In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.

No, it's all branches on the same tree. You pick one of the
following two basic positions:

* The end justifies the means, or
* No good can come from an immoral act.

Almost everything flows from those two basic principles.





There is a third, much better, proposition:

- If an action is undertaken voluntarily by an adult and that
action harms no one else, it's none of the government's business.

I would modify that slightly: "... harms, or threatens harm to, ..."

No, the protection of society from the foolishness or malice of the
individual is worthy of effort. Someone cooking up a batch of nitroglycerine
in his bathtub is certainly of interest to his neighbors.

Foolish or malicious acts from which society needs to be protected do not fall
into the category of "action [that] harms no one else" -- making
nitroglycerine in one's bathtub being an example.

Obviously the threat of punishing the ultimate act is often an insufficient
deterrent (think suicide bombers) so watchfulness and sanctions on the
prefatory actions are prudent. Laws against negligent collisions are not a
substitute for laws against driving the wrong way on a one-way street.

That's why we must kill terrorists - and potential terrorists - before their
plans mature.

I can't agree. Killing as a preventive measure is morally unjustifiable.
Imprisonment, certainly.