Re: THREAT ASSESSMENT, was Re: some U.S. observations and notes

From: Michael M. Butler (
Date: Mon Dec 31 2001 - 07:03:17 MST

KPJ, I think you misunderstand.

Assessing someone as "too irrational to be trusted" does not necessarily
imply that the assessment is objective, nor that it will be acted upon by
a government agent or agency.

Compare that phrase with "this ice cream is too cold to eat", and you might
see that point better.

Please re-read the quoted part in that light.

She is saying that governments should NOT be trusted more than people.


KPJ wrote:
> |> Now, feel free to state your comments. "The audience is listening."
> |
> |Because some creatures are too irrational to be trusted with so
> |much as an icepick doesn't mean that all beings are to be
> |forbidden what in the hands of the utterly irrational and
> |irresponsible is dangerous. The assumption that no citizen
> |should have what every citizen cannot be entrusted with is quite
> |questionable. The assumption that only citizens who have become
> |part of the government should have what most citizens are not to
> |be trusted with is also very questionable.
> Who gets to decide who "are too irrational", then, I wonder.
> A citizen, you write. So the local power mongers (''the Government'')
> shall bludgeon all others to do their bidding, in your world model?
> And the non-citizens become their slaves, I surmise.


MMB is reachable via butler at comp dash lib dot o r g * My moronic mnemonic for smart behavior: "DICKS" == * * diplomacy, integrity, courage, kindness, skepticism. *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:33 MDT