HL CHAPTER 3 The Government Authority Argument for Special Immunity

CHAPTER 3 The Government Authority Argument for Special Immunity
Note:3@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Page: 60

There is a widespread view that governments, or at least democratic governments, have a special moral status.
Note:LA PIÙ OVVIA OBIEZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

Therefore, while it is permissible to attack an evil-doing terrorist, it is not permissible to attack an evil-doing president,
Note:PRESIDENTE TERRORISTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

THE CONCEPTS OF AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY
Note:Tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

1. Virtuous Vani believes Americans are becoming too fat. She arrives at a 7-Eleven store brandishing a gun and declares, “From now one, no one may purchase Big Gulps.
Note:PRIMO CASO IL SALUTOSTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

2. Principled Peter believes Americans should not live high while other people die. He believes that we are all in this together.
Note:SECONDO CASO IL REDISTRIBZIONISTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

3. Decent Dani believes Americans should support one another and prioritize each others’ welfare over that of foreigners.
Note:PRIMA GLI ITALIANI

Yellow highlight | Page: 62

4. Enterprising Elon believes space exploration is a vital project. Accordingly, he builds elaborate and expensive satellites, probes, telescopes, and shuttles, and then sends each American a small bill,
Note:IL CASO DELLE COMPAGNIE DI BANDIERA

Yellow highlight | Page: 62

If Vani, Peter, Dani, or Elon were to do these things, we would probably call the police and demand that they be arrested.
Note:TUTTI E QUATTRO AL MANICOMIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 62

While we think Vani’s, Peter’s, Dani’s, and Elon’s actions are criminal, our own governments do these same things.
Note:PUZZLE

Yellow highlight | Page: 63

permission to create and enforce rules
Note:LEGITTIMITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 63

ability to create in others a moral obligation
Note:AUTORITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 63

Authority is the power that could make it impermissible for you to refuse to pay your taxes.
Note:TANTO X INTENDERSI

Yellow highlight | Page: 64

In contrast, most people who believe in government authority believe it can create additional grounds of obligation when it issues commands, edicts, laws, and so on.
Note:SE DALLA PIAZZA GRIDO...NN UCCIDETEVI L UN L ALTRO...NN ISTITUISCO UN DOVERE....X IL FORMALISTA SI CREA UN DOVERE AGGIUNTIVO

Yellow highlight | Page: 65

For instance, suppose there is no independent moral obligation to avoid drinking absinthe. But now suppose the government authoritatively forbids me from drinking it.
Note:CREARE UN DOVERE DAL NULLA

Yellow highlight | Page: 65

DISPUTED QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGITIMACY AND AUTHORITY
Note:Ttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 66

1. What determines whether a government has legitimacy or not?
Note:DOMANDONA

Yellow highlight | Page: 67

1. What determines whether a government has authority or not?
Note:ALTRA DOMANDONA

Yellow highlight | Page: 67

LEGITIMACY AND AUTHORITY ARE INDEPENDENT PROPERTIES
Note:Tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 68

a government (or any other rule-making entity) could have one without the other.
Note:LEGITTIMITÀ AUTORITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 68

imagine a theory of authority called “pacifist monarchism.” This hypothetical political theory holds that we are each duty bound to obey our queen. This theory forbids all violence and coercion, though. The queen may not coerce people into following her commands. She may not employ a military or police force. She may not use violence even to stop others from acting violently. This hypothetical political theory holds that the queen is authoritative but not legitimate.
Note:ESEMPIO...MONARCHI PACIFISYA

Yellow highlight | Page: 68

it’s coherent to hold that a government might have moral permission to stand and create laws, even if no citizens have the duty to obey or defer to that government.
Note:ESEMPIO ROVESCIATO

Yellow highlight | Page: 68

governments may permissibly tax citizens, but still hold that citizens have no duty to comply and could feel free to engage in tax evasion if they can get away with it. A view like this might be mistaken, but it’s not incoherent.4
Note:ESEMPIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 69

THE IRRELEVANCE OF GOVERNMENT LEGITIMACY For
Note:Ttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 69

The Super-Duper Democratic Legitimacy Thesis
Note:Tttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 69

A democratic electorate may legitimately do whatever it damn well pleases. It may even implement horrifically unjust policies.
Note:DEMOCRATICISMO

Yellow highlight | Page: 69

The reason I can grant that democratic governments may legitimately do as they please, without thereby undermining the moral parity thesis, is that once we distinguish correctly between authority and legitimacy, it turns out legitimacy has little bearing on whether it’s permissible to resist government.
Note:IL TRUCCO DI SEPARARES LEGITTIMITÀ DA AUTORITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 70

Legitimacy and authority are independent properties, and a government could conceivably have one but lack the other.
Note:LA LEVA X AVERE UN GOVERNO E ANCHE UNO STANDARD MORALE

Yellow highlight | Page: 70

One way to illustrate this is to think of a boxing match. In a boxing match, both boxers have permission to punch each other.
Note:BOXING MATCH

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

GOVERNMENTS PROBABLY DON’T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY, PERIOD
Note:Ttttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

Democratic legitimacy does not do the work that the defender of special immunity needs it to do. Instead, what may be of use in defending the special immunity thesis is that moral power I call authority.
Note:L ILLUSIONE CHE BASTI LA LEGITTIMITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

John Simmons’s
Note:AUTORE

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

certain governments have legitimacy (as I’ve defined it) but not authority.
Note:LA VISION DOMINANTE OGGI

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

Michael Huemer similarly concludes, “Skepticism about political obligation [i.e., authority] is probably the dominant view” in philosophy now.
Note:MH

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

Leslie Green says in his Stanford Encyclopedia
Note:ALTRO AUTORE

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

Ned Dobos
Note:ALTRO AUTORE

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

To review this literature would take an entire book.
Note:ORMAI LA LETTERATURA NEGAZIONISTA È STERMINATA

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

ACTUAL CONSENT THEORY
Note:Tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

governments have authority over us because we consent to their rule.
Note:UNA TEORIA POPOLARE

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

The problem with this theory, though, is that our relationship to government does not appear to have any features that signify consent.
Note:PROBLEMA

Yellow highlight | Page: 73

I performed an act that signified my consent.
Note:RFEQUISITI DEL CONTRATTO

Yellow highlight | Page: 73

I was not forced to buy
Note:SECONDO REQUISITO

Yellow highlight | Page: 73

Active dissent would have stopped the deal.
Note:TERZO

Yellow highlight | Page: 74

HYPOTHETICAL CONSENT THEORY
Note:Ttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 74

many philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, have proposed “hypothetical consent theories,”
Note:HOBBES

Yellow highlight | Page: 75

we generally only think hypothetical consent matters in cases when we cannot check to see whether a person actually consents.
Note:PRIMO PROBLEMA

Yellow highlight | Page: 75

hypothetical consent theories at best usually seem to show only that it would be unreasonable or irrational for you not to agree; they do not demonstrate that it is obligatory.
Note:SECONDO PROBLEMA

Yellow highlight | Page: 75

they seem to misunderstand what promises, real or hypothetical, can do.
Note:TERZ PROBLEMA....NN POSSO COMMETTERE IL MALE IN VIRTÙ DI UNA PROMESSA...CONTRATTO IMMORALE

Yellow highlight | Page: 75

Suppose I declare, “In exchange for my parents having provided me with benefits, I promise to obey them in all things.” Now suppose my parents order me to murder some foreigners or throw their pot-smoking neighbors in the basement. Even though I did in fact promise to obey my parents, it’s clear I don’t acquire the duty to murder the foreigners or imprison the neighbors.
Note:ESEMPIO DI PROMESSA CHE SI HA IL DOVERE DI NN MANTENERE

Yellow highlight | Page: 76

FAIR PLAY THEORY
Note:TtttttttttDILEMMA DEL PRIGIOIERO....FORMA DI UTILITARISMO

Yellow highlight | Page: 76

Another major theory of authority, devised by H. L. A. Hart, holds that authority arises out of a duty of fair play:
Note:ALTRA TEORIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 76

The idea here is that when some people incur a sacrifice to public goods that benefit all, the other people who benefit have a duty to contribute
Note:DOVERE DI CONTRIBUIRE

Yellow highlight | Page: 76

Robert Nozick illustrates one with his “public address system” thought experiment. He asks you to imagine that your neighbors create a public entertainment system, with loudspeakers throughout your neighborhood. Each neighbor takes turns playing songs, reciting poetry, conducting interviews, or whatnot. You enjoy the system. One day, let’s say day 138, they come to you and say that it’s your turn
Note:PRIMO PROBLEMA DEI CONTRATTI ROVESCIATI....FARE E PRETENDERE ANZICHÈ CONTRATTARE....IL DONO X OBBLIGARE DI FATTO PRIVILEGIA IL TUO CONTRATTO PRFERITO SUL MIO...È UNA VESSAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 77

the reason for this judgment seems to be that you had no good way of avoiding receiving the benefits—you couldn’t opt out without great expense
Note:RISPONDERAI CHE NN INTENDI CONTRACCAMBIARE

Yellow highlight | Page: 78

SUMMARY
Note:ttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 78

The belief that governments enjoy authority is widespread; even people living under illiberal and highly corrupt regimes tend to think their governments are legitimate and authoritative.
Note:NONOSTANTE I FALLIMENTI TEORICI

Yellow highlight | Page: 78

over the past twenty-five hundred years, a large number of highly qualified people have spent a large amount of effort trying but failing to identify that property.
Note:COSA RENDE AUTOREVOLE UN GOVERNO?

Yellow highlight | Page: 78

Empirical work generally finds we have a psychological bias to ascribe authority to others, even in cases where there clearly isn’t any.
Note:VOGLIA DI UBBIDIRE

Yellow highlight | Page: 79

AUTHORITY ISN’T ALL OR NOTHING
Note:Tttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 79

A government can have authority over some issues without having complete authority over everything.
Note:QUELLO CHE SFUGGE

Yellow highlight | Page: 81

Authority in one does not imply authority in another.
Note:LIMTI

Yellow highlight | Page: 81

Anyone who wants to defend the special immunity thesis on the basis of government authority has a serious burden. It won’t be enough to justify a general kind of government authority.
Note:IL COMPITO DEL DOPIO STANDRD

Yellow highlight | Page: 83

THE COMPETENCE PRINCIPLE AS AN OBJECTION TO AUTHORITY
Note:Ttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 83

one of the arguments for the special immunity thesis holds that governments enjoy special immunity because they have legitimacy and authority.16 So far we’ve seen that legitimacy is irrelevant. What matters is whether governments have authority. Yet we’ve seen that even with this clarification, the assertion faces some big challenges. First, it’s unclear that any governments have any authority, period.
Note:RIASSUNTO

Yellow highlight | Page: 83

Second, even if governments have some general authority—for example, the authority to make you pay taxes—a person who tries to ground the special immunity thesis on authority would need to show that governments specifically have the authority to commit severe injustices or impose serious harms.
Note:Ccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

Suppose six criminal defendants are about to stand trial for first-degree murder. If they are found guilty, they will face many years or even life in prison,
Note:ESEMPIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

The first jury is ignorant.
Note:Ccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

The second jury is irrational.
Note:Cccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

The third jury is impaired.
Note:Cccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

The fourth jury is reckless.
Note:Ccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 85

The fifth jury is prejudiced.
Note:Ccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 85

The sixth jury is corrupt.
Note:Cccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 85

Ask yourself: If we knew that the juries made their decisions that way, would we be obligated to obey them? (Would
Note:Cccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 86

juries have strong duties toward defendants or to the rest of us on whose behalf they act, and also that the jury’s legitimacy and authority depends on its discharging these duties.
Note:IPOTESI

Yellow highlight | Page: 86

The four features above are grounds for accepting what I call the competence principle:
Note:IL NOSTRO DIRITTO ALLA COMPETENZA DI CHI CI GOVERNA

Yellow highlight | Page: 86

The competence principle appears to have a broad scope of application. There is little reason to think it applies only to juries. If a police officer, judge, politician, bureaucracy, or legislative body makes capricious, reckless, irrational, or malicious decisions, other people generally are stuck bearing high costs.
Note:IL PRINCIPIO CHE DÀ AUTORITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 88

The competence principle is, in itself, not a full theory of authority or legitimacy. Rather, as I’m arguing, it’s a principle that should be part of a full theory, whatever the best theory of authority or legitimacy may be.
Note:EPISTEMOCRAZIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 88

The competence principle is a disqualifier. It does not justify imbuing anyone with power. It does not justify holding that any governments (or their agents) are authoritative or legitimate. Rather, it maintains that certain people, bodies, actions, or decisions lack authority and
Note:DISQUALIFER

Yellow highlight | Page: 90

In each of these cases, it’s reasonable for Ann to believe not merely that what the wrongdoers are doing is unjust but that they are also acting incompetently or in bad faith.
Note:TORNIAMO A CASI DELL ANN DEL CAPITOLO PRECEDENTE

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

DOES THIS TRIVIALIZE THE MORAL PARITY THESIS?
Note:Tttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

First, even if we grant that governments may legitimately do whatever they please, strictly speaking this leaves open what we may do in response.
Note:PRIMO PROB DELLA LEGITTIMITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

Second, if we take seriously the past twenty-five hundred years of work on government authority, it’s reasonable to think that no governments have authority in general.
Note:L AUTORITÀ È PIÙ DIFFOCILE DA RICONOSCERE

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

Third, even if we ignore that and presume charitably that governments have some general kind of authority, in order to defend the special Immunity thesis, one would need to show specifically that governments have the authority to commit severe injustices
Note:AUTORITÀ LIMITATA

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

Fourth, the competence principle gives us reason to think many government injustices lack authority. At most, governments could be authoritative in committing a severe injustice only if they somehow decided to commit that injustice competently and in good faith.
IL LIMITE DELLA COMPEYENZA

STIMA IL TUO NEMICO

STIMA IL TUO NEMICO

Supponiamo che Kant sostenga l’aborto. Questa è forse una prova a favore del fatto che l’aborto è giusto?

Per molti sì, ma non per la persona razionale.

La persona razionale pensa al margine.

Il peso dell’opinione di Kant sulla sua opinione, dipende da cosa si aspetta da Kant prima di ascoltarlo. Se Kant producesse argomenti meno brillanti di quelli che mi aspetto, allora il suo intervento si trasformerebbe in una prova CONTRO l’aborto. Sarebbe un po’ come dire: “se neanche un tipo brillante come Kant sa scovare argomenti efficaci a favore dell’aborto, allora crescono le probabilità che questi argomenti non esistano e io sono tenuto a rivedere la mia posizione in senso pro-life”.

Quanto più stimo chi non la pensa come me, tanto più, se costui non mi convince, crescono le possibilità che io abbia ragione.

CONTRO IL RUOLO

CONTRO IL RUOLO
Immaginati un sistema in cui, dopo aver rigato dritto per 5 anni, il tuo datore di lavoro debba impegnarsi a tenerti per il resto della tua vita!
Wow, sarebbe davvero bello. Ma perché un simile non esiste? Semplice, perché la qualità del lavoro (puntualità, produttività, disponibilità…) diminuirebbe drasticamente dopo il quinto anno.
Ecco, gli insegnanti invece un simile privilegio ce l’hanno, e si chiama “ruolo”.
Dicono di avercelo perché questo garantisce la loro libertà d’insegnamento e ricerca.
Non credete a chi lo afferma: primo, esistono molti altri modi alternativi per “far fuori” chi è davvero scomodo. Secondo, la maggior parte delle persone sono coerenti nei loro valori e quasi tutti li rivelano passato qualche anno. E’ difficile che successivamente ci siano sorprese.
Ma se non credete a questi argomenti potete toccare la cosa con mano frequentando personalmente il mondo accademico. Difficilmente avrete mai l’impressione di un mondo dove la libera espressione fiorisce. Il conformismo regna sovrano.
Non resta che ammettere l’ovvio: il ruolo esiste perché si desidera blindare il posto a vita. Ai professori non importa molto dell'efficienza o di svolgere bene un determinato lavoro, preferiscono garantirsi la possibilità di prendersela comoda quando le energie e gli entusiasmi caleranno.

Piuttosto che garantire la sicurezza del lavoro a vita, sarebbe più semplice fare una regola secondo la quale nessuno può essere licenziato per convinzioni controverse. In questo modo si proteggerebbero tutti (assistenti, collaboratori, laureati e professori) e non solo i titolari di ruolo.

https://feedly.com/i/entry//uNtJ5Te/bTWNrQ93eWUZRWG2zLfACizMrZ4kDb0FIs=_16c34071853:5ca819e:73d34570

HL CHAPTER 2 Defensive Ethics THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK

CHAPTER 2 Defensive Ethics THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK
Note:2@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Page: 28

I may not kill for fun, but I may kill a kidnapper in self-defense.
Note:OGNI REGOLA HA LE SUE ECCEZIONI

Yellow highlight | Page: 28

the controversy is over relatively small things, such as exactly how to interpret what counts as an “imminent threat” or whether there is a “proportionality” requirement on self-defense.
Note:LE DUE CONTROVERSIE

Yellow highlight | Page: 28

they are more like arguing over whether the speed limit should be eighty or eighty-five miles
Note:QUESTIONI SUL SESSO DEGLI ANGELI

Yellow highlight | Page: 28

all I am maintaining in this book is that governmental wrongdoers are on par with nongovernmental ones:
Note:LA TESI FORTE QUI

Yellow highlight | Page: 29

A THEORY OF DEFENSIVE KILLING
Note:Ttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 29

Jeff McMahan’s Killing in War,
Note:UN RIFERIMENTO

Yellow highlight | Page: 30

Defensive killing is also restricted by a doctrine of necessity: at minimum, when a nonlethal alternative is equally effective at stopping someone from committing injustice, it is not permissible to kill him.
Note:NECESSITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 30

A. Shooter in the Park A masked man emerges from a black van holding a rifle. He starts shooting at children in a public park. Ann, a bystander, has a gun. She kills him before he kills any innocent children.
Note:CASO A

Yellow highlight | Page: 30

common law is in general a reliable guide to people’s moral intuitions about permissible killing. Unlike statutory law, which generally reflects bureaucrats’ or politicians’ interests,
Note:DOVE GUARDARE

Yellow highlight | Page: 31

1. The killer is not the aggressor. 2. He reasonably believes he (or someone else) is in imminent danger of severe bodily harm from his adversary. 3. He reasonably believes that killing is necessary to avoid this danger.
Note:LE TRE CONDIZIONI

Yellow highlight | Page: 31

Ann shoots the gunman in the park, her action is not wrong at all.
Note:QUINDI

Yellow highlight | Page: 31

THE HARM AND IMMINENT DANGER PROVISOS
Note:Tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

there’s no obvious sharp line between what threats count as severe or not severe enough to warrant killing.
Note:SERIA MINACCIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

suppose a man threatens to burn down my house and destroy my car, but the only way I can stop him is to shoot him.
Note:ESEMPIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

people could reasonably dispute that, especially if I’m rich and have insurance. I won’t take a stance either way here, but I just note this could be one area of controversy.
Note:NO SOLUTION

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

legal codes of most countries do not allow you to use deadly violence to defend your property; most say you can only use violence to defend people.
Note:DI SOLITO

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

Suppose you have been kidnapped and have good reason to think that the kidnapper will murder you on day six of captivity.
Note:L IMMEDITO PERICOLO NN VA PRESO ALLA LETTERA

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

a matter of reasonable dispute.
Note:SESSO DEGLI ANGELI

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

defensive killing apply equally to both private and governmental wrongdoers,
Note:QUEL CHE QUI IMPORTA SAPERE SULLQA Così N LAW

Yellow highlight | Page: 33

THE REASONABLENESS PROVISO
Note:@@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Page: 33

The common law merely requires the killer to have a “reasonable belief”

Note | Page: 33

CLAUSOLA

Yellow highlight | Page: 33

in one famous case, a member of a gang was harassing the defender. The gang member reached into his pocket. The defender reasonably believed that the gang member was reaching for a gun and so shot the gang member dead. It turned out he was not armed and was just reaching for a pack of cigarettes.6 Nevertheless, the defender was exonerated by the doctrine of self-defense.
Note:CASO FAMOSO

Yellow highlight | Page: 33

Now some philosophers might dispute the reasonableness criterion and think it’s too permissive. For instance, they might hold that it matters not just whether your belief that you need to use violence to defend yourself is reasonable but instead whether it is correct.
Note:CORRETTO E RAGIONEVOLE

Yellow highlight | Page: 34

THE NECESSITY PROVISO
Note:Tttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 34

Suppose, in the Shooter in the Park case, that Ann has three options: 1. Kill the shooter, which has a 95 percent chance of saving the children. 2. Use a smoke screen to help the children escape, which has only a 25 percent chance of being effective. 3. Try to wrestle the shooter to the ground, which has only a 25 percent chance of being effective and a good chance of getting her killed.
Note:ESEMPIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 34

Suppose Ann had a fourth option: 4. Subdue the shooter in an expensive nonlethal manner, which has a 100 percent chance of stopping him, but that would cost someone (Ann, an innocent bystander, or the city) $1 million.
Note:UN QUARTO CASO

Yellow highlight | Page: 34

Ann could use non-lethal violence to stop the shooter from killing the children, but only by smashing a rare painting over his head.
Note:EEMPIOCCCCCCC

Yellow highlight | Page: 35

It’s not obvious we owe it to him to sacrifice so much wealth just to preserve his life, especially when that wealth can be used for other valuable ends.
Note:DUBBI

Yellow highlight | Page: 35

In some jurisdictions, people are not allowed to use deadly force (or any force) to protect themselves or others if they (and the others) could simply escape.
Note:FUNZIONE DELLA VIA DI FUGA

Yellow highlight | Page: 35

IS THERE A PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENT?
Note:Ttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 36

Suppose you are the aggressor and I am the defender. You try to cut off my hand, and in self-defense, I kill you. In most jurisdictions, this will be seen as justifiable homicide, and so I will not incur any criminal penalties. Yet in some of those same jurisdictions, your family might be able to collect damages against me, since I inflicted disproportionate harm; I killed you when you were merely going to cut off my hand.
Note:UN RUOLO NEI DANNI CIVILI

Yellow highlight | Page: 36

For instance, in some jurisdictions, if a woman kills her would-be rapist, she would face civil liability for damages since killing is out of proportion with rape.
Note:ASSURDITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 37

suppose I know you plan to tap me on the shoulder once. It seems I can swat your hand away. But suppose instead the only way I can stop you from tapping me is to kill you; I have no less-than-lethal means to preventing you from doing so. Hurd
Note:CASI IMBARAZZANTI

Yellow highlight | Page: 38

Once again, strictly speaking I take no stance on how to interpret the proportionality requirement, if there is one. My goal here is to argue that the moral rules governing self-defense against government agents are no stricter than the moral rules governing self-defense against private civilians.
Note:ANCORA E ANCORA

Yellow highlight | Page: 39

KILLING BOSSES: MUST THE THREAT BE IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT?
Note:Tttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 39

Mastermind Wilson is a criminal mastermind. He continually evades the police—he cannot be brought to justice. He has an army of hundreds of henchmen who do his bidding. Wilson himself has never killed anyone. His henchmen have killed others at his command. Ann knows Wilson will soon issue another kill order. But Ann—a former Marine sniper—shoots Wilson from afar, killing him before he issues his next order.
Note:UN ECCEZIONE ALL MINACVIA DIRETTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 40

MUST KILLING STOP THE THREAT?
Note:ttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 40

In Shooter in the Park when Ann kills the shooter, this stops the threat. We can sometimes kill others, though, even when killing them is not guaranteed to stop the threat they pose.
Note:ULTERIORE COMPLICAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 41

imagine that an attacker is trying to kill children in the park. He is in the process of throwing a grenade at the children. Suppose Ann is only fast enough to shoot him midway through his throw. Because she fires so late, she has only a 50 percent of stopping him from killing the children, although she has 100 percent chance of killing him.
Note:LA SITUAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 41

School Bombers Ann stumbles on terrorists who are about to bomb a school. Since there is no other effective and safe way to stop them, she kills them. Yet Ann knows there is another terrorist cell. She knows that the second cell will just bomb the same school a few hours (or days, weeks, or months) later.
Note:ALTRA SITUAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 42

FURTHER COMPLICATIONS
Note:Tttttyt

Yellow highlight | Page: 42

Suppose Bob is about to answer his cell phone. Bob does not know, and let’s suppose has no possible way of knowing, that terrorists have hacked his phone. When Bob answers the phone, this will cause a bomb planted nearby to explode,
Note:LA MINACVIA DI UN NN RESPONSABILE

Yellow highlight | Page: 42

Or consider the problem of innocent bystanders and innocent shields. Suppose innocent bystanders surrounded the shooter in the park. Suppose if Ann attempts to shoot him, there is a good chance she would miss, and hence injure or kill one of the innocent
Note:SCUDI UMANI

Yellow highlight | Page: 43

SUMMARY
Note:Tttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 43

I introduce these complications to make readers aware of them and signal that I am also aware of them.
Note:UNICO SCOPO

Yellow highlight | Page: 43

My view is just that when government agents are nonresponsible threats, innocent bystanders, or innocent shields, you may treat them the same way you would treat civilians in the same roles.

Note | Page: 44

LA TESI

Yellow highlight | Page: 44

DEFENSIVE LYING
Note:Tttttttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 44

Murderer at the Door Your friends, fleeing an ax murderer, hide in your basement. The ax murderer appears at your door and politely asks, “Might you be hiding people in your basement? I’d like to murder them, if you don’t mind.” Almost
Note:L AMICO INSEGUITO

Yellow highlight | Page: 44

The murderer at the door is commonly regarded as a counterexample to certain moral theories.
Note:ECCEZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 45

many people interpret Immanuel Kant’s moral theory as implying that we cannot lie to the murderer at the door,
Note:UN BUON MOTIVO X RIGETTARE KANT

Yellow highlight | Page: 45

Defensive lying might also be governed by a doctrine of necessity:
Note:ANALOGOA

Yellow highlight | Page: 45

whether defensive deception is merely permissible or obligatory might depend in part on whether the potential liar is in danger of retaliation or not.
Note:DORITTO O DOVERE?

Yellow highlight | Page: 46

In general, if defensive lying and defensive violence are equally effective at stopping a wrongful aggressor from harming someone, then defensive lying is justified but defensive violence is not.
Note:DISTINZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 46

DEFENSIVE SABOTAGE, THEFT, AND DESTRUCTION

Yellow highlight | Page: 47

suppose Ann knows the local mafia is trafficking child sex workers and routinely shakes down local businesses. Ann is a skilled hacker. She can hack into the mafia’s computers and phones. When she does so, she can disrupt its communications, for example, by deleting e-mails, sending misinformation over e-mail, and the like. She can also steal its funds, which she might then redistribute to, say, the charity GiveDirectly. By doing so, she might not be able to stop the mafia altogether but she can significantly reduce the amount of injustice it does. This seems like justified sabotage.
Note:SABOTATE LA MAFIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 47

Typically, when choosing among defensive actions, one should pick the least harmful and violent action.
Note:REGOLA GENERALE

Yellow highlight | Page: 48

EXAMPLE CASES OF RIGHTFUL DEFENSIVE ACTION
Note:TttttttttttttCASI DI LEGITTIMA DIFESA...SESGUONO ANALOGIE CON LO STATO CHE FA LE VECI DELLA MAFIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 49

A. Shooter in the Park A masked man emerges from a black van holding a rifle. He starts shooting
Note:IL SOLDATO CHE SPARA

Yellow highlight | Page: 49

B. Drunk Partygoer Rodney has too much to drink at a party. He runs around the house with a tiki torch, loudly yelling, “Look, everyone, I’m the Human Torch!”
Note:I BUTTAFUORI ALLE PRESE CON RODNEY KING

Yellow highlight | Page: 49

C. Health Nut Health guru John sincerely believes that caffeine is unhealthy, causes laziness, and induces people to use hard drugs.
Note:LO STRANO GURU...E IL PROIBIZIONISMO DEL VCAFFÈ

Yellow highlight | Page: 50

D. Terrorist Cobra Commander, leader of the terrorist organization COBRA, uses a combination of bribes, subterfuge, and threats to get the leaders of the United States to do his bidding. He then gets the US military to perform an unjust invasion of another country.
Note:COBRA...POLITICA ESTERA DELLA CIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 50

E. Mastermind Wilson is a criminal mastermind. He continually evades the police; he cannot be brought to justice.
Note:MASTERMIND...ANCORA SULLA POLITICA ESTERA

Yellow highlight | Page: 50

F. Hacker The local mafia has secretly been spying on everyone, stealing their personal information,
Note:ASSANGE SGOMINA LA MAFIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 50

G. Vigilante Jailer Bob, like many people in his town, believes that Ann might be a murderer and the government acts wrongly by refusing to try her. So one day, he kidnaps Ann and holds a trial for her in his basement. Bob is a fanatic believer in due process so he makes sure the trial looks like a normal one.
Note:ESTRADIZIONE COL TRUCCO

Yellow highlight | Page: 51

H. Mafia Protection Money The local mafia does many things. It engages in criminal activities, and often hurts or kills people that get in its way. In beats down and intimidates local businesspeople to get them to pay protection money. But it also dispenses justice from time to time by punishing people who wrongly hurt its clients, and distributing significant amounts of money to poor widows and families. Ann runs a small business. The amount of protection money the mafia demands from businesses depends on how successful the business is.
Note:TASSE

Yellow highlight | Page: 51

I. Justice League Turned Bad For the past twenty years, the Justice League has protected innocent people
Note:FINO A UN CERTO PUNTO TUTTO BENE

Yellow highlight | Page: 51

Nevertheless, one day Superman, the leader of the Justice League, orders superhero Awesome Ann to use her psychic blast power to blow up an entire village.
Note:MA A UN CERTO PUNTO.....E ANN SI RIBELLA...CONTRO LA TRADIZION

Yellow highlight | Page: 52

J. Saboteur
Note:SABOTARE LA MAFIA...OVVERO LO STATO

Yellow highlight | Page: 52

L. Secret Free Trader Bob believes that buying Chinese imports is wrong. He thinks we should buy American. He announces loudly, “Henceforth, anyone who buys Chinese supplies for his or her business has to pay a fine equal to 50 percent of the costs
Note:VIETATO COMPRARE CNESE...ANN SI RIBELLA

Yellow highlight | Page: 53

M. Bomber Ann knows that a particular car belongs to a local gang.
Note:BRUCIARE UN AUTO DELLA POLIZIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 53

PARALLEL CASES WITH GOVERNMENT AGENTS
Note:Ttttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 53

A’. Minivan Shooter
Note:I CASI DELLO STATO....VIOLENZA POLIZIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 53

B’. Drunk Driver
Note:RODNEY KING

Yellow highlight | Page: 54

C’. War on Drugs
Note:PROIBIZIONISMO

Yellow highlight | Page: 54

D’. Hawk
Note:FALCHI CIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 54

E’. Chief Executive Mastermind
Note:GUERRA INGIUSTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 55

F’. The Leaker
Note:ASSANGE

Yellow highlight | Page: 55

H’. Taxes
Note:TASSE

Yellow highlight | Page: 56

I’. War Crime
Note:TRUPPE VALOROSE CHE COMMETONO ERRORI

Yellow highlight | Page: 57

Each of the cases A’–M’ is written to be more or less analogous to the cases A–M above, with the only major difference being that Ann is using defensive actions against government agents acting ex officio rather than against civilians.
Note:L OPERAZIONE COMPIUTA IN QS CAPITOLO

Yellow highlight | Page: 57

If some defensive action is permissible in any of cases A–M, we should presume the same defensive action is also permissible in A’–M’,
Note:PARALLELO

Yellow highlight | Page: 58

If someone judges that we should treat cases A–M differently from A’–M’, arguing that defensive action is right in the former and wrong in the latter cases, then we need some good explanation.
Note:GOOD AXPLANATION

Yellow highlight | Page: 58

I agree with most sensible people that violent revolution is rarely a good idea.
Note:RIVOLUZIONE E CAOA

Yellow highlight | Page: 58

advocating defensive actions against, including in some cases violent resistance to, government injustice is not the same thing as advocating violent revolution.
Note:SIA CHIARO

Yellow highlight | Page: 59

To justify revolution is to justify war. It’s one thing to assassinate a warmongering leader. It’s another to overthrow the government altogether.
Cccccccccc

QUANTO DISTANO GLI ANNI SETTANTA?

QUANTO DISTANO GLI ANNI SETTANTA?
Weinstein: se oggi entri in un locale e fai sparire tutti gli schermi, penserai di vivere ancora negli anni '70.
Thiel: Non esagerare. La prima auto che comprai, nel 1975, fu una Ford Pinto. Da allora la qualità delle auto è aumentata parecchio. Il cibo in casa mia è molto meglio di allora e molto più facile da preparare. Fuori casa le proposte dei vari ristoranti sono nettamente migliori di quelle del 1970. La capacità di ottenere beni fatti lontano da qui è molto più agevole oggi, così come la possibilità di fare viaggi, anche transcontinentali. Puoi facilmente trovare un alloggio in qualsiasi parte del mondo e pagare beni e servizi ovunque ti trovi con una facilità ieri inimmaginabile.

https://medium.com/@arnoldkling/peter-thiel-and-eric-weinstein-annotated-bd1de574d4bd

https://feedly.com/i/entry/Nkn6RK6HwBgWrvMj84SxHg63I5Wn8O87ZvoPCQT30Mw=_16c2dff4b6d:53f0135:561e4df6

DNA ITALICO

Riccardo Mariani

8 min · 

AddToAny

 · 

DNA ITALICO

Mentre la rete delle discendenze lega molte nazioni e regioni europee, in Italia ci sono profonde differenze regionali che sembrano risalire all'antichità. Un'ipotesi potrebbe essere che, a differenza di gran parte dell'Europa, la struttura locale profonda all'interno della penisola italiana che precede l'impero romano persista ancora oggi. La latinizzazione dell'Italia, quindi, durante il tardo repubblicano e il primo periodo imperiale, poteva essere considerata principalmente una questione di diffusione culturale ed emulazione d'élite. Ciò è in parte dovuto al fatto che gran parte della penisola italiana era abitata da popoli che parlavano già lingue molto vicine al latino. Ma un'altra possibilità è che questa struttura profonda si sia formata grazie a migrazioni più recenti. Ad esempio, l'esistenza della Magna Grecia nell'Italia meridionale e in Sicilia era dovuta alla migrazione dei maschi dalla Grecia nei secoli precedenti l'ascesa di Roma. C'è poi il caso della Sardegna, che presenta caratteri genetici molto peculiari (l'isolamento dovuto alle coste malariche puo' aver giocato un ruolo) e si propone come un buon candidato a rappresentare l'etnogenesi dei popoli europei. Conclusione: probabilmente, dopo la Finlandia, l'Italia è il paese geneticamente meno omogeneo d'Europa.

GNXP.COM

A genetic map of Italy

Since the Ralph & Coop paper on IBD patterns across Europe I’ve been keen to see what gets uncovered about Italy. Recall, if you will, that in that paper the authors noted that Italy in p…

IL COMPLOTTISTA SOFISTICATO: BIBBIANO E LA JUVE.

IL COMPLOTTISTA SOFISTICATO: BIBBIANO E LA JUVE.

Ecco, anche a voi questo articolo suona ambiguo?

Quel che non si capisce è quel che più conta: c’è un manipolatore o se si è solo sfruttata un’occasione propizia.

Voglio dire, è ben diverso trovare 100 euro sul marciapiede oppure stamparne uno falso! Nessuno puo’ rimproverare chi raccoglie la banconota mentre merita la nostra condanna chi la fabbrica.

La cosa mi ricorda i tanti lunedì sera in compagnia del moviolone. Il refrain di fondo è sempre lo stesso, tutti a dire: “la Juve è stata favorita dall’arbitro ma non credo alla malafede di quest’ultimo, altrimenti non seguirei più il campionato”. Al che tu pensi: se l’arbitro non è in malafede allora la Juve è stata solo fortunata, un po’ come chi segna anzichè prendere un palo. Eppure è chiaro che quando si analizza un episodio arbitrale dubbio si ha un atteggiamento mentale completamente diverso rispetto a quando si registra la cronaca di un’azione terminata con un palo. I commentatori anti-juve negano a parole quello che non potrebbero provare (la malafede) ma lo affermano con il loro atteggiamento animoso! Insomma, è una forma di complottismo sofisticato.

PIANI REGOLATORI STRADA PER STRADA

PIANI REGOLATORI STRADA PER STRADA
L’idea è semplice: lascia che ogni strada decida da sola quanti immobili residenziali e commerciali desidera ospitare. Avremo più costruzioni e soluzioni più variegate. Tradotto: prezzi più bassi per le case e maggior sperimentazione urbanistica.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/583efdfd03596e5fc7f6ee71/t/5d37efeba9f0540001137e3f/1563946991352/Ostrom+paper+John+Myers+2019-06-27.pdf

https://feedly.com/i/entry/Od/Z0OrlTBzSrJtcae1t5qtueOtvOco3UFNx6gD9Pd4=_16c2d18c76e:ba50:dd8759

ALLARMI!

ALLARMI!
Guardando ai trend storici dovremmo aspettarci una guerra devastante a breve, tuttavia gli ottimisti ritengono che “questa volta è diverso” e che siamo destinati a deviare dalle regolarità della storia. Ecco le teorie che mettono in campo:
1. Oggi siamo moralmente superiori.
2. Oggi le economie sono molto interconnesse.
3. Oggi siamo molto più ricchi e abbiamo più da perdere.
4. Oggi le alleanze internazionali sono più solide.
5. Oggi l’atomica fa da deterrente.
6. Oggi non possiamo i consueti vantaggi di una vittoria (stupro, schiavitù…).
7. Oggi conosciamo meglio i nostri potenziali avversari e le loro reali intenzioni.
8. Altre forme di violenza sembrano cessate: schiavitù, crimine…

Nessuna di queste teorie mi convince, quindi penso che la legge della storia sia ancora valida e mi aspetto una guerra devastante a breve.

https://feedly.com/i/entry/pCjzw1s9uw4o7o2a6k88mWl61VH8mv6Frk5BTARJuI0=_16c2a3c41c7:4f1f0df:561e4df6

FUKUSHIMA

Riccardo Mariani

Adesso · 

A Fukushima, abbiamo scoperto che l'aspettativa di vita preservata evacuando la popolazione non superava i tre mesi. L'abitante medio di Londra perde 4,5 mesi di aspettativa di vita a causa dell'inquinamento atmosferico della città, eppure nessuno suggerisce di evacuare la città.

Informazioni su questo sito web

THECONVERSATION.COM

Evacuating a nuclear disaster areas is (usually) a waste of time and money, says study

Letting Fukushima residents stay in their homes would have only cost them an average of three months' life expectancy.

F brexit

sifone cerniere orologi macchina da cucire tachimetro tasto pianoforte.... e uscire dall'euro.

https://feedly.com/i/entry/gj49Ct2pFQH7aQI92pAQT83HaIjwDuyYZb9Mvj40IpM=_16c09edf442:92186e:310c681b