From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Thu Apr 01 1999 - 20:24:21 MST
>Of course, today there is a real question as to whether an armed citizenry
>is really a significant barrier to oppression, but that's a different
>argument.
Gee, usually the armed citizenry is doing real well. Look at any warlord.
Maybe the Kosovo situation would help us find out--someday--if someone
armed and trained the Armenian Kosovars and they got their tactical act
together. Nah, who'm I kidding?
Besides, the Armenian Kosovars are in the majority; why don't they simply
_vote_ peace into existence?
</sarcasm_off>
>Of course, today there is a real question as to whether an armed citizenry
>is really a significant barrier to oppression, but that's a different
>argument.
Part of the answer appears to be, "it depends." A _sufficiently_ armed
citizenry would be. The problem is, few people around here trust their
neighbors to handle the sufficient arms, but they do trust people they''ve
never met. So it's self-fulfilling; or is that self-deluding? And maybe
they're right; or maybe the only thing that keeps the machine from flying
apart is the 5 Weight Oil of Good Times--complacency.
Another part of the answer appears to be "--Barrier? I see no barrier!" A
deterrent is only a deterrent if it's credible--_vide_ Dr. Strangelove's
interrogation of the Soviet Ambassador. Capability _and_ intent. And a
certain amount of imperfect information.
MMB, remembering the Scout motto even if it isn't popular when the Dow is
at 10k
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:27 MST