[Woods]
Sorry. I'd rather not talk about this anymore here.
[Arlo]
See, here's where you lose me entirely. You simply can't, or won't,
deal with this in terms of any pragmatic end, instead you talk only
in abstract words that leave me wondering what it is you envision as
the outcome of the abstractions you go on about. And when pressed,
you act all insulted and put upon and bow out. Fine, but don't pass
this off on others for "labeling" you. You simply can't rattle on
that "people are people" and "it's about morality" and expect me (or
anyone) to not ask you for pragmatic specifics.
Case in point. All along you've been repeating your premise "any
group having access to weapons grade that are deemed too dangerous
for MOST people to have is a weapon that is too dangerous for anybody
including the military or any nation-state on this earth".
Fine. I ask. And what is your solution to this. You say "abolish the fed".
This makes no sense to me. While I understand the arguments for
returning to the gold standard, I simply do not see how "abolishing
the fake money supply" will prevent "any group [from] having access
to weapons grade that are deemed too dangerous for MOST people to have".
And so I asked, because its the only possible thing I can think of,
if your solution is to (in effect) impoverish governments so they can
no longer afford weapons or to fund a military? Do you think that
abolishing the fake money supply will accomplish this?
Sorry, Woods, it sounds great to say "Morality starts with ones own
heart and mind and then go out from there." Okay. Yes. It does. And
let's take for a moment that you may be referring to a form for
radical anarchy (anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism), where
"nation-states" no longer exist, and hence no militaries, and each
person lives in harmonious concert with their neighbors, without the
need of weapons "deemed to dangerous for MOST people to have". Okay.
I see the ideal. But, how do we get THERE from HERE? Any ideas,
concrete specifics, what? Or is it that we simply all need to sit
back and wait for the Enlightenment to occur? What do we do in the
meantime? How do we organize our lives (intellectual and social and
biological) in the interim so that we don't blow ourselves up? Do we
ban weapons? Do we dissolve the military?
Sartre criticized his contemporary philosophers for spouting off
abstractions without any mind of the real, pragmatic (and logical)
ends to them. It was all simply not well-and-good, he said, for them
to sit in comfy chairs talking about lofty abstractions while blood
ran in the streets as a real outcome of what they were saying. If you
want to say "we should have access to any weapons we entrust to our
neighbors", that's just not enough. What is it you are proposing?
Abolishing the military? Abolishing nation-states? How? Banning
weapons? How would you enforce that?
I'm sorry you pay no mind to that, but that is far more important
that simply saying "If any one person or nation-state finds it in
their best interest to develop weapons that far outweigh most people
in their own country and world - well, what would be the point other
than tyranny and empire?" Indeed, what would be the point? So, what
is your solution? "Ban the fed"?
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/
