> >Daniel Ust wrote:
> >Do you or does anyone assume, if they agree with this, that a non-
> >capitalist will do otherwise? The record of many variants of non-
> >capitalist -- communist, fascist, welfare statist -- seems to show a
> >lack of concern for the means, though not on a retail but on a
> >wholesale level
>
> IMHO humans have a 'default' genetic program to obtain the greatest
> benefit with the least effort. If they default to this "program" they will
> most likely use any and all means that seem to be appropriate.
>
> Only primitive humans or sub-humans who have not yet overcome
> this genetic program will use violence, coercion or "any means necessary"
> to achieve their goals. This phenomenon does not have ideological
> boundries. The boudaries seem simply to be - primitive individuals
> use primitive means. Advanced individuals use more sophisticated
> means (even if it means more "work"). And this is a continuem, not
> an either/or.
>
> IMHO the solution to primitive individuals using primitive and often
> dangerous means is not to retaliate with even greater primitive and
> dangerous means. This simply leads to a vicious circle.
While I agree with the upper statements, your last is at the least foolish,
and at the worst completely, criminally, ludicrous. To fail to respond with
greater force to an individual who uses force to impose his will, gain his ro
her ends simply winds up in a vicious cycle of them demanding more and more
from you until you are enslaved or dead. Responding with such force that you
kill such primitive individual stops the vicious cycle in the first step, and
hopefully before this individual has had a chance to reproduce, thus you are
improving the genetic pool of humanity and advancing evolution.
I would have thought that people such as Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin,
Hussein, Quaddaffi would have established a good enough pool of examples of
the foolishness of appeasement to end such stupid statements from polluting
intelligent discussions.
Up here in New Hampshire (yup, here I go again), as well as across the river
in Vermont, we have possibly the highest per capita level of gun ownership in
the industrialized world, and probably the one of the highest in the entire
world, yet I challenge anyone on this list to name one European or other
industrialized nation of the same size or larger as our state, that has a more
restrictive gun policy yet has a lower crime rate. You can't. That should be
enough to kill any further debate on such a silly statement as your last. (oh,
and btw, if you try to claim that its because we're all rich or something, our
state is below the national average in per capita income by a hefty
percentage.)
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?