Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."

[Subir Grewal <grewals@acf2.nyu.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 25 May 1996, jim bell wrote:

:Which means that attempting to clean up the system by half-measures is
:doomed to failure, wouldn't you say?

The exception I took to your proposal was that it seemed like a
half-measure to me.  From what I understand of it the porposal is that
elected officials who "do wrong" (or violate a particular code of conduct)
should be killed.  I would suggest that this is problematic because it
does nothing to solve the ills of the system, simply clears those players
whom a particular set of people do not believe are playing fairly/well.

:fundamental.  Admittedly, it is still a bit scary, because of the depth of
:its changes, but that does not make it wrong!

Yes we do have fear the unfamiliar.

<some discussion about the actions taken by the state against its citizens
and other nations>

I'm not sure I'd accept the claim that millions of offenders (I too find
drug laws stifling, illogical and counter to the liberal ideal) are put in
jail, deprived of their freedom by a particular set of people.  Drug laws
are a reflection of the opinions held by many people in this country (and
others), of course we wonder sometimes whether people have really thought
about it or whether the "just say no" jingle was too irresistable, and the
concept of "a war on drugs" another tool to define outsiders against whom
to band against and maintain a cohesive identity.  And the manner in which
Americans (and indeed other peoples) have been whipped into fervour by
the rhetoric that accompanies a war is truly frightening.  But I reall
don't think killing a few Presidents or Joint Chiefs of Staff or Prime
Ministers will solve this (or anything).  It seems as if you were trying
to say that AP is acceptable because similar methods are employed by the
state all the time.  I will not defend the coercive actions of the state,
but I do not believe they give one the right to coerce others, especially
if they are removed from the actual act.

:Then you need to learn to be more consistent.  While you may, indeed, be a
:pacifist, most of the rest of us see nothing wrong with the concept of
:self-defense.  You may argue as to what's really self-defense and what
:isn't,  but the reality is that government engages in violence and the
:threat of violence regularly.  Are you, by your statements, implicitly
:tolerating violence by government that you wouldn't tolerate from
:individuals?  It is easy to fall into such a trap.

But self-defense is not conductive either.  To bring a rather fascinating
example into this, in the 70s a group of students occupied a variety of
buildings at NYU in protest against the Cambodian war.  They set a bomb
in our computing center that was defused just before it blew.  But if it
had detonated it would have destroyed a rather large computer (used for
pure mathematical problems that the Dept. of Defense wished to
incorporate into its Nuclear program) and a number of people standing
outside the building.  The rationale used was that this was
"self-defense", the people of the world were banding together to protect
each other from the actions of the state.  While I sympathize with the
feelings that led the activists to take such measures, I have no respect
for their methods or the reasoning they employed to extend the argument
for self-defense into a situation that had nothing to do with
self-defense.

No, I do not wish to condone the coercive actions of the state (and
certainly not any violent ones), and certainly we all take exception to
one or another act of the government machine.  Incidentally, I do not
believe the state has the right to take life in the quest for justice
(aka the death penalty).  A war against a foreign threat can be justified
on grounds of self-defense.

:>and the proponents of such systems would do well to look more closely
:>at the systemic ills rather than individuals.
:
:Why?  Isn't it possible that it is not possible to reform a system because
:embedded within it is a fundamental flaw which makes real freedom
:impossible?  The current system is heirarchically structured, and results in
:situations where millions die in the place of the very few.  I'd say that's
:a serious, systemic flaw that needs fixing.

- From what I've gathered of AP, it attempts no radical reformation of "the
system", simply adds another set of costs for individuals within the govt.
to take into account.  I don't think you're proposing a "true democracy"
or absolute anarchy (without all the conotations of disorder, simply
no-government), but rather a vigilante clause, I may have misunderstood
you though.  A minimalist state is generally considered desireable as it
provides a framework within which individuals can engage in mutually
beneficial interactions with each other.  Our present structures do not
"work" very well (though they have their redeeming factors when compared
to other alternatives) and I'd say we need a greater degree of respect for
personal liberty and individualism than is manifest in our institutions
today, but these changes take place on a level very different from that of
govt.  the state is almost powerless when it comes to these metamorphoses
in opinion.  They take place through tradition and the spread of ideas not
through legislation.  The alternative I would suggest is an appreciation
for the minimalist state (with the observation that there are some things
the state does do very well, and which are desireable) and the liberty of
the individual.  Similarly a respect for life is in order, too often we
think we're absolutely right and believe we should use "any means
necessary" (no reflection on the misunderstood philosophy of Malcolm X)

hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5
WHERE CAN THE MATTER BE

	Oh, dear, where can the matter be
	When it's converted to energy?
	There is a slight loss of parity.
	Johnny's so long at the fair.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Key Escrow = Conscription for the masses | 2048 bit via finger

iQB1AwUBMae4ZBwDKqi8Iu65AQH/uQMAutPdsot4N9/dBFK1OhSmf9XHNsuic0yD
JL19I68i0kgUt1omXqySVy0w/FfyUkqWo7XYsTfBkrRAGz2X8KNHkMRYEr2TGl9Q
/TI6Kn5NBTXx49XXYeHU4q/dYAaZoJ0j
=inqJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----