Subject:
|
Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:59:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1412 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote
> Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote:
> But I *do* both work to change and ignore... However I prefer to work
> for change in a more sweeping manner. Instead of getting one silly law
> removed (and we have millions of laws) at a time while the politicios
> create 3 or 30 or 300 or 3000 new ones, I am working to get a party in
> power that would sunset most of the laws and start over with only the
> good ones. Much more effective to remove laws wholesale than retail.
One measure of a democracy is whether you can vote for the revolution, I
suppose. While I don't want the outcome you want, I'm inclined to agree
that you deserve points for trying. But not many, since I think your
goal is prima facie impossible, and I don't give points for trying the
impossible instead of helping.
> > want to talk about immoral laws, let's think about East Timor.
>
> I'm with you there. Both the OZ and US governments have some blood on
> their hands there. That's why I'm saying that it should be OK to give
> money pr arms to groups that fight against that sort of thing.
As I said, the trouble with private armies is that there are already too
many of them, and it's too hard to decide what's legitimate. Would the
Indonesian militias be legitimate if they moved a little further out
from under the Indonesian Army? How far is far enough? Cash aid only?
Training and weapons? Lend-lease? Discounted mercenaries? Direct help
via a request for aid?
I'm torn between a UN force with the US government approach to justice.
"You, Wiranto, have ordered this atrocity, and therefore must die. Have
a cruise missile, no brother man, have 10". Which is murder, but justified,
and much better than killing conscripts while letting Hussein go free.
On the other hand I'm very tempted to go play human sheild myself,
because I doubt very much that the Indonesians are prepared to kill
many foreigners. After the first few hundred die either they'll be stopped
or it'll become routine. Hopefully the former.
The question I still don't have an answer to is whether efficiency is a
greater moral good than a standard that refuses to kill someone who is
not themselves a proven killer. Wiranto, you see, has not been convicted
of murder or even of ordering a murder. So is killing him from a distance
legitimate? And is letting myself be killed in the hope of stopping
further deaths a good thing? What about if it was sure to stop them?
And would killing Wiranto really stop the killings in East Timor? How
many would we have to kill to achieve that?
> why I am saying it's best not to have entangling alliances.
Better to have five or six "worlds policemen" stomping randomly on anyone
they think obstructs the true path of the planet (towards Maoism, Marxism,
democracy, free trade or peace love and mung beans...)
Moz
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence?
|
| <37D8033D.108EF440@voyager.net> <FHvs28.ELu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Sure. I did switch because I wanted to make a point. I think we all agree that some set of conventions is (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
