Arlo:
It is not a hard question. Are there some weapons, even at the extreme edge of
nuclear missiles, that should be allowed one group (the military) but
disallowed for another group (civilians)? I say "yes". What do you say, Ron?
If you think this is an unfair question, then let me ask it this way. Our
current society is ordered so that one group (the military) has access to a
grade of weapons another group (civilians) do not. Do you feel this is optimal?
Is it something that should change? How so and to what degree? Would it be
better for our society to dissolve this dinstiction entirely? Or just bend it
more? Or keep it the way it is?
Ron:
Now we have a legitimate discussion, I think, the present modern social
conditions require a separation of military from civilain power. Weapons
technology along with high density urban populations require a species of
democratic socialism and delegation of power.
(not to mention the practicle consideration that ownership of nuclear warheads
would not only be costly but shorten my lifespan
considerably)
We have no choice but to keep the balance of power as it is. Democracy is a
slow process but until something better comes along
we're kinda stuck with it. I do think that a amendment should be made, sort of
like with the Roman empire with the Rubicon,
which releaves all officers of their oath should military action be taken
against our civilian populace over and above the need of it
as a police force which is instated to serve and protect this said populace.
Policy must change with the times.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
