Whatever Happened to Justice Ch 33

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

Why are household items like electric hair dryers or matches considered legal despite their risks?

They are less dangerous than firearms.

They are not used in accidents.

They have redeeming social value.

The risks are deemed acceptable and within ambient levels. (correct)

What does the discussion imply about the regulation of more lethal weapons like shotguns compared to submachine guns?

Shotguns have stricter regulations due to their deadliness.

The perception of danger influences political decisions on weapon legality. (correct)

Submachine guns are often seen as less dangerous in practice.

Political law bans more lethal weapons regardless of their risk.

What scenario is presented to illustrate the extreme risk of possessing an atomic bomb?

It has no redeeming social value.

It could complicate personal safety in a neighborhood.

It poses a risk of mass destruction if misused. (correct)

It can lead to accidents similar to household items.

What is suggested about the effectiveness of political law in managing risks?

Political law has proven inadequate in rationally addressing risk. Signup and view all the answers

What issue does the discussion highlight about common law before its disappearance?

It failed to provide sufficient guidelines for measuring risk. Signup and view all the answers

Why might lawmakers allow shotguns but ban handguns and submachine guns?

Public perception of their danger influences legislation. Signup and view all the answers

What example is given to demonstrate acceptable risk levels for children?

Hazards associated with household items like buckets. Signup and view all the answers

What does the author suggest is a problem with the current approach to law?

Majority rule replaces a rational system for finding solutions. Signup and view all the answers

What does the author want the reader to consider in the first mental exercise?

The necessity of all government services. Signup and view all the answers

What determines whether a person can defend themselves according to the common law principle discussed?

The level of risk raised by another person. Signup and view all the answers

Under what circumstance can a person legally react when threatened, according to the author?

If the attacker raises the risk level beyond the ambient risk. Signup and view all the answers

Which example illustrates a situation where the risk level is not high enough to warrant self-defense?

When someone holds a weapon down by their side. Signup and view all the answers

What is implied about the common perception of private solutions to societal problems?

They are considered unrealistic by many people. Signup and view all the answers

What does the author mean by 'ambient level of risk'?

The general risks that exist in everyday life. Signup and view all the answers

What suggestion does the author make regarding the involvement of government in services?

Many services could operate without government force or taxes. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Unsolved Risk Problem in the Absence of Common Law

Lack of common law leads to a lack of a rational system for resolving disputes, relying instead on majority rule.
A 3-step mental exercise is proposed: list government services, eliminate unnecessary or costly services, and devise alternative, non-forceful methods for providing the remaining services. The author believes 90-99% of services can be privately delivered without government intervention.

Determining "Too Much" Risk

A critical unresolved problem is determining the acceptable level of risk.
Example: Shooting at someone; Common law held that the threat of harm, i.e., pointing a gun, raised the risk level enough to allow self-defense, whereas merely holding a gun didn't.
There is an "ambient level" of risk inherent in life, and actions exceeding that level justify response.
However, common law frameworks for measuring this level are nonexistent.
Everyday objects pose risks: chainsaws, cars, electric appliances (e.g., hair dryers, garage door openers, buckets, draping cords). These are generally considered acceptable ambient risks.

Measuring Risk: From Objects to Weapons

A crucial question becomes how to measure the "ambient level" of risk. The author uses examples (chainsaws, cars, handguns, bazookas, atomic bombs) to illustrate the difficulty in drawing a line.
Common law could establish boundaries, but is gone, leaving no means to define the appropriate level of risk.
The author contrasts the political law approach to risk with the more nuanced idea of the common law and critiques the potential absurdity of political law decisions, using examples of legal weapons (shotguns) and banned weapons (Tommy guns) as illustrative examples.

Downstream Effects of Risk Restrictions

Restricting certain weapons (handguns, Thompson submachine guns) could push criminals towards more dangerous alternatives (sawed-off shotguns).
The author criticizes political law for its potential counter-productive effects (e.g., criminal criminals' preference for deadlier weapons).

Conclusion

The absence of common law makes it practically impossible to rationally assess acceptable risk levels.
Without common law guidelines, a rational legal system cannot assess what level of risk justifies intervention.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

This quiz explores the implications of the absence of common law in managing risks associated with government services and personal actions. It evaluates the challenges of defining acceptable levels of risk and the potential for private solutions to governmental services. Engage with critical thinking around the concepts of risk management and legal frameworks.