From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 27 2005 - 17:17:00 GMT
Dear Wim,
> Can you explain to me how you distinguish between a terrorist using a gun
> or a bomb with the intention of creating an islamist society and a soldier
> using a gun or a bomb with the intention of protecting a democratic society
> using your definition?
The same way I distinguish between the Nazi panzers invading the
Netherlands to create the Third Reich and Allied troops invading the
Netherlands to liberate them. I'm truly baffled by people, especially
Europeans whose countries were ravaged by barbarians, who cannot see the
difference between Islamic tyranny and Allied efforts to preserve
democracies. Why is it so hard to make this distinction? Perhaps you can
enlighten me?
> Can you explain your implicit claim that terrorist
> behaviour (by definition: ruling/attaining ends by creating fear) is
> configured by DNA?
Attaining ends by means of physical force is exactly how animals survive,
configured by their DNA. Terrorist behavior is on the same moral level as
wild animal behavior. Islamic radicalism, like the former German
socialists and and Soviet communists, can only survive by terror.
> I don't know enough about President Johnson's "Great Society" to judge to
> what extent it really failed, as you and Joe Klein claim and if so, why. I
> take 'throwing money at urban problems' to mean 'spending money with the
> intention to reduce urban problems in a way that is not well thought out
> (e.g. how to avoid unintended consequences)'. Of course there are good and
> bad ways to use tax money against urban problems. The Dutch social security
> system is certainly more sophisticated and better able to avoid unintended
> consequences than Johnson in his time.
The trouble your country is currently having with your Muslim population
would seem to question your assertion about the Dutch social system being
more "sophisticated."
> I mentioned before the
> 'social-fiscal number' one needs in the Netherlands to be entitled to most
> government supported services (social benefits, proper health care,
> secondary education etc.). People who claim social benefits because they
> cannot work need medical support of that disability by medics officially
> appointed for that purpose. People who want unemployment benefits have to
> make efforts to find work and prove that they do. If their efforts have no
> effect, they can be obliged to take courses that better qualify them for
> other work or to accept the work the social security officials directs them
> to. Etc. Both carrots and sticks to counter urban problems require tax
> money. Dutch prison population figures indicate that the Dutch combination
> of carrots and sticks has better results than the American one.
We shall see what transpires over the next few years as you tackle the
problems caused by your Muslim segment.
> You wrote:
> 'Every society must fight both internal and external criminal violence to
> survive.'
>
> I prefer to rephrase that as:
> Every society requires BOTH carrots AND sticks to protect itself against
> internal and external threaths. A democratic governemnt first tries to
> convince its citizens to pay the amount of taxes it needs to organize these
> carrots and sticks. If a majority supports a certain level of protection
> and taxes, it can legitimately use violence (and fear of violence) to
> 'convince' a small minority.
I agree that laws backed by force are necessary for a society to function.
But laws established by force or threat of force, i.e. extortion rather
than persuasion are the stuff of tyrannies. As for majority rule, keep in
mind the necessary protections against mob rule that prevents a majority
from violating individual rights.
> If you, with your experience of American
> democracy, call this 'extortion', one can doubt whether the USA is fit to
> export its democracy to cure tyranny elsewhere... You seem willing to pay
> only for sticks and not for carrots like development aid and social
> security (and you express your unwillingness in demagogic terms like
> 'extortion'). That doesn't seem wise to me.
If promoting individual responsibility in lieu of rewarding moochers who
threaten violence unless they receive payments makes the U.S. "unfit" to
help others establish or re-establish democracy, then I gather you would
like us sit idly by if your democracy is ever threatened again. I would
hope all who hold intellectual level rights to be as precious as life
itself would rally together to defeat those who would destroy those
rights. Perhaps you can explain why such hope is unfounded.
Best regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 27 2005 - 17:44:21 GMT