Re: [POLITICS] Re: Members of Parliament Problem

[Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>]

Peter Hendrickson wrote:
| At 9:32 AM 11/15/1996, Adam Shostack wrote:
| >         Most of the usual arguments about disallowing anonymity
| > actually apply to a Parliment.  There is a responsibility involved in
| > the execution of power.
| 
| >         This is not to condone attacking children, or killing ones
| > political opponents.  For an MP to imply that something he wants to
| > say will likely get him/his kids killed probably means that he wants
| > to use the power of the state in some way likely to quite upset at
| > least a few people.  If this is the case, then allowing him to
| > anonymously, and without responsibility, direct the power of the state
| > is congruent to tyranny.
| 
| Please allow me to respectfully disagree.

	No! :)

| Let's consider another issue: recreational drugs.  We can be pretty
| sure that a sizeable number of Congressmen use marijuana and see
| no reason for it to be illegal.  Yet, to speak about it would be
| understood to be political suicide with possible legal repercussions.
| Were Congressmen able to speak anonymously, such an issue could be
| discussed.  It is more likely that good policy results from discussion.

	So, if 'anonymous Senator' came out for legalization, it would
be declared that it was Kennedy, source of all Liberal Evil.  Good
policy comes from leaders standing up and leading.  Since they don't,
I'm a crypto-anarchist.  To try and help the Congress become more
effective is not in anyones interest, except that class of person who 
makes their living off the workings of government.

	There are lots of variations on the argument that politics is
from the greek poly, meaning many, and ticks, a small bloodsucking
animal.  My interest in creating new, consensual realities is that I
don't want to be forced to care about the congress.

Adam


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume