At 16:01 +0000 2/9/01, Charlie Stross wrote:
>I notice that Americans seem to be fanatical about defending their
>property -- to the use of lethal force. My take on it is that *no*
>property is worth risking your life -- or anyone else's life, for
>that matter. Lost or stolen property can be replaced: lives can't.
>Another cultural marker ...
1. Wasn't the Gulf War about property rights?
2. Weren't the British active participants in the Gulf War - using
lethal force to protect those property rights?
3. Why is it okay to wipe out thousands of soldiers and more than a
few innocents to protect property rights on a country scale, but it's
not okay to protect property with lethal force on an individual scale?
-- "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:37 MDT