From: Forrest Bishop (forrestb@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Sep 26 2000 - 05:34:17 MDT
From: hal@finney.org
Date: Thu Sep 21 2000 - 08:58:01 MDT
FB:
> … the reason for an
> armed population….is to keep [government] (and private
> hoodlums)
> in check, to keep the would-be rulers constantly in fear
> of the citizenry.
HF:
>That's a better reason. One problem is that not only government and
hoodlums, but everyone else, lives constantly in fear of the citizenry.
FB:
It is not a “better reason”, it is THE reason. It is a question of
relative safety- better to be in fear of a wacko with an RPG than a
wacko (e.g. the treasonous, genocidal, rapist murderer President W.
Clinton) with 30000+ nukes. It is not possible to legislate ultimate
safety.
HF:
I remember when I went into a jewelry store where the proprietor wore
a sidearm. It was pretty scary knowing he could pull out his gun and
shoot me dead at any time. I didn't go back.
FB:
I remember many occasions being in the vicinity of an armed employee of
a government. It was pretty scary knowing he/she could pull out hir gun
and shoot me dead at any time. The fact that s/he would probably not
face any serious charges of murder, but simply some interdepartmental
review by peer- at best- greatly heightened the sense of vulnerability.
I do not generally carry a weapon, and so was unable to provide a
counterforce. I only wish I could not go back. I would much rather deal
with an armed private citizen primarily interested in free trade and
self-preservation, such as a jewelry merchant.
> Taking a single point out of context is not a very effective means
> of making a cogent argument. It can distract a reader from the
essential
> theory, and lead one down irrelevant lines of inquiry. The "founding
> fathers", many of whom were deists [2], with a few christians, were
> writing for their time, as is quite evident in the remainder of this
particular
> document.
HF:
Okay, but you started off with this stuff about being created by God
who gave us rights. Was I supposed to get a lump in my throat reading
these revered documents?
FB:
I would not presume to dictate your emotional response to some quoted
text. The item in question opens with a line about supernatural
entities, which was included in the cut/paste for ease of recognition.
It may have been included in the original document as a PR strategy.
Personally, I do not find deism to be at odds with my asymptotic
approach to freedom from belief.
HF:
The US' declaration of independence is a load
of crap.
FB:
I was unable to measure any fecal matter in the content.
HF:
It has no more relevance to me than the story of Robin Hood
and Good King John.
FB:
It has a trifle more meaning to myself, as I live on the territory of
the country that was founded on it. This does not mean retreating to the
“last refuge of a scoundrel”, but rather to study and understand the
philosophy and history of that era and its manifestation- the
now-deceased Constitutional Republic of the uSA. It appears to have
functioned _fairly_ well up until its overthrow under the dictatorship
of Abraham Lincoln. It also has rather more relevance to me than, say,
Hansel and Grettle, as it is in the direct line of my (american)
political descent. It has an effect on my milieu, albeit diluted.
HF:
BTW that story teaches us that we should be armed
so that we can rob from the rich and give to the poor.
FB:
The Communist Manifesto and the Bibles(s) also suggest such violent
remedies, this does not make them valid either. The reason for arms is
not to steal, but rather to prevent theft and murder by public or
private criminals. The Declaration of Independence is an example of the
extremes required when oppressors, under color of law, exceed their
limits. If a population is not armed to at least an effective weighted
kill ratio, its oppressors cannot be exterminated as required. The
experimentally validated result is then a mass extermination, or pogrom.
This is something any life extension advocate should bear in mind.
HF:
Just quoting old documents is no argument.
FB:
The age of a document is not necessarily indicative of its validity. The
quoted material was "just" a succinct summation of the argument.
Note: please cc to me if you would like a reply- I don’t subscribe to
this list.
-- Forrest Bishop Chairman, Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering http://www.iase.cc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:13 MST