RE: My Blind Spot

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 23:35:04 MST

  • Next message: hal@finney.org: "Re:whuffie estimate by popnicity vs snorellation"

    Charles writes

    > >What I have learned:
    > >
    > > (i) Any measure such as the Patriot Act can cut both
    > > ways, and one must always imagine how one would
    > > feel if the opposite party were in power
    > >(ii) It's not probable that the likes of Sean Penn (who
    > > is not half as bad as Jane Fonda was), or any others
    > > will be persecuted by the U.S. government for their
    > > political beliefs. I could be wrong.
    > >
    > The argument was [is?] that people will only be persecuted
    > for their beliefs when it is advantageous for the government
    > to do so.

    Any huge system, like a government, will always do what is
    advantageous for it to do. Right now, for example, in almost
    any Western country to arrest people for speaking their views
    is practically unthinkable (not only because of the political
    consequences, but, like other entitles, governments are
    creatures of habit too).

    > The guiding principle of both parties seems to be to ensure
    > that everyone can be proven to be a dangerous criminal
    > whenever they so choose.

    I think it's fair to say that this is their tendency,
    but hardly their "guiding principle". I would suppose
    that there are many people in the Bush administration,
    just as there were many in the Clinton administration,
    whose view of their political adversaries is so jaundiced
    that they would be quite happy if events moved in a
    direction that allowed them to merely arrest their
    opponents. However, even the most rabid of them understand
    that it's still practically unthinkable.

    Now some people on this list will instantly retort "OH YEAH?
    IT'S BECOMING MORE THINKABLE WITH EACH PASSING MOMENT!".
    But perhaps progress can be made by imagining in the most
    realistic manner just what events could transpire that would
    give these people the opportunity to begin rounding up
    their opponents.

    (1) The country becomes palpably involved in a life-or-
        death struggle. E.g., Japanese troops in 1942 finally
        conquer Denver, with Dallas-Fort Worth soon to fall.
        Or an evil third-world terrorist group succeeds in
        smuggling in so many atomic bombs that they begin
        going off one every two days.

        In either of these scenarios, most Western governments,
        at least those with any backbone such as the U.S., would
        crack down on any---repeat, any---effort that appeared
        in the slightest way to hinder the war effort.

    (2) Polarization evolves to many, many times the level
        it's ever been in the U.S. For example, the anti-Bush
        crowd becomes so vehement in their denunciations of
        the "illegal cowboy who seized control of the Presidency"
        that they rebel; or, vice-versa (since I *do* understand
        what bias is, unlike some people), the right-wing, up to
        and including a majority of the people, becomes so rabid
        that they literally see peace demonstrators and liberals
        as enemy apparatchiks working against the interests of the
        U.S. to the degree that they are as big a threat as
        literal terrorists.

    At present, I see almost zero chance of scenarios like these
    developing.

    Lee

    > And then only to do so when it's to their advantage. Does this
    > seem correct to you?
    >
    > -- Charles Hixson



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 23:36:15 MST