At 03:06 AM 8/2/99 -0400, Mike Goldman wrote: >Cannot the DFSG be considered in similar terms - that an arbitrary restriction >upon liberty of use must be disqualifying, yet a restriction for the purpose of >ensuring respect for life and property may be not only allowed but in certain >cases even encouraged?
Okay, but going back to the case of the communist, he may be quick to point out that his restriction on capitalist use is merely ensuring respect for life and property, as capitalism is the ultimate destroyer there of. My position is that restricting military use is not respecting life and property, as the nature of our universe is that force is the ultimate protector of those. I also wouldn't agree with your primary values of life and property, personally placing free will as the ultimate value - if you want to kill Bob, it's all right as long as you get Bob's permission first. So what it comes down to is that adding a loophole based on _your_ morality to the DFSG. Unlike you, I still don't see any difference between you adding a restriction for the purpose of ensuring respect for (human?) life and property, and me adding a restriction to prohibit it being used for coercive purposes, and a Jew adding restrictions to prohibt it being used for non-kosher purposes. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (alternately [EMAIL PROTECTED]) "I would weep, but my tears have been stolen; I would shout, but my voice has been taken. Thus, I write." - Tragic Poet
