>Drop "vigilante" from the conversation. It seems to have a very heavy >baggage for you, and by your Wild West definition, "immoral".
No baggage... I don't think I can psychoanalyzed by a few posts here. >(btw, when the USA decided that the world governing body, UN, was not >effective, the USA, as a vigilante, took the "law" into its own hands, >chose to invade Iraq, in "self defense" against an "immediate threat" as >the "only option". As a result, the vast majority of the countries of the >world, including USA's traditional allies, therefore consider the USA to be >an outlaw/vigilante country, and the primary threat to world peace and order.) I don't agree with the way the US has handled this (which is not to be confused for a lack of support for the troops). From what little I believe to be true regarding this situation I agree that something had to be done, but for the US to do it without the cooperation of the UN I think was wrong. But please let's not get sidetracked into an Iraq discussion here. >>and is prosecuted by the law. >You're really stuck in a limited, conventional frame of reference THAT THE >LAW EXISTS. Vigilantism is fully justified is responding to attacks in >the absence of any laws and law enforcement organizations. Even the law, >when it exists, agrees with that. It's called self-defense. Vigilantism is NOT self-defense, by definition. Vigilantism is taking the law into our own hands and punishing as we see fit. However, it is not our place to make the laws. That's what we elect politicians and judges for. Besides which, there is not an absence of laws and law enforcement organizations....they're just trying to catch up to current technology. >And "no laws/no law enforcement" is exactly what we have with spam on >Internet. Can you appeal to the local police, FBI, CIA, to stop spammers >from attacking your MX? Can the FBI/CIA do anything about >Russian/Chinese/wherever spam/cracker gangs setting up websites promoted by >spam that steals cc/bank numbers and passwords? Again...new territory. Laws are still being made to address this. And enforcement techniques are being developed. See the Fax slamming issue for an example. Did the laws take some time after fax scams started before they were enacted? Yes >>Revenge murderers are proesecuted and put away all of the time. >Self-defense killers aren't prosecuted. We, at least I, are talking about >self-defense. Nope, not self-defense. >>Check out the history of the American West for a colorful depiction of the >>unlawfullness of vigilantism. >.... which often arose, in self-defense, because the there was no effective >local law. In the 19th century, huge chunks of the US West were not annexed >into states, let alone have federal/state/municipal laws and law >enforcers. And just like in Iraq today, the US federal govt simply could >not assure the security of the West. Vigilantism was sometimes all people >had in the way of "laws". Not self-defense. Seems the crux of our disagreement has to do with the definition of self-defense and vigilantism. With our different definitions, we will never agree on this topic....no matter how much we try to bludgeon each other with our logic <grin>. Just saw Bill Foresman's email. He's right. I've taken up way too much of everyone else's time on this (and my own <grin>). All points have been made half a dozen ways, so I guess it's time to settle back and agree to disagree. To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
