Re: Voices

["Edwin E. Smith" <edsmith@IntNet.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thank you for your thoughtful and honest response.

I am interested in the two meanings of "Just". When you say you have 
blind spots do you mean that you delude yourself in some ways? I 
would say this is true of all of us, however I would say that by 
recognizing that you do have shortcomings you are making an effort at 
improving. I also have many shortcomings and I am trying to improve.

I tend to be rather intolerant of stupid people who think they are so 
superior and that their way is the only way people should live. They 
will never hesitate to lecture others about their concept of 
morality, which usually involves the use of weapons and stealing, for 
the greater good. Such is the morality of the current occupant of the 
Whitehouse.

I tend to lecture people about the value of freedom and peaceful 
persuasion to get what I want. It is a benifit to many to trade 
peacefully rather than take what we want by force. This is my concept 
of what is just. It is my concept of the "Greater Good." I carry this 
to the extreme that if it comes down to the issue of if my survival 
can only be secured by the use of force to steal from others thereby 
taking their life or any part of it, then it is right that I should 
die.

I don't have any children so I cannot say what I would do if it came 
down to the life of one of mine. I would be very much more tolerant 
of a mother who was put in this situation.

I once, long ago had it explained to me the difference between 
charity and welfare. Don Tarbell explained that if he were to see a 
person who was starving. He would help them in whatever way he wanted 
short of stealing. Welfare on the other hand steals from people who 
might have contributed voluntarily but then resent being forced to 
help. Welfare is unjust.

I have recently began reading what promises to be a very good book. 
It is "People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck M. D. It is about human 
evil. One of the responses to a quote from the book which I posted 
was "Ask the antelope if he thinks the lion is evil, perhaps you have 
this view because no animal considers you a tasty morsel."

This is non-responsive in that we are talking about Human Evil and 
BTW there are many animals which would consider me much more than a 
"tasty morsel." We have very large aligators here in Florida which 
often eat small children, however very few people consider them evil 
by human standards, they are simply doing what they do.

The difference is that humans have, by deciding to be civil toward 
one another, decided that they will not eat each other and eat lower 
forms of life instead. Perhaps we should ask cows if they think WE 
are evil.

As to freedom of speech. I believe that I have much to gain by 
listening to what others have to say. This is a rational attitude I 
think because communication is what separates us from the lower forms 
of animals. It allows us, with our short lifespans to capitalize on 
creative ideas which our larger brains made possible. Without 
communication those ideas would die with us. We would be very little 
better off than chimpanzies. Perhaps able to fashion tools but unable 
to show others how to do the same. Each creation would have to be 
repeated in each individual.

But because I can communicate that idea which I have created to 
another, even though I didn't act upon it, the idea will outlive me 
and be a benifit to many. The wheel is an invention so old that it is 
impossible to discover when it was first used. But although it was 
surely created over and over many times it's spread was accomplished 
many times faster because the concept could be drawn on the wall of a 
cave with another very useful invention. This is the vaule of 
communication and "free speech."

Speech and the written word and now the internet. Not many realize 
that the internet is the most significant advance in technological 
evolution to have happened in a very long time. Why do I say this? 
Because it has enhanced communication manyfold. Radio and TV are one-
way only and are inferior to the printing press so don''t represent 
much of an advance. Any attempt by governments to curtail this 
enhanced speech is, in my opinion evil.

Edwin


At 05:10 PM 9/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Am I Just?  That is a difficult question to answer because "just" 
has two
>distinctly different definitions, and several nuances in the one 
definition
>which your use of the word implies.  I am reasonable--or try to be--
but I
>do have my blind spots.  Also, I am "just" in that I recognized in 
your
>statement about "voices" the essence of a healthy belief in freedom 
of
>speech with your strongly stated recognition that it is an 
endangered
>freedom when access to the means of distributing speech is limited 
to a
>chosen few who represent a very narrow spectrum of ideas.  The 
Internet has
>provided a marvelous solution to that problem.  It will be 
fascinating to
>observe how this freedom of access to the means of distributing 
speech on a
>global scale will affect the cultures of all nations whose citizens 
are
>allowed to get "on line" and participate in the exchange of ideas 
and the
>discussion that ensues.
>
>Elizabeth
>>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNgBP9UmNf6b56PAtEQL0PQCfdySiIPGgD0YcIhsJofO9MEDS06UAoJK9
z3c+1YDfVnq/RF9L2O1d01ei
=3hNv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----