From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 13:22:29 MST
--- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 11/9/2002 6:39:13 PM Central Standard Time,
> > charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: Any suggestions? The
> > constitution is proving a bit weak. (
> > Well, to be honest, it's held up a lot better than any
> > of the originators expected.
> >
> > That is an easy one. An armed citizenry that will not allow
> > politicians to
> > force laws upon them. Our history shows that the "armed" is seldom
> > invoked but it is decisive.
> Now imagine how to use that power to keep the electric company from
> being corrupted...
> There are things being armed can address, and there are things that
> it can't easily be brought to bear on.
Only if you assume that being armed has direct impact upon all sorts of
corruption. Being armed has an indirect impact in some ways and direct
impact in others. For example, a corrupt electric company that wants to
flood your valley with a dam they want to build can be directly opposed
by armed individuals, if all else fails.
If you have a local public utilities commission that fails to heed the
demands of their constituents because of bribes from the utility, and
their elections are fraudulent, you can use armed individuals to
restore justice (look up an historical episode called The Battle of
Athens, Tennessee).
If, instead, your electric company is a cooperative owned by its
customers, or is otherwise a publicly traded corporation, it is the
responsibility of the shareholders/co-owners to see to the legal
operation of the enterprise by management. Failing to do so would
result in the devaluation of their investment and is therefore part and
parcel of duly diligent ownership.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:03 MST