[extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation
avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 13 03:51:56 UTC 2006
--- Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm with Lee on this one, Stuart - are you really
> counting on muggers and
> rapists as defenders of your liberty?
Well Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld seem to have made that
decision for me. Or do you not consider being
stripped, blindfolded, and photographed atop a
"manpile" of your naked colleagues at gunpoint a form
of rape? And for every picture that was taken, imagine
those that were not.
In answer to your question, no I don't. I was trying
to make it clear in my post that nobody, not the
founding fathers, not the government, not the army,
and certainly not the hoodlums in the hood can be
relied upon to defend my liberty. Only I can. But I
CAN rely on the gangsters to defend their own liberty,
which helps the cause of liberty a little.
> If you are, I
> think you'll be
Well disappointment seems to be the rule of the day
when it comes to the U.S. foreign and domestic policy
lately. There is a fine line between a brutish thug
and a honorable soldier. The difference is not the
sophistication of the weaponry, but is instead
training, discipline, and espirit de corp. These are
all things that are SUPPOSED to emanate from the chain
of command. So the blame, if any, is to fall squarely
on the shoulders of the "leadership" and certainly not
on the troops.
Therefore imagine my disgust when a few privates and a
sergeant took the rap for that one. Although I suppose
that Rummy getting fired recently did my heart good in
a "too little too late" sort of way.
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
More information about the extropy-chat