From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Mar 25 2002 - 23:28:45 MST
You misunderstood. The original was a suggestion that when more
right-thinking citizens notice a group being unfairly abused
they they shun and speak/act up to the abusers. At least that's
the way I read it. Government, in either its nominally
democratic or nominally fascistic varieties, will always
unfairly abuse some group or other and with a lot less the
citizens can do about it.
- samantha
the animated silicon love doll wrote:
> 2002.03.21 06:58:04, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In fact, an argument can be made that in a libertarian society, it is
>>the individual's responsibility to engage in such peer pressure in order
>>to maintain a polite, peaceful and stable libertarian community. Failing
>>to do so is abdicating individual responsibility and thus invites in the
>>hand of the state (essentially what occured in the south in the 60s).
>>
>
> Unfortunately, this is very open to abuse. Take an incident like the
> Columbine shootings, for example - I don't doubt that quite a lot of
> businesses would want to not serve goths after that. Obviously, this is
> very unwarranted. But goths are not that much a minority, at least not in
> either of the places I've lived (Minneapolis, MN and Salt Lake City, UT);
> definitely not enough that in a situation like that where there is a
> significant public backlash against us (or any group - replace "Columbine
> shootings" with "9/11" and "goths" with "Arabs", etc) for us to not starve
> to death or have to depend on our more normal looking friends for survival.
>
> (Wow, I'm arguing for some sort of government regulation! The apocalypse
> must be near...)
>
> cheshire morgan. Beer wants to be free.
> -Bruce Sterling
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:06 MST