Interesting take MDCB. The legal definition of self-preservation is keeping oneself from harm, or avoiding destruction or decay, very close to what a run of the mill dictionary states. However, legally speaking, the term always presupposes a real or existing danger. Without that distinction, logically, everything in the world and everyone in it is a potential threat to your existence. So what, would you say, is your hard limit to the individual's right to self-preservative actions?
I think we have to accept a relatively low common denominator given the direction of our society and culture. Given that the law is flexible, the legal interpretation of self-preservation can change. A mere 50 years ago we were subject to automobiles without shoulder restraints and airbags. Today's automobiles have several types of passenger restraints, and you cannot build a new one in today's regime that is deemed 'unsafe'. Consequently one's driving skill requirements are suppressed as compared to those of yesteryear.
Similarly the social standards of self-discipline we consider reasonable for the average American have dumbed us all down. Dangers we once could handle, we no longer consider within the realm of reasonable self-discipline. Therefore, like passenger restraints and automatic transmissions, we have social helpers. Some of this is macro-economic, but much is political and subject to rhetoric.
It is considered axiomatic that certain sorts of Americans are especially vulnerable to things we were expected to handle 50 years ago. Thinking of raising all boats we use such plushy standards. The 'safety net' is now 50 feet above the ground, so that more people have access to the 75 foot trapeze. We have thus devalued what I consider a substantial amount of self-sufficiency. Therefore we have people who aren't expected to persevere without help. Are these safety mechanisms rights?
I think American law should be means tested to what we should discover humans can actually handle. Otherwise how can we expect other legal systems to respect our definition of a person?
At your best, mate. Roe v Wade and the Second amendment - hell yeah - and brilliant because they really are connected in a way I, and I suspect many, never put together before. Not just a contrast between a blue and a red core issue, but aspects of the same core human issue. You cut right to the actual bottom line that undercuts it all - what a woman faced with a Sophie's choice finds she must do - and chooses self-preservation not knowing any better than any other human being in dire straights how it will prove out in the end. As an American living in Perth watching all this going down is like hearing the roar of the crowd at the Coliseum from a few blocks away knowing that, even if you can't see it, people are dying. Thank you Michael.
“But COVID and St George combined to make our murder rate jump to over 21,000.”
I’m having difficulty keeping up; 21,000, St. George? What’s your 2008 moment? Just guessing, 2008 you, from Cali, somehow managed to take a beating with the market/house price crash? St. George, George Floyd? 21,000, I can’t what that number relates to. Just checking. Thanks. I’ll keep reading, trying to keep up.
Interesting take MDCB. The legal definition of self-preservation is keeping oneself from harm, or avoiding destruction or decay, very close to what a run of the mill dictionary states. However, legally speaking, the term always presupposes a real or existing danger. Without that distinction, logically, everything in the world and everyone in it is a potential threat to your existence. So what, would you say, is your hard limit to the individual's right to self-preservative actions?
I think we have to accept a relatively low common denominator given the direction of our society and culture. Given that the law is flexible, the legal interpretation of self-preservation can change. A mere 50 years ago we were subject to automobiles without shoulder restraints and airbags. Today's automobiles have several types of passenger restraints, and you cannot build a new one in today's regime that is deemed 'unsafe'. Consequently one's driving skill requirements are suppressed as compared to those of yesteryear.
Similarly the social standards of self-discipline we consider reasonable for the average American have dumbed us all down. Dangers we once could handle, we no longer consider within the realm of reasonable self-discipline. Therefore, like passenger restraints and automatic transmissions, we have social helpers. Some of this is macro-economic, but much is political and subject to rhetoric.
It is considered axiomatic that certain sorts of Americans are especially vulnerable to things we were expected to handle 50 years ago. Thinking of raising all boats we use such plushy standards. The 'safety net' is now 50 feet above the ground, so that more people have access to the 75 foot trapeze. We have thus devalued what I consider a substantial amount of self-sufficiency. Therefore we have people who aren't expected to persevere without help. Are these safety mechanisms rights?
I think American law should be means tested to what we should discover humans can actually handle. Otherwise how can we expect other legal systems to respect our definition of a person?
At your best, mate. Roe v Wade and the Second amendment - hell yeah - and brilliant because they really are connected in a way I, and I suspect many, never put together before. Not just a contrast between a blue and a red core issue, but aspects of the same core human issue. You cut right to the actual bottom line that undercuts it all - what a woman faced with a Sophie's choice finds she must do - and chooses self-preservation not knowing any better than any other human being in dire straights how it will prove out in the end. As an American living in Perth watching all this going down is like hearing the roar of the crowd at the Coliseum from a few blocks away knowing that, even if you can't see it, people are dying. Thank you Michael.
“But COVID and St George combined to make our murder rate jump to over 21,000.”
I’m having difficulty keeping up; 21,000, St. George? What’s your 2008 moment? Just guessing, 2008 you, from Cali, somehow managed to take a beating with the market/house price crash? St. George, George Floyd? 21,000, I can’t what that number relates to. Just checking. Thanks. I’ll keep reading, trying to keep up.
In fact I was doing just fine. In '08, I felt somewhat guilty driving my BMW 7 series while people were losing their homes. But that's a long story. Here's the short story on murders per year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191134/reported-murder-and-nonnegligent-manslaughter-cases-in-the-us-since-1990/