Dear Individual,

You ought to have every right to prepare yourself in the way you want, but I also ought to have every right to prepare myself in my own way.

I actually like the idea for criminals to believe that there is a reasonable chance that if they break in and attack me (including my family and/or property) in my home, then I would shoot them back with a good semi-automatic rifle. Of course I never would actually touch a gun again or have one at home, but I support such laws that would make them BELIEVE otherwise.

(which is one good reason to remain anonymous on OLO, otherwise this wouldn't work!)

I would though, restrict gun-presence to one's own home/property and allow no guns in the public space.

Yes, I support your right to have guns if you like,
Yututsu,
I personally don't see any reason for guns. A gun, yes but several ? Only a farmer or tour guide or fisherman should perhaps have more than one & to my way of thinking, the guns should definitely not be automatics.
Have you ever been confronted by a sow as big as a cow with the little piglets squealing ?
Believe me, you'd be wishing for an armoured car with a howitzer at that moment.
Or how about a 9' King Brown eyeing you up from 15 feet away ? Did you know that none of these reasons qualify to carry a weapon yet if your mentality dictates to you fire a .357 at a 6x6" piece of cardboard, then you can own a gun !
Let me know if you can fathom that sort of reasoning !

Hi Yuyutsu,

You raise some interesting points. I think we're wandering into a different topic here - the nature of morality. However I have to say that I don't agree with your view that "morality is not a product of society, morality pre-exists." I would argue that our version of morality is informed by social, cultural and religious values. What is considered moral in one culture or faith might be considered immoral in others.

I also don't agree that the "first moral duty is to ensure that nobody is forced into their society kicking-and-screaming." Nobody has the agency to just choose their own social attachments at will. Generally we're all born into a particular society, culture, tradition or value system, whether we like it or not. People can pick and choose versions of morality to a degree but at the end of the day they are still connected in some way to society. Nobody is an island.

You argue: ".. if even one person is forcibly expected to abide by a social contract merely because they were born where they were geographically born, then this taints the given society with immorality and makes it illegitimate."

If so, then every society that ever existed is arguably illegitimate.

Hi individual,

I would be more inclined to look at Switzerland as a valid comparison if Australia had Swiss-like violent crime rates (that is, among the lowest in the developed world). Sadly, we don't.

I'm not sure that it's a particularly good idea to introduce more guns into a country that ranks pretty poorly compared to other developed countries when it comes to violent crime rates.

the nature of morality.
Bozec,
You're not confusing it with mentality are you ? Because what's happening in Switzerland & other still reasonably sane folk is a matter of mentality which includes morality but not the other way round.

Dear Bozec,

Obviously we do not agree about the source(s) of morality: with different ideas about morality, it is not surprising that we arrive at different political conclusions.

If we can agree that morality declares that one ought to be truthful and keep their promises; and subsequently consider voluntary social contracts as a form of a promise, then we can indeed conclude that certain behaviours can be moral in one culture but not in another, by reason that the content of the social contract(s) vary between the cultures. One caveat however, is that the social contracts in question ought to be voluntary, else they do not constitute a promise.

My understanding of morality is based on spiritual teachings and principles.
According to these teachings, non-violence is one's first and foremost moral obligation, even above truthfulness, which comes second. Forcing an innocent other, kicking-and-screaming into something they do not want, is obviously violent, hence immoral by the standards I hold.

«Nobody has the agency to just choose their own social attachments at will.»

We could argue about it until the cows come home, but the question here is not what rights others have or not, but how I/you/we can conduct ourselves morally. Inflicting our society on unwilling others is simply morally wrong, whether or not they ought to be able to choose. In other words, it is all about us, not about them! You could argue that those who do not wish to join us are wrong as well, but two wrongs do not make right.

We cannot over-generalise about "every society that ever existed", because that would include pre-historic primitive tribal societies too, but possibly excluding small remote tribes, it does indeed appear that as it stands, every large society currently on earth is illegitimate. This ought to be corrected.

---

Dear Individual,

I can only fathom that this sort of reasoning is not principled, but rather irrational and/or based on selfish interests, perhaps the electoral interests of those who so reasoned.