Subject:
|
Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 May 1999 00:18:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1612 times
|
| |
|
|
Sproaticus wrote in message <3742D2BB.99927A6E@geocities.com>...
> John DiRienzo wrote:
> > Sproaticus wrote in message <3741DAFA.C11A9695@geocities.com>...
> > > John DiRienzo wrote:
>
> > Name one thing we are entitled to. We HAVE rights, but that is • different
> > from entitlements. Where in the Constitution does it say we are entitled • to
> > welfare, medical insurance, guns? We may have the right to own guns, but • it
> > is certainly not the governments responsibility to provide one for • everyone!
> > Do you follow?
>
> Ah, semantics. I get your meaning now, thanks.
If semantics means understanding the correct definition of the words we
use, I guess. I am glad you figured out what I meant.
> I still feel that the government *owes* us something -- wouldn't that
> entitle us to what we are owed?
OK, the "government" in this country is of the people, for the people,
and by the people - at least its supposed to be. By that definition, I feel
that I am a part of the government, and I also feel that I owe you and no
one else anything, and that no one owes me anything. I feel I have rights,
and that it is wrong for anyone to violate my rights. I know it is wrong to
violate another man's rights.
> For example, I feel that the government owes us protection from invasion,
> protection from criminals, and overpaid taxes back into our pocket. The
> details are pretty fuzzy -- e.g. we have yet to see if the government can • in
> fact protect us from invasion -- but you can probably see what I'm trying • to
> say here. We are entitled to at least a minimal set of things from our
> government.
As a proud citizen of the US, I would defend my country if needed and I
feel it is every person's duty to do the same if needed. It would be in my
interest, and theoretically in the interest of anyone who lives here. The
government doesn't owe us this - we owe it to ourselves. I don't believe
these basic essential "services" of governemnt should cost me half my
paycheck; I feel I am paying way too much for these services, and really
hate it. I do not believe I should have to pay for these services while
others don't and I should not have to pay more than others who do.
> And if I've still misunderstood what you've said, I'm sorry. Thump me and
> I'll go back and read it again.
I think you doing fine. I still don't understand your view.
> > > The situation can be roughly described in marketing terms. We have a • bad
> > > public image; we should try to fix it. It's good for business. It's • good
> > > for our neighbors who do business with us.
> > We have a bad public image? We are showing the world that despite our
> > advanced military, economic and technological achievements, we can not
> > handle this situation. This is good for our image? If we were to fix • the
> > problem in a way that actually worked, I might agree.
>
> Sure, what we're doing now in Kosovo is bad for our image. In marketing
> terms, we're cutting off our own nuts with a rusty hacksaw soaked in
> ebola-flavored lemon juice. I'm saying that there were other • image-friendly
> ways we could have handled this situation while helping.
Interesting.
> > > In that case, I don't think anyone can guarantee peace in that region • for
> > > quite a few generations, if ever. But, work can be done to stabalize • the
> > > region, to reduce the level of outward hostility and violence, and to • create
> > > a calm playing field for our future generations to work out a peace in.
> > Then do it right. Solve the problem. Don't bomb the embassy of your
> > most dangerous enemy. Don't call it ethnic cleansing - call it genocide • or
> > mass murder. Don't pussy foot around; kick ass and take names! Don't • lie
> > about our objective. That would be good for image, I think.
>
> So we should go in with ground troops and personally clean up the mess • we've
> created. Two months ago, we would have had the option of not getting more
> involved, but we're too committed now.
Not really. As our nation has somehow succumbed to the UN, we don't
really have a choice on these things. Otherwise ourwould be badly damaged.
We "owe" it to the world, because we have let ourselves be it's watchdog.
If we disengage now, it will hurt our image more than if we had not become
involved, but either way, we still look like the moronic country we are, as
a whole.
> > You and I basically said the same thing.
>
> Off topic for .debate, then? :-,
>
> Well, I really just wanted to understand Libertarianism, or at least your
> view, better. Thanks!
I am not a Libertarian. I vote against taxes and for defense, and
sometimes factor in other things.
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
>
> --
> Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
> May the Force be with y'all.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 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
|
|
|
|
