Msg#: 42                                           Date: 12 May 98  20:06:00
  From: Surgical Steel                               
    To: Lt. L. Bucket                                
  Subj: Political Details

 LLB> However, I propose that most reflective individuals, especially once
 LLB> beyond a sophomore level, have at least a sense of an underlying
 LLB> ethics which creates a de facto "criminality" for some. Hence
 LLB> Nuremberg.

        While I'd like to believe that, I have to remain skeptical.
        I've heard of too many simply adopting whatever set of ethics is
        convenient at the time or promotes thier own personal views -
        those who would quote Leviticus at homosexuals yet eat pork
        being a prime (rib! ha!) example.  While there are some actions
        which are nearly universally condemned within these codes of
        ethics, the "exceptions" become more important than the
        inclusives - for example, reference the number of Christians in,
        or supporting, the military, despite Yeshua's commandment to
        love one's enemy.

 > consensus belies your characterization of myself and the people of my
 > state as "criminal".
 LLB> It is not merely the ownership of guns that defines my thoughts. But
 LLB> rather the underlying attitude that passes as "rights" of the
 LLB> individual when in clear cut negation and devaluation of culture and
 LLB> society. The polluters. physical and psychological; the ownership
 LLB> addictions of things at the expense of what society needs for its well
 LLB> being and survival. I realize the details become political. My point is
 LLB> that the U.S. functions as a legalized criminal system, if you will.

        I can actually sympathize here;  I have run into personal
        situations with those who construe, for example, the right to
        "free speech" to be equivalent to the right to be abusive in all
        situations, even when it is not in a public environment.

        IMHO, when one considers morality in depth - especially in light
        with the freedoms that are espoused (in theory, at least) by our
        government - and the logical "breaking points" of when those
        rights no longer apply - the only universally (or close to)
        standard can be the well-worn "your right to swing your fist
        ends at my nose".

        Note:  "Nose", not "general vicinity of my nose".

        So, while I may not sympathize with flag-burners[1], or wish to
        participate, or even think that it's a smart thing to do (I
        don't), I firmly believe that it's thier right to do so.  While
        the concepts that some here have espoused regarding gun
        ownership make me *extremely* emotionally uncomfortable - and I
        cannot stress that "extremely" enough - I cannot in good faith
        reconcile my emotional preference with the restriction of others
        rights.  It is truly unfortunate that personal liberty is not
        universally equivalent with personal responsibility;  however, I
        don't see any way around it.

        The best compromise that I can think of (which may raise
        objections on its own right) is to stress the responsibility
        rather than reduce the liberty - that is, a crime committed with
        a firearm being inherently more serious - and significantly so!
        - than one without, rather than presume that the people en masse
        are too irresponsible to handle firearms.

        Government is, unfortunately for itself, in the business of
        making standards for the population as a whole - but too often,
        we see it performing knee-jerk reactions to a bad minority,
        rather than reflecting the decent majority.

[1] I use free speech examples througout simply because it is the venue
I have the most expertise in.

 >      Pity that you don't work for General McCaffrey. Then again,
 LLB> Odd, it is. I was considering accepting a post. However my politics
 LLB> were not "proper". There are quite a few folks, "liberal" and
 LLB> "conservative" who see the "drug" wars as a folly. Ever read "March of
 LLB> Folly" (Barbara Tuchman) - A historians account of why governments
 LLB> continue futile policies. She shows how Troy, The British loss of the
 LLB> Colonies, the Vietnam War, all have a pattern. Very readable.

        Drat.  There's no library here.  Damn these NG posts.