At 10:05 PM 8/6/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>>No, this is completely different. In this case, Hans was a direct
>>beneficiary of a certain set of *policies*. As a beneficiary, we should
>>look very skeptically on his attacking of these same policies later.
>>Neither of the above examples involves a policy, or a post-facto
>>disagreement with the policy.
>
>It's basically the same. In all three cases, the person involved is
>supposed to be grateful because of an event that took place before the
>person was born. It makes no difference whether that event was "my parents
>meeting each other", "the Founding Fathers being lost at sea", or "a
>government decision of 200 years ago".
Allow me to demonstrate the absurdity of this logic by changing the
scenario slightly.
What if when Hans was 14, the government permitted a candle-factory to be
set up, over the objection of the Torch-Makers Union. Hans then became
one of the first employees at the candle factory.
Do you see the hypocrisy now?
Your examples have to do with events beyond Hans' control. My example has
to do with what ideology Hans would logically favor. Hans cannot benefit
from a policy and then honestly argue that the same policy should not apply
to other individuals.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
