Re: Our Responsibility to Those in Need

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Sat Jul 28 2001 - 16:00:56 MDT

Olga Bourlin wrote:
> >
> >> Olga replied:
> > > I would rather deal with a do-gooder authority than a do-badder
> authority.
> Mike Lorrey responded:
> > Disobey Acton's Law at your own peril. Government is only interested in
> > doing good for itself. If anyone else benefits, that is simple
> > serendipity, or a means to an end.
> I was being just a tad facetious (gooder/badder), but okay, I'll take the
> bait:
> Let's see. Government, not an amorphous being, but people = doing good for
> themselves (with the result that sometimes other people [other than
> government employees] benefit).
> v.
> No government. Each man, woman and child left to fend for themselves.
> Serendipity for the genetic celebrities. "Collateral damage" for others.
> Too bad. That's life. Ta ta. Disobey Olinka's Law at your own peril.

Olinka's Law?

I, and many others think the second option is pluperfectly wonderful. We
don't automatically distrust other individuals (or themselves) who are
not shielded by the mantle of the state from responsibility for their
actions. Collateral damage only exists for those who insist on
parasitizing on others without permission.

It always seems to me that those who think the worst of others are
merely projecting their own darkest fantasies about what 'they would do'
if free to act, automatically assuming not only that everyone else has
similar fanatasies, but that they are similarly unable to restrain them
in virtue. They thus demand the authority and power to restrain others
when it is they who need the most restraining, especially once they
attain any power greater than the responsibility of the individual for

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT