[Woods]
What you say below has been what I've been talking about. I don't
understand why it took so long.
[Arlo]
You've been expressing fear at a One World Tyrannical Regime. When
you said that civilians should have equal access to whatever weapons
their neighbors (the military) had, I wrongly assumed you were
talking about arming the civilian populations to stand against
tryannical armies. (Judging by Platt's defense of your idea, I'm
guessing he read your words the same way).
But now I understand you've taken it in the other direction, namely
that no military should be permitted to have weapons that citizens
themselves are not entrusted with. To disarm world militaries
(Platt's not gonna like this when he learns this is your position,
this is the kind of sissy, pacifist, commie stuff of the (squalk)
ivory tower and its infestation of vile academics) most certainly
should be the direction we face. There are enforcement issues, to be
sure, but let's not dawdle on those in this moment. We agree,
although my agreement may be directed at a more cynically seen
distant future than yours. At present, we do need a military with
these "special" arms to combat the dangers we face. But we must also
be mindful that power begets power, Batman creates the Joker, God
will not bring about Armageddon, but man believing he will will most certainly.
[Woods]
Those that build up armaments of higher grades than most people and
most nation-states is only for the purpose of tyranny - no more, no less.
[Arlo]
They may contend that they build up an arsenal for defense, the same
justification we use.
[Woods]
Who am I to give trust to others to act with morally when
those same people wouldn't trust my morally?
[Arlo]
Well, we do this every day with the police do we not? We expect them
to risk their lives and defend the peace even when many others would
turn tail and run for safety. Same with firemen. My point is only
that society does set up "exclusive" groups and then charge those
groups with higher standards (and responsibilities) than would be
expected at large. Take pharmacists for another low-key example. They
are trusted with the responsibility over drugs that we would not just
freely allow to be sold in stores. Should we change that? (I'm of two
minds on that one).
[Woods]
Our little ant antenna ought to go up when somebody says to us, "Oh,
those weapons are too dangerous for you to have, so, we'll make them
and keep them for you." They are instantly monopolizing who is moral
and who is not! That's what tyrants do.
[Arlo]
Is the fashioning of an army always an arm of tyranny?
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/
