entanglements" such as are posed by treaties. In the long course of the Cold War the US had a miserable record when it came to keeping treaties, ask the Russians. Or you might ask the Amerindians when it comes to the US holding to its commitments. There is a simple fact that every four years a revolution occurs in the US, and any treaties signed earlier can go out of favor with the new regime, even if the same people negotiated the treaty, because US foreign policy is based on what is popular domestically from hour to hour.

Freedom and Liberty, two words often used in the US. Technically, as the term was originally used in our founding documents, Liberty refers to property rights. The two words are now used interchangeably because they are dependent on one another. Freedom refers to a person's legal rights within a society. Your discussion of freedom versus egotism is meaningless. Niietzsche was wrong because he did not recognize man's natural state as living within a society. He speaks of anarchy, and there is no freedom in anarchy. Freedom has to do with a society respecting the rights of individuals. The ideal free society holds that all its members are treated equally within the society, and short of an ideal society then is the concept of equality before the law.

Questions over freedom and liberty come up every day in the US. On the matter of liberty, do pension plans promised to workers belong to the workers or to the company that promised the funds. So when a company folds or sells, does the new company also assume the obligations to pension funding. The most recent Supreme Court ruling against sodomy laws has a number of people scrambling on what it will mean. Immediately it is thought that the ruling will impact on same sex marriage, homosexuals seeking to attain equal rights under the law as heterosexuals, and what is really involved there are property rights. In the long run the ruling may impact more on the American concept of the right to privacy. No such right is spelled out in the US Constitution but the Supreme Court has now said that such a right does exist. The point here though is that Freedom and our concept of it is always evolving as the basic concern of freedom is the relationship of the individual to society as a whole.

Freedom implies responsibilities, obligations, and limitations. No you are not free to shoot your neighbor, unless of course the law permits you to under certain circumstances, and what society may allow can be different in Texas than it is in Ohio. Florida may not be the place to go tresspassing though. You have a right to free speech, but there are limits in what you can say, or more specifically limits in how you can say it. Mostly what freedom is about is what other people can NOT do to an individual, and that includes what the government can not do under the law to individuals. That issue is again before in the matter of a number of people incarcerated after 9/11 without trial, without access to defense counsel, and an abrogation of the habeas corpus laws. It is not the first time the US has done such a thing out of expediency, later to be found to have violated the law and individuals' civil liberties.

Freedom is a responsiblity. You cannot act against others in any manner you please. Freedom is also an obligation, because an individual is obliged to defend the freedom, liberty, and justice owed to all other members of society, even when upholding the rights of others may conflict with self interest. So to answer your question freedom begins where egotism ends. Freedom is the recognition that all others have the same rights to live in peace without coersion, and that you as an individual are willing to stand up for the rights of all others in order to create a free society.

Valete
Moravius Piscinus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Piscine,

It is interesting that you say this topic grew out of a discussion on an American concept of "independence" and yet you don not have Americans discussing this topic with you so far. It could be interesting, now that the US seems disposed to interject their concepts on other peoples.

For Americans "independence" does have a connotation, at least at some level, of meaning what Europeans have been complaining most about recent US foreign policies. It means unilateralism, unconstrained by any "foreign entanglements" such as are posed by treaties. In the long course of the Cold War the US had a miserable record when it came to keeping treaties, ask the Russians. Or you might ask the Amerindians when it comes to the US holding to its commitments. There is a simple fact that every four years a revolution occurs in the US, and any treaties signed earlier can go out of favor with the new regime, even if the same people negotiated the treaty, because US foreign policy is based on what is popular domestically from hour to hour.

Now that we've drifted off into politics anyway, I think this counts for most democratic states. The resistance of Belgium against the war in Iraq made the govt. very popular here, or at least the people supported it, but now that same government is facing the US' wrath for this genocide law, and they are faced with an impossible dilemma: prolong the tension and elicit more trouble with the US which would probably save their domestic reputation, or succumb to the pressure exerted, repair what can be repaired with the US and suffer a historic diplomatic defeat in front of all of Belgium.

I'm very interested in politics, especially internation politics and usually I don't get worked up over issues even if it involves my own country. But this particular issue is really upsetting me. The unilateralism was bad enough, but using this amount of verbal agression against a supposed ally.. If I were PM of this country, I wouldn't tolerate it.

Freedom and Liberty, two words often used in the US. Technically, as the term was originally used in our founding documents, Liberty refers to property rights. The two words are now used interchangeably because they are dependent on one another. Freedom refers to a person's legal rights within a society. Your discussion of freedom versus egotism is meaningless. Niietzsche was wrong because he did not recognize man's natural state as living within a society. He speaks of anarchy, and there is no freedom in anarchy. Freedom has to do with a society respecting the rights of individuals. The ideal free society holds that all its members are treated equally within the society, and short of an ideal society then is the concept of equality before the law.

Nietzsche didn't promote anarchy (although he might have liked it). He recognised that not everyone would heed to his call to become the Übermensch, and that society would most likely not be disturbed or destroyed by the Übermensch because in every million people or so, there may only be a few who have the moral strength to free themselves from their moral and social limitations. He also recognised that every Übermensch will be a lonely person (implictly recognising that 'normal' people can't do without company).

Back to the topic at hand, however.

While I agree that in any urban society that functions well there should be laws and rights for its citizens, don't you think this is a paradox here: freedom in chains? Or to put it more extremely, by protecting everyone's freedom, society creates a dictatorship of what freedom should be, thus limiting the strong from exercising their natural strength.

I don't fully support this point myself but I'm just curious what you would say against it .

(snipped)

Vale bene!
Draco

[Aldus Marius]

Sounds a little like the thing I teach my puppy-dogs; they never believe me at first, but of course it turns out to be true:

It is their consent to a small restriction--the six-foot leash--that grants them the far greater liberty of going with their Dominus wherever he goes, of riding in the car with him, of entering shops and restaurants with all kinds of good smells, and of running in the park.

What at first seems like a confinement is instead their ticket to the rest of my world.

Ehh...the pooches were always better than me at Philosophy anyways. >({|;-)

In amicitia (and a few even stranger ingredients),

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Draco

No I do not think it is a paradox, only a misunderstanding. Freedom is a restraint in a way, as Marius indicated. Can you be free if you have to continually look over your shoulder for someone trying to bonk you over the head? Mensch, I don't know what it means in German but in NY dialect it has a negative connotation, and an Uber Mensch must be a real a-hole, kind of the way I view Nietzsche. One person exerting his will without legal or moral restraint does not pose freedom for anyone, even the mensch who behaves is so crude a manner. All that will lead to in an orderly society is his imprisonment, or in a less orderly society, his death.

Freedom can exist only in a society. It is the result of collective action. The best example I might find in Roman history is the story of Verginius and Appius Claudius. Claudius would be your Ubermensch, and free men had to band together against him to regain freedom for all of Rome.

Vale
Moravius Piscinus

Oh, and my advice to Belgium would be to never mind the current administration's threats. Things change. The majority of people who voted did not vote for Dubba and his ilk, and it is highly questionable if the electorial count was proper. Even if Dubba is reelected, eventually there will be a regime change. The US cannot go it alone, no matter what some may think, and that is becoming all to apparent. So just wait it out.

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

No I do not think it is a paradox, only a misunderstanding. Freedom is a restraint in a way, as Marius indicated. Can you be free if you have to continually look over your shoulder for someone trying to bonk you over the head? Mensch, I don't know what it means in German but in NY dialect it has a negative connotation, and an Uber Mensch must be a real a-hole, kind of the way I view Nietzsche. One person exerting his will without legal or moral restraint does not pose freedom for anyone, even the mensch who behaves is so crude a manner. All that will lead to in an orderly society is his imprisonment, or in a less orderly society, his death.

"Mensch" is German for "human being". The word "über" by the way I have seen frequently used on other (predominantly American) message boards with youths, and there it has a very positive connotation, even if tongue in cheek.

Of course I agree that such a man, an Übermensch, would eventually die if he is not clever enough or doesn't have enough luck to survive the attempts of people to take his life because he's done them or their friends grief. But to Nietzsche this was not important because the Übermensch would know how do defend himself and employ the right tactics at the right time, ànd he would not even care for his own death. You say Nietzsche was an asshole but that is probably connected more to his - injust - connection to the Nazi ideology, which drew its inspiration partially from Elisabeth Nietzsche's interpretation of his philosophies. Elisabeth was a reactionairy, proto-nazi authoritarian who never understood her brother.

Sorry for the lengthy excursion into the 19th century .

You do have a point when you say that even such a man can't attain freedom if he has to be on the lookout for his own life. Again, this means that absolute freedom is impossible, at least to me.

I liked Marius' explanation, by the way.

Freedom can exist only in a society. It is the result of collective action. The best example I might find in Roman history is the story of Verginius and Appius Claudius. Claudius would be your Ubermensch, and free men had to band together against him to regain freedom for all of Rome.

Tell me more about Appius Claudius. I'm unfamiliar with him. Napoleon has also frequently been identified with the Übermensch. Oh and by the way if you don't have the ¨ on your keyboard you can also spell it Uebermensch.

Oh, and my advice to Belgium would be to never mind the current administration's threats. Things change. The majority of people who voted did not vote for Dubba and his ilk, and it is highly questionable if the electorial count was proper. Even if Dubba is reelected, eventually there will be a regime change. The US cannot go it alone, no matter what some may think, and that is becoming all to apparent. So just wait it out.

lol, a regime change... now where did I heard that before?

Optime vale!
Draco

[Anonymous]

~Salve amicitiae et alii~ (yes my Latin sucks, but I'm working on it, honestly! *ducks to avoid the shoe thrown at him by Draco*)

For once, I will spare you the usual novel and instead make this brief, concise, and directly to the point:

The only true freedom to be had comes from within. I find that a variety of methods help me, but to each his/her own. However, if you wish to press the issue, or ask if there are any outside requirements that at least might be conducive to the best possible experience of freedom, I would have to answer unequivocally, that the less people you have to contend with on a daily basis, the freer you are. More specifically, the less you are trapped in the rat-race of humanity, and the further away you live from so-called 'civilization' (move as far into the countryside as possible!), your true freedom not only increases exponentially, but in my particular case, is the very reason I was able to turn my life around and begin walking the path to enlightenment, only by being free of the plague of humanity. (If that doesn't wreak unmistakeably of Diogenesian Cynicism, I don't know what else does, but it's true.)

Speaking of which, here's a website done by an absolute genious of a man who ironically happens to live about an hour's drive from me. (Seems that the vast majority of Cynics all tend to live within the United States, particularly in the state of Pennsylvania!)

Anyway, I think everybody here will appreciate this; this guy definitely belongs in the SVR, if he isn't a member already:

http://www.i-cynic.com/main.asp

Vale optime,

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

~Salve amicitiae et alii~ (yes my Latin sucks, but I'm working on it, honestly! *ducks to avoid the shoe thrown at him by Draco*)

Not a shoe, but a caliga! Romans wore sandals. If you want to say, "hello friends and others!" the correct way to go is "salvete amici et alii". The word "amicitia" means friendship. For more Latin, I refer you to my little collegium .

On the ColLat pages is an essay written by yours truly which deals with this stuff.

The only true freedom to be had comes from within. I find that a variety of methods help me, but to each his/her own. However, if you wish to press the issue, or ask if there are any outside requirements that at least might be conducive to the best possible experience of freedom, I would have to answer unequivocally, that the less people you have to contend with on a daily basis, the freer you are. More specifically, the less you are trapped in the rat-race of humanity, and the further away you live from so-called 'civilization' (move as far into the countryside as possible!), your true freedom not only increases exponentially, but in my particular case, is the very reason I was able to turn my life around and begin walking the path to enlightenment, only by being free of the plague of humanity. (If that doesn't wreak unmistakeably of Diogenesian Cynicism, I don't know what else does, but it's true.)

Is this truly a form of freedom? You don't grow your own food, I presume, nor have you made your house yourself or have constructed your own car? Even though at the fringes, in a state of semi-exile, you are still connected to society.

Agreed that a distant countryside lifestyle doesn't force you to interact with people you don't like, and offers you various benefits of freedom: you can walk around in a tutu all day long and nobody will care! Still, you could walk around in a tutu amidst a crowd. You have that freedom, potentially. You just might be afraid of what other people will think...

Vale bene!
Draco

(snip)

[Anonymous]

Not a shoe, but a caliga! Romans wore sandals.

Is that where Gaius Cæsar Augustus Germanicus received the nickname "Caligula", by chance?

Is this truly a form of freedom? You don't grow your own food, I presume, nor have you made your house yourself or have constructed your own car? Even though at the fringes, in a state of semi-exile, you are still connected to society.

Well to be fair, I not only grow my own food, but I also hunt as well (the only good thing left about this country is the right to keep and bear arms, for food and for self-defense, and the right to self-sufficiency, much as certain elements and other agents of slavery both domestic and abroad would like to see it taken away), but the car I have is one that, believe it or not, I actually DID construct myself, with the help of my dearest and best friend (I do have a select few I call friends, even if I do hate 99.9% of the human race in general), built my own motorcycle largely from parts that were like-new and being discarded by an individual who has too much money to begin with.

The old house I live in has been here for well over 150 years, built by the people who once lived here; I do all repairs and maintenance myself. Hell, there were no phonelines when I first moved here, and since I don't trust the incompetent idiots from the phone company to do it, since they'll screw it up somehow, I actually dug a small trench from my house out to the road, laid a length of 1 1/2" PVC conduit and pulled outdoor-rated CAT5e cable through it, terminated it inside the house, configured everything on my newly-installed network panel. Unfortunately, since I can't start my own telephone and data service, I had to let them come with their big truck, slap a wooden pole in the ground, ran their cable to meet mine, watched them flip a switch and *voila!*, I was on the internet.

Ironically, about the only thing I do in town, besides my crappy job, is flight instruction at a local country airport. It's the only place like it left in the area, and there was a proposition made a couple years ago for the government to buy it out and put yet more office buildings up there (just what we need... more vipers in suits who don't work and make too much money while doing it), but enough people threatened to burn the place to the ground upon its completion, that the local government appealed to the state government, which finally scrapped the idea. Wise choice for them, I must say.

Anyhoo, it's getting a bit later and I still haven't eaten yet, so I'm going to leave now and practice my chef skills outside on my old Coleman grill, and hopefully my German Shepherds "Ajax" and "Achilles" don't get any ideas about stealing the food for themselves.

Vale,

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve mi Octaviane!

Is that where Gaius Cæsar Augustus Germanicus received the nickname "Caligula", by chance?

Yes. It means "small soldier's boot" and was given to him by Germanicus' soldiers when he was a boy.

Well to be fair, I not only grow my own food, but I also hunt as well (the only good thing left about this country is the right to keep and bear arms, for food and for self-defense, and the right to self-sufficiency, much as certain elements and other agents of slavery both domestic and abroad would like to see it taken away), but the car I have is one that, believe it or not, I actually DID construct myself, with the help of my dearest and best friend (I do have a select few I call friends, even if I do hate 99.9% of the human race in general), built my own motorcycle largely from parts that were like-new and being discarded by an individual who has too much money to begin with.

The old house I live in has been here for well over 150 years, built by the people who once lived here; I do all repairs and maintenance myself. Hell, there were no phonelines when I first moved here, and since I don't trust the incompetent idiots from the phone company to do it, since they'll screw it up somehow, I actually dug a small trench from my house out to the road, laid a length of 1 1/2" PVC conduit and pulled outdoor-rated CAT5e cable through it, terminated it inside the house, configured everything on my newly-installed network panel. Unfortunately, since I can't start my own telephone and data service, I had to let them come with their big truck, slap a wooden pole in the ground, ran their cable to meet mine, watched them flip a switch and *voila!*, I was on the internet.

Okay, I would consider that a pretty good form of independence. But you're fairly lucky you live in the US, where there's still a lot of space. Here in Belgium, with a population density of 330 people per square kilometre, this would be completely impossible (perhaps in the Ardennes but you can't live there because it's been environmentally proteted). But good, consider me impressed :p.

Oh, one point about gun possession. If you live out in the wild on your own and go hunting, you need firearms, of course. But I think that having everyone armed in densely populated urban environments is a time bomb under society's rear. If burglars know the people are armed, they won't stop burgling, they'll simply come with bigger guns! Also, there's always a chance that accidents with guns can happen. Every now and then the newspaper mentions kids accidentally finding dad's gun and killing each other. I'd rather be robbed than having to lose a child. The whole Columbine shootout affair was also possible because the teens in question were able to gain easy access to firearms. That would be much more difficult here (still not impossible though, mad people somehow always get what they're looking for ).

Ironically, about the only thing I do in town, besides my crappy job, is flight instruction at a local country airport. It's the only place like it left in the area, and there was a proposition made a couple years ago for the government to buy it out and put yet more office buildings up there (just what we need... more vipers in suits who don't work and make too much money while doing it), but enough people threatened to burn the place to the ground upon its completion, that the local government appealed to the state government, which finally scrapped the idea. Wise choice for them, I must say.

Not all men in suits are incompetent, greedy bastards. Although some of them certainly are. For a summer job I work at a company which processes questionnaires and my boss is possibly the most incompetent superior I've ever worked under. That's revolting. However, I haven't given up hope and believe there are still managers out there who are competent, human and bearable.

Anyhoo, it's getting a bit later and I still haven't eaten yet, so I'm going to leave now and practice my chef skills outside on my old Coleman grill, and hopefully my German Shepherds "Ajax" and "Achilles" don't get any ideas about stealing the food for themselves.

All property is theft?

Now that would make for a good seperate thread, perhaps.

Vale optime,
Draco

[Primus Aurelius Timavus]

I think that talking about gun control in modern day America and Europe is a little off topic, after all the Romans did not have firearms, gunpowder, or even Greek fire until quite late (for the record, I'm very much on Octavianus' side in the modern debate, and I've found when living in over there that many Europeans have never had the opportunity the pro-gun side of the argument).

I think this brings up an interesting topic in political philosophy: what were Roman views on arms control (swords, spears, daggers)? I recall reading somewhere that in the late republic and within the city, all weapons were locked up until they were needed in an emergency. Does anyone know how the Roman laws on arms developed?

[Anonymous]

If burglars know the people are armed, they won't stop burgling, they'll simply come with bigger guns! Also, there's always a chance that accidents with guns can happen. Every now and then the newspaper mentions kids accidentally finding dad's gun and killing each other. I'd rather be robbed than having to lose a child. The whole Columbine shootout affair was also possible because the teens in question were able to gain easy access to firearms.

No, if burglars know the people are armed, and they're NOT armed (or else inadequately armed with a knife or such), most are usually intelligent enough to realise the gravity of the situation, and to then immediately move onto another house, rather than senselessly risking their own lives. A petty thief always desires the least amount of resistance possible when attempting to pull off a heist; it's a proven fact. In such case, merely owning a gun actually prevents crime and violence, without ever even having to use it.

However, in the case of armed robbery, what is your line of reasoning here?

If burglars know the people are armed, they won't stop burgling, they'll simply come with bigger guns!

Aside from being a mindless statement, the size of a gun has absolutely nothing to do with anything (and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt if you were actually referring to the gun's caliber), least of all the shooter's competence and accuracy with the firearm. In addition, I think it's also worthy of mention that most individuals I know who are serious about Home Defense at all wouldn't be stupid enough to keep something with the equivalent stopping-power of a mere pea-shooter or pellet-gun beneath their bed. No, if you're serious at all, you are already armed with something that will literally blow the assailant apart with only a single shot fired. It's effective; most importantly, it works.

Secondly, you're missing the point entirely: If armed assailants (and statistics prove that they usually operate in groups of two or three) enter your house, are you saying then that it's better to just let them kill you, your wife and your children, rather than defending yourself? Or should the terrorists be allowed free reign to rape and methodically torture your wife in front of you while you sit there either held at gunpoint yourself, or else tied up and completely powerless, while they are doing who knows what to your kids, before killing them all and then killing you too, all the while being completely unopposed and unchallenged?

Of course, you COULD dial 9-1-1 or whatever number you use over there in Belgium; either way, it's still the same government-sponored "Dial-A-Prayer"; you'll already be lying in a pool of your own blood slowly turning cold by the time the police ever show up.

What you and far too many other wishful-thinking people don't realise is this: Gun-control legislation ONLY serves to effectively disarm law-abiding citizens and directly expose them to being terrorized in their own homes, harmed and even killed. Are you honestly naive enough to believe that criminals are going to obediently turn in their guns just because the law says so? Why do you think they're called "criminals" to begin with? It's obvious they've already placed themselves above the law, as well as any sense of morality and decency. Do you really think such legislation prevents them from obtaining guns, while innocent law-abiding people remain completely disarmed and at their mercy? Think again.

As much as I'm sure you would like to write this all off to my own demented paranoia, the fact is, such nightmarish scenarios play out for millions of people every year, often those who are most confident that it could never happen to them, and the only reason you don't hear about it is because of the anti-gun (pro-victimization) liberals in the news media who conveniently keep such stories quiet, like the one recently about a 14-year-old girl out in California who was bludgeoned to death by an intruder - with a pitchfork, no less - in her own home as she tried frantically to get to her father's gun, which ironically she had been taught how to use, but which was now under lock and key because he cared more about California State Law than the life of his own daughter. I wonder what he feels like now.

Also, there's always a chance that accidents with guns can happen. Every now and then the newspaper mentions kids accidentally finding dad's gun and killing each other.

And you blame that on the fact that there are guns in the house? I blame it instead on the parents who are too irresponsible, stupid, and flat-out lazy to train their children properly in the respect, safe-use, and overall proficiency of firearms. The blame lies solely on those "career moms" and dads who are too busy with other things that they deem to be "more important" than teaching little Johnny that guns leave ragged holes in people if you point it at someone and shoot. These same parents undoubtedly are the same people who allow Hollywood and Playstation 2 to raise their children, and allow it to poison their minds, then they wonder why, in their surrealistic stupor, they are unable to separate fantasy from reality. Such imbeciles shouldn't even be allowed to have children, period. Parental negligence, and ONLY that, is to blame for children shooting each other.

We live in a society that refuses to accept responsibility for its own actions, as can be evidenced by all the frivolous lawsuits that take place daily in this country, when the plaintiffs of such lawsuits should be immediately slapped with contempt of court and bound over to jail for trying to abuse the court system, wasting the judge's time and taxpaper money. They always try to put the blame somewhere other than where it rightfully belongs. Sadly, guns are always a convenient way to scapegoat one's own sheer stupidity, worthlessness, incompetence and irresponsibility, as a parent or otherwise.

The whole Columbine shootout affair was also possible because the teens in question were able to gain easy access to firearms.

The whole Columbine shootout affair was possible because the parents of the two were a couple of stupid, clueless yuppies who cared more about their stock options and portfolios than to bother having a clue as to what their own son and the other boy were doing RIGHT IN THEIR OWN HOME. (Which begs the question, where were the parents of the other boy? Must be rather convenient to always give him unchecked, free-reign and never have him around; otherwise that might require actually being a parent!) The fact of the matter is, neither parents of either one of the two boys gave an excrement about them AT ALL; they were too stupid to realise that their sons had problems, which were perfectly clear for even total strangers to see. Yes, I blame irresponsible wastes of life like them for neglecting their children in favor of earning the greenback, which in turn makes them directly responsible for what happened. They were too wrapped up in their own little "Ozzie and Harriet" fantasy world to realise that their son and his friend were stockpiling an obscenely-huge arsenal of weapons right in their own house, that they would actually sit down the basement for hours plotting how they were going to carry out the attack, while the oblivious parents never once bothered to see what they were doing all the while, or even to check on them. In short, THEY caused what happened to happen; all else was either circumstantial, or a direct result of their own negligence and indifference as parents.

Vale,

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

I think that talking about gun control in modern day America and Europe is a little off topic, after all the Romans did not have firearms, gunpowder, or even Greek fire until quite late (for the record, I'm very much on Octavianus' side in the modern debate, and I've found when living in over there that many Europeans have never had the opportunity the pro-gun side of the argument).

Twice true.

Suddenly something springs to mind: what if the Romans *would* have had firearms? Would they have lasted longer or made their conquests quicker? Of course that's just a hypothetical scenario. It reminds me of a certain film where, due to a failed time experiment, the Nazis in the 40s acquire the stealth bomber technique and rule the world. I personally think it would be not that simple, but still, one wonders if an extra invention or two might have helped the Romans to survive longer against the internal and external pressures, however this may be something more for collegium historicum .

I think this brings up an interesting topic in political philosophy: what were Roman views on arms control (swords, spears, daggers)? I recall reading somewhere that in the late republic and within the city, all weapons were locked up until they were needed in an emergency. Does anyone know how the Roman laws on arms developed?

Well actually, I don't. I really don't have a clue if ordinary Romans were allowed to be armed.

In Germanic society all free men had the right to bear arms, so it might have been the same in Roman society. But I'm absolutely not sure about this.

Optime vale!
Draco

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Octaviane!

As Tergestus remarked we are indeed moving off topic here. Of course such is the way of collegium philosophicum, but still I should remark that we might try to "bend" this topic back to Antiquity.

No, if burglars know the people are armed, and they're NOT armed (or else inadequately armed with a knife or such), most are usually intelligent enough to realise the gravity of the situation, and to then immediately move onto another house, rather than senselessly risking their own lives. A petty thief always desires the least amount of resistance possible when attempting to pull off a heist; it's a proven fact. In such case, merely owning a gun actually prevents crime and violence, without ever even having to use it.

However, in the case of armed robbery, what is your line of reasoning here?

Of course thieves take the path of least resistance (everyone does ). But they can't really know if people they're robbing are armed or not. So my take is that if they assume that the people they're going to rob *are* armed, they'll come up with means to prevent the people from using their arms. More on this below.

Aside from being a mindless statement, the size of a gun has absolutely nothing to do with anything (and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt if you were actually referring to the gun's caliber),

I wasn't talking about the size of the gun. I was talking about better weapons (citizens armed with short gladii vs burglars armed with pila ).

... If armed assailants (and statistics prove that they usually operate in groups of two or three) enter your house, are you saying then that it's better to just let them kill you, your wife and your children, rather than defending yourself? Or should the terrorists be allowed free reign to rape and methodically torture your wife in front of you while you sit there either held at gunpoint yourself, or else tied up and completely powerless, while they are doing who knows what to your kids, before killing them all and then killing you too, all the while being completely unopposed and unchallenged?

I don't know but most burglars won't kill someone unless they're as mad as a doorknob or they have "reasons" to (however lame these may be). Despite what popular media would like people to believe (both in Europe and America), people usually don't go out and kill other people for no good reason. I still think that if you oppose burglars you are more likely to be killed than if you don't.

By which I'm not saying that we should just allow ourselves to be robbed, of course. Still, fact is, crime rates in the US are higher than over here, despite your looser gun laws (this is not my imagination; we saw this in our college course of American history). I'm not blaming it only on the guns, however, as the gun laws in Canada are roughly the same. I've seen that many Canadians, even in cities, sleep with their doors unlocked (something I would never dream of to do), yet their crime rates are lower! How is that possible?

I'm thinking right now: what were the crime rates in Rome? Iuvenalis complains that for ordinary people, it was possible to be robbed or mugged in an alley at night without the thief or criminal ever being punished for it (first because it was dark and thus people were pretty unrecognisible and second because he claims that many of these thugs who just wanted to beat up someone for no good reason had connections with the rich). However much I admire Rome, Rome was a society obsessed with violence and battle.

(snip)

... The whole Columbine shootout affair was possible because the parents of the two were a couple of stupid, clueless yuppies who cared more about their stock options and portfolios than to bother having a clue as to what their own son and the other boy were doing RIGHT IN THEIR OWN HOME. (Which begs the question, where were the parents of the other boy? Must be rather convenient to always give him unchecked, free-reign and never have him around; otherwise that might require actually being a parent!) The fact of the matter is, neither parents of either one of the two boys gave an excrement about them AT ALL; they were too stupid to realise that their sons had problems, which were perfectly clear for even total strangers to see. Yes, I blame irresponsible wastes of life like them for neglecting their children in favor of earning the greenback, which in turn makes them directly responsible for what happened. They were too wrapped up in their own little "Ozzie and Harriet" fantasy world to realise that their son and his friend were stockpiling an obscenely-huge arsenal of weapons right in their own house, that they would actually sit down the basement for hours plotting how they were going to carry out the attack, while the oblivious parents never once bothered to see what they were doing all the while, or even to check on them. In short, THEY caused what happened to happen; all else was either circumstantial, or a direct result of their own negligence and indifference as parents.

Agreed. I never blamed the guns for these kids' behaviour. I have also read the stories about how careless their parents were, etc etc. Still if they hadn't had ACCESS to these arms with such frightening ease it might have been different (and they might have just killed themselves instead of shooting up innocent people).

Another reason is, what I said earlier about Rome; we are living in societies that take violence for granted more and more. You may say this is just circumstantial, but it works both ways: people create their own circumstances but these circumstances, in turn, influence the people.

Optime vale!
Draco

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Yes!!! An off-topic debate! As a rector I would like to ask you all to return to antiquity after... my statement :

Violence results in violence, when people have guns in their house, the only result will be more shootings, more wounded and more death. There is no denial for this argument, because it is quite hard to shoot somebody without a gun, isn't it? And a burglar will not shoot somebody who is easy to keep under control. And it is not right to shoot burglars either, nothing on this planet is worthy a man's life, except another life. Burglars should not be killed for "mother's precious jewelry", only to protect another one's life. And still then...
If there are no guns, nobody will get shot. Easy as cake.

And now back to antiquity, gentlemen!

[Primus Aurelius Timavus]

Salve Locate,

I was the first to point out that this stream was moving off topic, so I am the first to agree that we should return to antiquity. Nevertheless, I am angry that you used your position as rector to first give "your statement" and only then declare discussion closed. Very bad form.

Your simplistic statement should certainly not be the last word in what is a complex and very interesting debate. Here is another simplistic statement from the other side: in Switzerland almost all households contain fully automatic weapons ("machine guns") because those that have completed military service are expected to keep and maintain their own arms in case of a national emergency (the guns are actually subject to military inspections from time to time). Yet there is less violence per capita involving firearms, or any violence for that matter, in Switzerland than in the UK where guns are prohibited and one can only carry a knife of more than three inches in length if it is demonstrably necessary for one's employment.

The above does not "prove" that widely available firearms help keep the peace. But it does show that the issue is complex and rooted in deep historical, cultural, and sociological bases of each country. The best solution for Singapore, for example, is probably not the best for Israel. What works in Japan would not work in the US.

I am sorry to have continued this discussion; I too would like to return to antiquity. But I really didn't like the "This is the way that it is - now everybody shut up" of the last post.

Tergestus

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Calm down, my friend, it wasn't meant to be that way . I just, cynically as I am (nonne? ), gave my opinion and you are free to react. It is not "shut up", you can always continue in private (and that would be including me, your almighty rector ). I do not pretend to know how everything 'is', you can be right, I can be right, and (as almost in all cases) we will be both partially right.

I think you misunderstood my post, all right, I admit I maybe didn't use enough smilies , but I try to be a man with humour. I presume that wasn't clear enough.

But I won't stop trying although .

Valete,

Loc