Good evening Lowell! I tried to pick up this message from the usenet side, to answer it over there, but notice that somehow, it didn't migrate over there. So, I'll respond here since this obviously seems to be the most reliable way to communicate. We still seem to have problems in the gateway.
Lowell C. Savage wrote to Frank Reichert... I previously wrote: > > As I am writing this, I do hope that all of you can piece this > > together in such a way that no one has any moral ground for using > > force, that is, government force, to compel compliance on moral > > values on the basis of an 'approved' set of moral values by one > > segment of our society. To which, you responded: > So, does this mean that government force should be (or at least "can be") > used to compel compliance with moral values "approved" by many segments of > our society or perhaps by a majority of our society? Absolutely not! That would endorse what many of us suggest would be tantamount to 'tyranny by the majority over the minority'. Tyranny is tyranny, whether dictated by a despot, or in a 'democratic' majority. Mel Gibson in the movie "The Patriot" said it well at the outset of the movie when he addressed the South Carolina legislature, as an elected legislator 'Benjamin Martin'. His paraphrased words were: "Why should I oppose a tyrant 3,000 miles away [in England] and support 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away? An elected Legislature can trample upon a man's rights just as easily as a king can." I wish more people would take the time to critically watch that movie again, and take a look at the context for each of the scenes. That movie was written and scripted based upon 1776 during the American Revolution. However, it was written in such a way that the events described and portrayed were exactly correspondent to the events currently taking place in America in the 21st Century, and primarily the later decade of the 20th century. This movie is a giant epoch of our own time! > There was a time in Western Civilization when (like all other civilizations > and societies) it was considered proper to keep other people as slaves. Indeed so. > One > segment of western society decided that this was immoral. Gradually, that > segment managed to convince most of the rest of society that slavery was > immoral. Again, indeed. There is a fascinating book that just hit the market very early in 2004 written by James L. Payne. The author is a good friend of mine and lives 30 miles away in Sandpoint, Idaho. Jim is a political scientist in his own right, a university professor, and happens to be a libertarian activist as well. The book centres exactly upon the point you just made. But his conclusions are surprising, well documented, and demonstratively accurate. The book documents the 'fact' that the use of force is declining world-wide, and at some point, actually in many areas, will eventually become irrelevant insofar as government may be concerned. In other words, 'government itself' may become irrelevant since it does work particularly on problems surrounding current social or economic issues. If you have an opportunity, get that book, read it over, then come back and address the 'slavery' issue again. If this book isn't in your local library, it is available at Lytton Publishing Company, founded in 1975, at Box 1212, Sandpoint, Idaho 83864. > Is murder wrong? That's a moral judgment. Is a violation of the ZAP wrong? > That's a moral judgment. Is rape wrong? A moral judgment again. Now, > maybe you base your moral judgments of these wrongs on the idea that there > is a victim who can object. Why should someone accept that as standard? Actually, I base it entirely upon the political argument that the use of force is immoral, that is, if such force is used as the basis for obtaining moral justification for your own particular moral apriori. The last word indicates what 'YOU' believe is operative and in the sense essential to your own moral belief. You have no right, in other words, to use such force to compel others against their own will to accept your own apriori or better put: what you assume is the moral standard for your own life and ought to be for everyone else! The points above that you raised go well beyond such individualistic or internal morality. You are now addressing violence and aggression against others, and against their own will. See my above paragraph. There may be some sick bastards who believe rape is okay for example. Well, let me tell ya, it AIN'T OKAY! I violates the right of others certainly to live by their own choices on who, what conditions, and whatever matters in their own choices to have sex with anyone! In the above example, I don't care what your 'religion' or morals teach you. You are clearly violating another persons right to make their own choices by the use of force when you choose to rape someone, an act obviously by its very nature, is against their own will. > Also, what about the male nurse who rapes a comatose woman? Is it ok if he > uses a condom so she doesn't get pregnant? After all, she can't object. She didn't consent either, did she? > How can she be a victim? Isn't your condemnation of such an act a moral > judgement? I don't think so Lowell, and it's a long stretch indeed to conclude such a thing. First, obviously under this scenario, as you just described it, the woman had no way to consent in a comatose state. Second, the act of rape was determined notwithstanding the woman's ability to make such a choice that would violate her own body. Third, consent is always the normative indicative for anything that violates your life, your family, or your own private property. I want to make this point very clear. This is the same argument that might suggest that an absentee landlord's land could be violated, stolen, or used without his or her own consent, since such landlord wasn't present at the time that such property was used or abused. I believe if you consider this angle and its relevance to the issue you just raised, you might see some similarity to the rape case. The victim in both cases, wouldn't be cognizant of a violation, and both owned their own property. In the rape case, the woman STILL owned her own body, but obviously in a comatose state wouldn't have the ability to control what happens to her own body; and in the later case I suggested, an absentee landowner could be 'raped' by an aggressor who used, abused, or intruded upon property in which the land owner might not have been present to defend. (I can't imagine anyone on this list who wouldn't be disgusted > by such a thing and think the perpetrator deserves anything less than the > full FORCE of the government coming down on him.) Lowell, I don't know where exactly you want to go with this. You're confusing the hell out of me right now for example. > How do you balance competing (and often, compelling) interests against each > other? I would humbly suggest that someone is conceding the argument when > they begin to characterize a competing argument as "coming from one segment > of our society" or "coming from a religious minority" or in some other > similar disparaging terms. After all, if the "majority" is on one side of > an argument, then there should be a very good reason for believing it. That > reason should then be stated. If the reason cannot be stated, then sooner > or later, the majority will shrink to a minority. That is a tremendous fallacy. Americans today, and I am convinced in this, haven't a clue to the nature of dictatorial and tyrannical power usurping their liberties as we speak, day by day. Americans today are scared shitless with war. We've got the perpetual 'war on drugs'. We've got a war on environmental damage on a global scale; we've now got the 'war on terror'. Now, with all of these and much more wars going on, including the war on tobacco products, the war on obesity, and God knows what else the government might take an option to control tomorrow morning, Americans are frightened shitless over security, public safety, and controlling what might harm them! Well guess what?! That is exactly what America in the 21st Century has to contend with! And it is all a bunch of bullshit for the purpose of 'people control'. You scare the masses into believe that they are doomed to destruction, and you pass laws, regulations, and eventually end with pure tyranny as a grand result. Principles disappear overnight in such an environment of fear. And, fear is what is guiding almost 100 percent of social, economic and foreign policy in Amerika today. > Lowell C. Savage > It's the freedom, stupid! Honestly Lowell, I would love to see you stop this ridiculous nonsense of talking about 'freedom' when you appear to justify the loss of it so easily. It isn't arbitrary. Freedom is absolute. If you are so willing to surrender the ship of Freedom over such arbitrary nonsense as even claiming that 'government ought' to do such things on our behalf, then I believe you have lost your notion of personal freedom in its entirety. Maybe you might want to include in all of this, "Why aren't Iraqi's tonight able to determine their own future, without outside intervention and tremendous military force, by a giant superpower, such as the United States government?" That's my thoughts tonight anyway. Warmest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
