From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 13:47:34 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> What I am saying is plain English--the very concept of "country"
> is an outdated an irrelevant one, and if you continue to think in
> those terms I remain unmoved.
So I and the list are to be moved by your insistence on arguing
the current proposed actions in terms of a state of affairs that
does not exist and that we do not in the least no how to create
at this time?
Do you then believe in world government?
> My standards, as I've said time
> and again quite clearly to everyone capable of listening, are
> simply that /people/ have the right to defend themselves or
> others against other people who would harm them or take their
> freedom. Any argument for going to war must be framed in that
> context for me to take it seriously. "Should the USA attack
> Iraq" is not even a legitimate question to me: the question is
> "Will it serve the American and/or Iraqi people for their present
> government to send troops to attack the Iraqi army and/or remove
> Saddam Hussein from power? I don't know--I suspect it's too
> soon for that. But I am totally unconcerned with the idea that
> I should "respect" the sovereignty or government of Iraq, or
> indeed of any country on Earth, including my own. I don't give
> a damn about countries, I care about people.
>
Fine. Are you an anarchist or a world-government fan or
something else? Are you willing to be ruled in matters of law
by a worldwide government regardless of your own decisions or
the majority of people in your community or regions decisions?
Would you willingly give up say, the US Bill of Rights for the
UN Declaration of Human Rights?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST