Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Here's another analogy: I let my dog run around in my yard and one of the reasons for this is the protection. Sure he does things that upset me, but I would never consider leashing him because that would limit his ability to protect me and my family. I don't set requirements for how he protects us, merely that he does. If a bad guy escapes the police (i.e. the "soldiers") and makes his way to my house, I want my dog (i.e. the "elite") to take him out. I don't care how he does it, only that he does. And for that, I will be forever in his debt. Now, he is my dog, my responsibility. It is not up to my neighbor to discipline him, it is mine.
|
Certainly, but let's assume that the street on which you live is a community where everyone knows each other, but doesn't necessarily get on, and they all have dogs of varying sizes. Say you let your dog run onto the lawn of someone you didn't like and it tore apart their own (smaller) dog, but afterwards it took a piss on their flowerbed. This person isn't likely to be happy and the rest of the street now fears that your dog will piss on everyone's flowerbeds because you won't punish him. They propose the creation of a society where all the residents meet to decide, mutually, whether your dog's actions are punishable, stating clearly from the outset that it's rules are applicable to all. Seems fair to me.
I know it's a stupid analogy, but it doesn't change the fact that the flipside of your argument is credible regardless of whether you dismiss it or not.
I guess you're right about this whole thing being moot, but there's nought wrong with a healthy debate to help pass the time!
