Subject:
|
Re: The position of authority (was: Handgun Death Rate)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 18:50:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
170 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > The attitude seems to be one of complacency at election time (just
> > following the commercial media hype), on the understanding that you
> > can always stage your own defence if something happens to you personally.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> How do you define this, and what makes you think so?
Maybe it's not a very solid argument, since I don't think any one individual
is likely to fall into both camps. But, from what we see of your election
campaigns it's all about who can throw the most money around, and behind the
scenes offer the most perks to TV executives, and the majority buy into it
every time. Well, the majority who actually voted - didn't you get a low
turnout too this time?
Our media seems to have more depth, despite the regular sensationalist
delving into private lives. Though they are rarely impartial, the law
prevents them from being on the receiving end of too many persuasive
political favours, ensuring they are equally scathing to all sides. We also
don't get anywhere near the saturation that you are forced to endure around
an election.
As a nation though, you have a lot of people who don't trust the system.
They see having a weapon as a defence against those they don't trust, but
others (myself included, to some extent) see it as refusing to accept the
rule elected by the majority - and thus undemocratic. I don't deny your
right to hold, voice or protest an opposing view, but I wouldn't be in
favour of an illegal action if it ever did come down to opening fire.
You say the arms are there to oppose an oppressive or corrupt government.
You then say that you find the government oppressive and corrupt. But, you
don't take up arms. I'm glad you don't, but given your own aguments, why
not? I presume it's because you don't think they're bad enough to warrant
it. So, the only other course open is to change things by political means.
So, why not just forget about the guns?
The point I'm trying to make is if the political system is seen by the
majority as corrupt, where is the pressure to change it? Is it that the
only pressure which has any affect is financial? Thus the popular opinion
is negligible compared to pressure from a minority with significant
financial interests? This is not democracy.
Furthermore (and perhaps in a spin-off topic), we're now getting this
impression from George W Bush on the world stage - that his foreign policy
exists solely to further immediate domestic financial interests, not even
the interests of US citizens, let alone the rest of the world or any
long-term view. Is he just assuming that everyone in the US thinks like
that? Is he right?
I'd also be interested to hear what you think of our political system. And,
have any Americans noticed Tony Blair's especially annoying grin?
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
