> Mark Grant wrote :
Actually I didn't, not that it really matters...
[UN]
> I agree that this is a matter of opinion. But you would
> probably agree that it is *one of* the most trustable powers
> in this respect?
No. The UN has historically been a tool of the US government (or at least
it usually votes the way that the US government votes).
> Let me ask you a question. If there were a little machine
> which one could have in one's pocket, and which could cause
> you and me and all our friends to die immediately, would you
> prefer that only one or two persons got hold of such
> gadgets, or would you feel safer if 50 000 individuals and
> organisations had them?
Strawman. You're postulating a device against which we have no defence,
when in real life there is some defences against everything. Even if you
come up with a weapon that can destroy all life on Earth (e.g. the huge
asteroids with mass-drivers that we've been talking about in other
threads) that would simply imply that we should get off of it.
Show me a weapon that we have no defence against and I'll take this more
seriously. But I might well prefer the risk of death to living in the kind
of police state that controlling the technology would require.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/~mark/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|