pyotr filipivich wrote:
cavelamb on Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:02:16 -0500
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Gunner,

I finished it last night and can see why you might get a hard on for it.

The Great Cull in action!

But, bear with for a moment...
Without organization - such as a militia -
and without a formal declaration -

it's just murder.

Even if there was a "formal declaration" and an Official
Organization, it will still be called "murder." So what?

Does "murder" become acceptable because a guy is wearing an
official uniform, belongs to an Official Organization, and possibly
even draws a paycheck for such belonging? No.

But the real question to contemplate: if the government is not
constrained by the law, why should I be? Aside from the disparate
levels of force available?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich


I take your point, pytor, but yes, among nations, the formal declaration
is very important.

Change the scale of your thinking for a moment.

Instead of people, think nations.
Does a sovereign nation have the right to defend itself or not?

Your last point, however, is exactly the thesis of this book.
His argument is that BECAUSE of the difference in force, resources, etc
that can be brought to bear by the government, individual people should
rise up and kill government officials that had wronged them personally.
(At least that is what HAPPENED in the story)

Which now begs these questions...

Does the government have the right to defend it's members from the population?

Does the population have the right to defend themselves from the government?

Is there a limit to how far we can go?

If so, where is that limit?

I believe that the limits we impose on our personal behavior are normally
quite well marked.

But crowds are not people, and have no conscience.

And neither are governments.

--

Richard Lamb