DMB, all
dmb
> "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically
> intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too.
> Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors." She said this at the
> annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where she shared the stage
> with Lynne Cheney, Bill Bennett and Tommy Thompson. She later bragged that
> her comment was a "huge hit with the audience". Her attitude becomes even
> more bizzare when we stop to realize that John Walker rejected liberalism in
> favor of Islamic fundamentalism.
>
> Anyone care to take a stab at explaining this in MOQ terms?
3WD
I think Rog does a pretty good job in his response (Re: MD Is Society
Making Progress? Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:41:25 EST to Erin) without
even knowing it.
> RISKY:
> I am quite convinced that there are few things as disfunctional as not
> holding people accountable for their actions. Certainly a guaranteed recipe
> for social disaster. I know of no successful societies that took this course.
3WD
At first glance this seems paradoxical, that societies (be it a society
of one, an individual, a family, on up to governments and nations) with
the social and intellectural values in place that provide and promote
clear accountability (real limits-ie killing for killing) are more
successful than societies that don't.
But it is just common MoQ sense. Each level has a different, discrete,
set of laws. And while it is moral that the upper levels seek to
dominant, control, guide, the lower ones, however if these efforts fail,
faced with "Law of the Jungle" acts, biological acts, it is not only
justified, but inevitable there will be "Law of the Jungle" responses.
It is also imperative that societies institute policies that clearly say
(in both word and deed): "If one chooses to ignore social and
intellectual values and uses biological values in their stead, be
assured that not only societies, but individuals, may reply in kind. And
are morally right to do so." And this has nothing to do with individual
politics, be it Timothy McVay's or John Walker's.
That Ann Coulter placed this in a liberal framework, while
understandable, is unfortunate. The point is that many on both fringes
left and right want to take, "If you kill, we will kill you" permanently
and forever off the table. Similarly we find many who would do the same
for any kind of physical punishment of children. While these would seem
to be totally different issues they are actually of the same ilk. When
adopted and promoted by society what they say to the individual is,
"There is nothing so horrible that you can do to anything or anybody for
which society, or anybody, will punish you either in kind or more
severely." Biological laws do not work this way. Your 2 year old spits
in his playmates face, only to get smashed in the face with a toy truck.
You flip another driver the bird, only to find he forces your truck off
the road. Biology does not work on a tit for tat rules. What these
positions seek to do is not dominant biological laws, but discount them,
do away with them, ignore them, suggest that humans are no longer
subject to them. To avoid reality. So what would have been better;
Swatting Johnnie on the butt when he stepped over that line as a 2 year
old, or having to hiring him a lawyer to keep him from getting executed
for killing his own countrymen.
3WD
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 - 16:01:58 BST