To Rog, Jeremy, Platt, and others,
Rog:
I was also a bit perturbed by Ed, who greatly agrees with much or all of
Jeremy's comments and can't avoid blaming the deaths -- at least to an
extent -- on "the intellectuals of current society."
No, you still don't get it. I do not blame the deaths, in some extent or any
extent, on "the intellectuals of current society." I blame the terrorists.
The crimes, as expressed previously in my concurrence with what Sam had
noted, "are unjustifiable."
I do agree with Jeremy on certain items. (Although, I'd prefer to set forth
the degree to which this is the case.) In his 9/14 post he wrote, "Because
Americans were victimized on Tuesday does not mean that America is innocent.
I'm not saying that these people died for a just cause, it was murder pure
and simple. But these actions are a reflection of growing anti-American
sentimentalism in the world as a whole and within America itself. Anyone
thinking why?"
It is the pattern of anti-American sentiment that is the germ that must be
routed out to the extent possible for it is the primary basis from which
terrorist attacks upon the U.S. have occurred, and it is the primary basis
from which terrorist attacks will occur in the future. Our strategy to
reduce terrorism must include this or it is shortsighted. We do not have
full control over this by any means, but we do have some. And where we do
have control we ought exercise it well. One primary reason (not the only
one) for the negative sentiment is the gross imblances that I had referred
to in my prior post.
Rog may defend these gross imbalances in the name of freedom, but I believe
the opposite. Scott Peck in The Road Less Traveled reminds us, "The
difficulty we have in accepting responsibility for our behavior lies in the
desire to avoid the pain of the consequences of that behavior." We can
defend the 'pursuit of freedom' justly, but without accepting responsibility
for the resultant gross imbalances we are inadvertently fueling
anti-American sentiment. And this can effectively reduce our freedom.
As I had noted, I agree with Rog's condition for the pursuit, "AS LONG AS
THEY DON'T HURT OTHERS." But I think, Rog, and Platt who believes with other
scientists that environmental concerns are overblown, you have one hell of a
gross-imbalance-platypus to contend with in defense of your pursuit of
freedom ideas, and America has a nationalistic blindness to the pain of
accepting responsibility for these gross-imbalances. (I'm not referring to
the pain of the incidents but to the pain of changing our activities that
promote imbalance.)
Platt (9/17)
Thus we see arguments to the effect that economic inequality is a
justification for mass murder, and that if the "haves" will only succumb to
blackmail from the "have nots" then we can all live happily ever after.
My argument is not that economic inequality is justification for mass murder
(not that you necessarily suggested mine was), but that gross imbalances are
not necessary to the pursuit of freedom and may actually serve to reduce it.
It is certainly not our role to succumb to blackmail, but rather to promote
greater balance. I don't think we can easily ignore this issue.
Why not reduce these tremendous imbalances? It may be a quality activity
that promotes greater freedom.
Ed
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 - 16:01:31 BST