Also no doubt noticed by some of the more astute members of this list is my
bent toward anti-authorianism. Hence one of my favorite questions over the
years to proauthoritarian types is"
"At what point is it morally and ethically correct for a group to do
something which is morally and ethically incorrect for an individual?"
That is...presumably it is incorrect for individuals to steal...but if it is
called taxation (by a group) then it is OK.
Presumably it is incorrect for individuals to kill....but if it is called
"execution" (by a group)..then it is OK.
Presumably it is incorrect for individuals to extort, ....but susrely you get
the point. My question has always been what is the minimium group size?
Isn't it written somewhere (Federalists Papers? Constitutional supporting
documentation...some political speech by muckity-muck?) that the governments
just rights are derived from it's citizenry? Suppose the citizenry doesn't
HAVE that right...then how can the coersive and oppressive state claim any
moral justification toward exercising same?.....other than force that is.
Another thing that I've often wondered. Suppose a politician is making a
speech saying things that I think are admirable and true...only the
politician doesn't beleive what he is saying...he is only saying it to get my
support....
Is that politican lying? Even though he is telling the truth... ? Does
beleif in what you are saying influence whether it's true or not...?
At which point I was generally accused of having a "bad attitude"...which
presumably won the argument in favor of authoritarianism.
EvMick
Waco Tx.