Gerhard, Marco, Andrea and all,
Just to be clear, I do not think the US is a country that is currently
following a Libertarian path especialily in the area of foreign policy.
While I wish this to be the case, it simply isn't. While the US might be
more Libertarian compared to other countries, I know of no country that
could be described as following REAL Libertarian principles. I am actively
pursuing a policy of educating of my countrymen (via Television) in the
hopes of making the US more Libertarian.
Glen wrote:
>> Thought Experiment:
>> Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific
that
>> is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer
>> kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the
>> only people left on the island. You and your friend could undertake the
>> long voyage off the island or you could kill the serial killer. What do
you
>> do?
>> Would you sincerely argue that the serial killer on our hypothetical
island represents
>> a potential dynamic force for the evolution of our social pattern?
Gerhard wrote:
> This is purely rhetorically, but I can't see any reason that she's not.
What to say? I think you are being ridiculous and no doubt you think I am a
barbarian. Your points are articulately put and I can understand your line
of reasoning even if I disagree with it, as I hope you can understand mine.
Marco wrote:
> given that your example has no sense about McVeigh, as he did not kill the
70%
> of the USA population and he was already in a jail when he has been
executed...
Oh no we're in agreement! My argument was not supposed to make sense about
McVeigh. I would not have executed McVeigh, but I do not represent the
government of the US. The point of the thought experiment was to describe
the most extreme conditions to see if Gerhard would ever support capital
punishment. Perhaps a Nazi scenario would have been more effective. I
think there is a time and place for capital punishment although it is
infrequent.
Marco wrote:
> I'm not the only one stating that the intellectual era has not been still
> established in the great part of the world.
Yet another point of agreement! I don't see how this effects my agruments
in regards Nigerians. They are still evolving as are we and a war of
"knives against bazookas" is still be preferable to slavery.
Marco wrote:
> I'm just making the least I can to inform western public opinion!
And I! While a Libertarian government would not intervein in Nigeria, a
Libertarian population would think these corporations actions an outrage
against the Liberty of their fellow human beings! What do the corporations
have to protect? Their markets!
Marco wrote:
> Were mainly to say that the purpose of the market (money, the social
> blood) is blind to the individual intellectual rights. So an unruled
market
> creates or supports often injustices, especially towards those
*intellectually
> weak* populations.
Hmmm... I think a policy of state non-intervetion in other countries is
best. If your population is moral then citizens of like mind will and
should band together and oppose oppression without the complusion of
government force. The market will always be blind and nothing will change
that, only individuals can be moral.
Andrea wrote:
> In particular, if people in the third world got aware that they are
oppressed
> by the west (be it true or not), you are saying: "embrace your guns and
> kill us".
And your point is? I do wonder at your use of "us". If i'm oppressing
people then what's wrong with them making me stop? This seems pretty normal
MoQ thought to me.
Andrea wrote:
> You should also be supporting terrorism, which is what you can do
> if you want to fight an overly stronger enemy: or are you suggesting that,
> if Nigerians thought Americans are helping in their oppression, they
should
> fight them face to face in a honorable military war (i.e., do mass
> suicide)? So terrorists would probably feel very comfortable in your
> framework.
Really? Our ideas about how to implement a successful rebellion are very
different (see some of my eariler posts). I suspect that you would not make
a very good tactican for the Nigerians. I don't think I would support
random terrorist acts under any circumstances nor would I participate in a
frontal assualt against a superior foe. Both are madness.
Andrea wrote:
> Pirsig has every right to condemn self-proclaimed humanitarians on the
> basis that they are mock humanitarians, albeit it still seems an extreme
> generalizations to say that no one is a real humanitarian with the
> exceptions mentioned above (Christ, etc.). The opposite of being a mock
> humanitarian is not criticizing those who take the oppressed' side (even
in
> an electronic discussion), not to support war and violence as a means of
> solving problems, and declaring that those who do not turn to violence are
> the cause of their own problems.
I have no idea where you are going here. In particular I think the Jesus
protrayed in the bible had some very very unrealistic ideas. I think that
the citizens of western states should at least be prepared to "vote with
their dollars/marks/lira" in the face of corporate misdeeds.
Smiles,
Glen/AreteLaugh
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:24 BST