RE: DSM: RE: JC and SM


Joe Jackson (shoeless@jazztbone.com)
Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:43:52 -0500


> I don't understand how
> a particular language could be "community norm". With "community norm" I
> understand a rule that is enforced somehow and I don't see how a
> language would be enforced. I mean nobody punishes me if I start using
> word "bonxy" meaning a certain type of bench. I'd think that common
> agreemets like language and common norms like a rule not to kill are not
> the same things.

Well then, this is where we disagree. A language is a community norm
exactly to the extent a law is. It is a convention of human behavior. It
is a more. I don't find your analogy very, well, analogous.

If I started walking up to people and saying "Bonxy!", they would think I'm
pretty weird and treat me a bit differently, just like if I walked up to
strangers and just stared at them. That is a very mild punishment. But
escalate it: If I walk up to strangers and scream profanities in their face,
I will be punished. I might be arrested, or punched out. I would find
myself ostracized.

> > Where it DOES sound like we differ is that it sounds like you prefer
> > case-by-case enforcement of rights violations wherein the plaintiff is
> > responsible rather than an agreed upon body like a court or a JC.
>
> I don't approve any kind of "enforcement of rights" (or at least I'm
> considering not to)... As I said before, I prefere personal problem
> solving over community norm enforcement.

Then I guess my response is that if everyone was reasonable all the time we
would certainly all prefer that. After all, the idea of my government
enforcing my personal rights is entirely predicated on the fact that there
are millions of people on the planet that want to take them away.

Joe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:56 EST