From: Cory Przybyla (recherchetenet@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 14:19:50 MST
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> ;-) Well, I contend that "marching" to make your
> point
> is about as uncooperative thing as you can do in a
> democratic country. The only thing more stupid yet
> exactly equally non-cooperative is "general strike".
>
> Lee
>
So say you're in democratic nation A with a general
freedom of speech expression, good civil rights, a
generally wholesome nation. A large corporate
conglomerate finds profit in the selling of abandoned
infants to a less developed nation to be groomed into
slaves. The government which is an inobtrusive
bureaucracy-choked morass has done in both public
opinion and statistically better than any previous
administration as far as increasing the economy, the
standard of living for citizens, etc. They however
are denying this issue of baby selling, perhaps have
brought litigation against a few lesser villians or a
slap on the wrist of the corporation. The next vote
is a couple of years off, and the chance of the
current administration being ousted is near nill, plus
the opposing party is fairly indifferent on the issue,
as the guilty corporation is a huge financial revenue
for both.
Yourself and a significant portion of the population
are outraged that this is going on in a supposed free
country, and want to let it be known that this is
intolerable. How do you effectively strike out
against this?
If you want a more viable dilemna, imagine, just for a
second, that your information had shown that this war
really was a facade, in ways further than the biggest
peaceniks in reality are claiming. Many people agree
with you on this, but a rising religious undertone is
showing blind support to government which is spreading
(effectively) propaganda, and they're actually moving
in on arresting people who definetely aren't
terrorists under guises of protecting freedom, holding
them without due process. Lets beef the numbers up to
about 5-10 thousand people which could happen without
violence taking to the streets I suppose. You believe
that the majority of the citizens agree that the war
is wrong, and the polls from sources you trust agree
with this information. It's clear that with a
successful war, any chance at truth would be lost to
the victors, and the administration will be re-elected
now without feeling need to show any restraint in
their extremism since they have the populace in a
chokehold.
Now of course protests in reality often fall far short
of any reasonable claims (animal rights activists
storming Wendy's), but you claim it's about as
uncooperative a thing as you can do in a democratic
country. If this is universally true, then how would
you respond in this situation?
If you find inconsistency within the plausibility of
the situation, feel free to adjust the analogy
accordingly.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST