The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**44 AMP** · January 10, 2010, 02:26 PM

A fine philosophy for a missionary dealing with primitive tribes, IF you believe the respect given by primitives for dying for one's beliefs is of greater good that the survival of the individual missionary.

The flaws in this worldview are many, not the least of which is that it simply does not work when dealing with people who do not respect honor, their own, or others.

Apparently in England, not only has this been adopted in law, but it has become "Die if you must, but never fight back"!

A noble sentiment, but while a murder victim is morally superior to the murderer, they are still dead. Resistance to violence should be an individual moral decision, not a legally mandated one.

Many Americans do not understand the English Parliament makes the laws. They seem to think the Parliament is the same as our Congress, but it is not. Different rules apply to the House of Lords, who's members have been appointed by the Crown, and accepted by the Lords. In many cases, it is a hereditary appointment. There is no public election (as there is in the House of Commons), there is nothing to restrain any (even the most crackpot) social theories from being put forth as law, except the individual members willingness to bow to peer pressure, if it exists. Members of the House of Lords are Lords until they decide otherwise, or do something repugnant enough to that body as to cause them to be cast out (which happens very seldom). While the English people have influence through elections in the House of Commons, they do not have that in the House of Lords.

There is a huge amount of historical prestige to the peerage, something that does not exist in the US. That is another factor. Our nutjob legislators are only one election away from being ordinary citizens again. Many of theirs are not.

Punishing people for defending themselves and their families from violent attack, no matter the means used, may be a balm for "society's conscience", but it is hardly good for those who are victims of attack.

The same mindset is at work in the US. To date, it has not been as successful, but they are still trying.

January 10, 2010, 02:26 PM	#11
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,832	Die if you must, but never kill A fine philosophy for a missionary dealing with primitive tribes, IF you believe the respect given by primitives for dying for one's beliefs is of greater good that the survival of the individual missionary. The flaws in this worldview are many, not the least of which is that it simply does not work when dealing with people who do not respect honor, their own, or others. Apparently in England, not only has this been adopted in law, but it has become "Die if you must, but never fight back"! A noble sentiment, but while a murder victim is morally superior to the murderer, they are still dead. Resistance to violence should be an individual moral decision, not a legally mandated one. Many Americans do not understand the English Parliament makes the laws. They seem to think the Parliament is the same as our Congress, but it is not. Different rules apply to the House of Lords, who's members have been appointed by the Crown, and accepted by the Lords. In many cases, it is a hereditary appointment. There is no public election (as there is in the House of Commons), there is nothing to restrain any (even the most crackpot) social theories from being put forth as law, except the individual members willingness to bow to peer pressure, if it exists. Members of the House of Lords are Lords until they decide otherwise, or do something repugnant enough to that body as to cause them to be cast out (which happens very seldom). While the English people have influence through elections in the House of Commons, they do not have that in the House of Lords. There is a huge amount of historical prestige to the peerage, something that does not exist in the US. That is another factor. Our nutjob legislators are only one election away from being ordinary citizens again. Many of theirs are not. Punishing people for defending themselves and their families from violent attack, no matter the means used, may be a balm for "society's conscience", but it is hardly good for those who are victims of attack. The same mindset is at work in the US. To date, it has not been as successful, but they are still trying. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.