Finally, 2 of the more serious thinkers (of the past, at least) left on HN get together to discuss next nearest neighbors to discussions I'm interested in .. N

Finally, 2 of the more serious thinkers (of the past, at least) left on HN get together to discuss next nearest neighbors to discussions I'm interested in .. Nearest neighbour discussions would be like 1) do individuals have a right to pre-emptive self defense? 2) do groups (especially ones with thoughtfully-violent champions that represent them but are not card carrying members. Like the proverbial dogs of mainstream Athenian philos)? 3) do people who share an ideology? If they are common? if they are uncommon? 4) how to begin uh, quantifying these rights? (Then one can start quantifying the complementary responsibilities too!) More interesting than trolley problems imho. And that's not even mentioning that Ellul (coined think globally, act locally) was not a run-of-the-mill institutionalist academic. And if you are inclined to disagree, can I just point out that he's no nepo baby? And probably less entitled, not to mention less disturbed than all 3 of us >Perhaps the good life of Bordeaux is to blame after all https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467604270259 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467604270259 https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_chapter_monograph/j.ctvh4zdh4.9?seq=4 https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_chapter_monograph/j.ctvh4zd...