From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 18:45:12 MST
Cory writes
> --- 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".
>
> So say you're in democratic nation A with a general
> freedom of speech expression, good civil rights, a
> generally wholesome nation.
Cory then gives examples of terrible things that
should outrage me and most others in our nation,
but
> The government is an inobtrusive
> bureaucracy-choked morass
> 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?
...
> Many people agree with you on this, but a rising
> religious undertone is showing blind support to
> government which is spreading (effectively) propaganda,
etc.
The biggest questions that such problems pose for me is
"why am I better informed than my neighbors", and "how
do I account for judging my information and knowledge
to be superior to theirs?".
Now, in certain contrived hypothetical situations, I
really do have objectively better information, and
would act on it. If I alone were talking to aliens
on a regular basis, and had a good explanation as to
why I was the *chosen* one, then there are all sorts
of things that I might do as a publicity stunt to get
my views well known. I might chain myself to the
front gate of the White House, as Bobby Fischer's
mother is said to have done.
> 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 I don't, on the other hand, have any special knowledge,
then all I would do is vent my indignation by joining
action committees, writing letters to newspapers and
magazines, attending local neighborhood meetings, and
virtually anything that still fell within Kant's
Imperative. (This, of course, is what I would also
prefer that everyone else do.) I would feel this way
and restrain myself accordingly no matter how strongly
I felt about something.
It is extremely easy for people to suppose either that
they have special knowledge, or that they have superior
morality. In their own minds this justifies anything,
often up to and including violence. You can easily
imagine the chaos if we all took to the streets, or
barricaded the entrances to buildings, or simply lay
down in the driveways of the homes of those we felt
were on the wrong side of some issue.
If you do disturb traffic, or "march" in support of
various causes, how do you explain to yourself that
it's all right for you to do this, but it wouldn't
be all right if everyone did it?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST