First, although there is no shortage of other examples from the constitution supporting the general singularity view for capitalization of common nouns, my army example probably was not a very good choice. That is because having the action of soldiers entering into a city based on orders from the leadership of their government could bring the focus on attributing the action to the government and through that to that State because of representation, like how I once before argued for treating a State as one whole thing, not the coherency of the group. A better choice would have used for example the coherency of a family. One for example could say that a family entered into an area if one of its adult members enter into that area with the knowledge of the others.
Having gotten that out of the way, now lets get to more essential improvements.
First, one may need to pay attention to that the first comma was necessary to affect essential change to the text. It is not like it was inserted just to add some text, like in:
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being necessary to the security of a free State,...
In that case it seems like it could be argued that the commas around "composed of the body of the people" are just for introducing an unnecessary description.
Instead, the first comma we actually have blocks the subject ("A well regulated Militia" ) of the whole clause preceding the second comma from reaching the predicate ("being necessary to the security of a free State") of that whole clause.
Since the latter still refers to the former, that reference must be to the former as the concept from which the blocked manifestation was originated.
Now, lets improve the argument related to the use of the reference to "a well regulated Militia" as a concept only in "being necessary to the security of a free State".
The core of this additional argument is related to the scope of the word "the". The core role of that word is at the most general environment at which the concept of a well regulated Militia exists, not at individual cases of free States.
Lets take an example here. The one I thought about is related to the cooking of a person. A person may say:
I have salt in my kitchen because it is necessary to the cooking I do.
This is less similar to our situation here than having a grocery store manager saying:
I have salt on the shelves because it is necessary to the cooking of a person.
And while a person who needs food with lower sodium may say:
I have salt-substitute in my kitchen because it is necessary to the cooking I do.
The grocery store manager may say:
I do not have salt-substitute on the shelves because it is not necessary to the cooking of a person.
So although the grocery store manager may take into account what the word "the" may designate in different individual cases, that word ultimately applies according to the level of the general environment of the grocery store in its relation to a potential cooking of a person (Yes, in actual grocery stores definition of necessity at that general level may be merely about common actual use of the product. But if we imagine that grocery store belonging to the government because of law requirement to "supply what is necessary to the cooking of a person" then evaluating necessity at the grocery store level may begin from the capabilities the environment offers).
Dealing with things this way may happen everywhere decisions gets made at a large scale. One thing that readily comes to mind here is the decision making at a government level.
And if it seems startling in our case to consider at the general level that a well regulated Militia is not necessary to the security of a free State, because different low probabilities still exist, one needs to consider that a similar thing also done at the individual level in how the word "the" designates some special value of security protection, except that the other possibilities in the general level may belong to different states.
By the way, the issue of comparing ground troops to a well regulated Militia is a good example for how the first comma changes things with its focus on fitting the need to the concept of a well regulated Militia not the manifestation of that concept. Without that comma the need for ground troops by almost any military would have fitted the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part because military ground troops fits being a well regulated Militia.
Having gotten that out of the way, now lets get to more essential improvements.
First, one may need to pay attention to that the first comma was necessary to affect essential change to the text. It is not like it was inserted just to add some text, like in:
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being necessary to the security of a free State,...
In that case it seems like it could be argued that the commas around "composed of the body of the people" are just for introducing an unnecessary description.
Instead, the first comma we actually have blocks the subject ("A well regulated Militia" ) of the whole clause preceding the second comma from reaching the predicate ("being necessary to the security of a free State") of that whole clause.
Since the latter still refers to the former, that reference must be to the former as the concept from which the blocked manifestation was originated.
Now, lets improve the argument related to the use of the reference to "a well regulated Militia" as a concept only in "being necessary to the security of a free State".
The core of this additional argument is related to the scope of the word "the". The core role of that word is at the most general environment at which the concept of a well regulated Militia exists, not at individual cases of free States.
Lets take an example here. The one I thought about is related to the cooking of a person. A person may say:
I have salt in my kitchen because it is necessary to the cooking I do.
This is less similar to our situation here than having a grocery store manager saying:
I have salt on the shelves because it is necessary to the cooking of a person.
And while a person who needs food with lower sodium may say:
I have salt-substitute in my kitchen because it is necessary to the cooking I do.
The grocery store manager may say:
I do not have salt-substitute on the shelves because it is not necessary to the cooking of a person.
So although the grocery store manager may take into account what the word "the" may designate in different individual cases, that word ultimately applies according to the level of the general environment of the grocery store in its relation to a potential cooking of a person (Yes, in actual grocery stores definition of necessity at that general level may be merely about common actual use of the product. But if we imagine that grocery store belonging to the government because of law requirement to "supply what is necessary to the cooking of a person" then evaluating necessity at the grocery store level may begin from the capabilities the environment offers).
Dealing with things this way may happen everywhere decisions gets made at a large scale. One thing that readily comes to mind here is the decision making at a government level.
And if it seems startling in our case to consider at the general level that a well regulated Militia is not necessary to the security of a free State, because different low probabilities still exist, one needs to consider that a similar thing also done at the individual level in how the word "the" designates some special value of security protection, except that the other possibilities in the general level may belong to different states.
By the way, the issue of comparing ground troops to a well regulated Militia is a good example for how the first comma changes things with its focus on fitting the need to the concept of a well regulated Militia not the manifestation of that concept. Without that comma the need for ground troops by almost any military would have fitted the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part because military ground troops fits being a well regulated Militia.
No comments:
Post a Comment