From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 10:17:02 MDT
>From: Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
>That's one valid aspect of the problem. But people tend to value
>and believe in things that they have paid for irrespective of
>whether or not they objectively deserve value. So it isn't
>exactly a correct answer. People value things that they pay for,
>and don't value things that they get for free is a (relatively)
>true statement. But it says nothing about the intrinsic values of
>the items in question.
It is unlikely people will pay anything, much less a high price,
for something that has no value.
>Since marines are never drafted, I think that it's a fair guess
>that you had a high value on the government of the country before
>you ever enlisted.
This country, not it's government in particular.
>Likewise, those who were disturbed by the actions of the
>government refrained from becoming obligated to carry out their
>wills without judging them (as a marine must do). And this
>magnifies an earlier bias. I would guess that you will now defend
>actions from the government that you would not earlier have
>defended. Likewise that a draft protester will denounce actions
>of the government that he would earlier have acquiesed to. Both
>of you have paid to defend positions of pre-existing belief, and
>in doing so have become more extreme in you opinions. This is a
>part of the way that people are made. But it doesn't imply much
>for the truth of either side.
Marines most certainly do refuse to do things they consider either
illegal or immoral.
I am not talking truth, I am talking about a real price being paid
for citizenship vs nothing.
>I believe that even so, you will admit that the government has
>done some things that you would not, as a private person rather
>than as a marine, defend.
The entire Clinton administration would be a good example.
>Perhaps we might differ about just which things, but that's not
>the point here. If you notice that some of the government's
>actions are indefensible by yourself, when in the role of a
>citizen rather than in the role of a marine, then you should be
>able to grant that others may also find some actions of the
>government to be indefensible.
Change of subject.
The Marine has paid a high price for citizenship, the average
person, nothing.
>Personally, I consider the constitution to be paramount, and I
>don't believe that any lawyer has the right to tell me that it
>doesn't mean what it clearly says. There are, I admit, some vague
>areas, but that's not where the current action lies. Consider,
>e.g., that it says that no war shall be declared without the
>agreement of 2/3s of the senators.
I would actually follow the rules and let people be judged by their
decisions.
>Do you really believe that a "police action" constitutes a
>legitimate was of evading that restriction? Presidents from Adams
>(at least) on have believed something equivalent, because it was
>convenient for them.
We agree on this.
>Bringing this forward to the present, do you really believe that
>some act written in 1991 justifies overriding this constitutional
>provision? We've gotten to the point where the argument isn't
>even entered. There are clear procedures laid out in the
>constitution for proceeding here, and our "president" isn't
>considering them.
No.
Did Clinton perform this before launching his cruise missles? Nope,
in fact he went around the military chain-of-command that
recommended against it.
>(The quotes are because I can't really consider someone who so
>flagrantly violates his oat!
>h of office to be a real president, not because of the election
>fraud [which, as usual, both sides engaged in].)
This is off topic. You're trying to change the discussion to a "I
hate Bush" rant.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:30 MST