Re: Bell/Vulis Ranters (Was: Re: McVeigh)

[Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>]

On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Bill Stewart wrote:

> Bell's point that government would be much better behaved if the individuals
> in government could be held individually and personally responsible
> for their actions is certainly valid.  Whether shooting them is an 
> appropriate way to hold them responsible is another discussion (:-).

That was the Founding Fathers' point in instituting direct election
of House members every two years. Bell's point, if it was the 
same, entailed murder.  It's not another discusion of ends. It's
a discussion of means, and his means border on the insane.  That
alone doesn't make his idea criminal in a society with a First
Amendment, but the fact that he had an end in common with other
political thinkers doesn't make his means legitimate.

In other words, Bell's point, as you describe it, has nothing
original to say about ends. It's all about means, and as such
it's pretty well whacko. 

MacN