From: matus@matus1976.com
Date: Fri Jun 13 2003 - 18:00:06 MDT
Paul Grant commented:
>
> > And the same could be said of Saddam. However, Saddams moral
> > goals, that of remaining a murderous dictators, are far more
> > repugnant that the Coalitions moral goals. Do you agree?
>
> Hardly; both are seeking to maintain power.
Is a dictator seeking to maintain power as legitimate as a democratic
constitutional republic seeking to maintain power? (since you clearly
assert they are both only attempting to maintain power) Your statement is
yet another example of the ethics I find surprising to be present on this
mailing list. You are asserting, basically, that no form of government is
any more legitimate than any other, and all are equally not legitimate.
Considering so many governments on this planet are the opposite of
extropian, I wonder how you can draw such a conclusions. Do you acknowledge
that some forms are government are more legitimate than others? Or do you
insist, as some libertarians do, that absolutely no state is legitimate
unless it is perfect, or under no circumstances is any state legitmate, and
thus all states are equally illigetmate? If that is the case, let me ask
you this, would you perfer to live under a democratic consitutional republic
or under Saddam Hussein? Why?
>
> > If
> > Saddam had backed down, there would have been no senseless
> > waste of time, energy, money, goodwill, and ~20 million
> > Iraqis would have been freed without one drop of Blood being
> > shed. Yet you and others still insist the coalition bears
> > the moral culpability.
>
> I was planning on releasing this to the press Monday morning, but....
>
> "President Bush. It pleases me to inform you that you should abdicate
> Your thron...OFFICE prior to the end of the week. If you do so you will
> Ensure that there is "no senseless waste of time, energy, money,
> goodwill, and
> ~288 million Americans would have been freed without one drop of Blood
> being
> shed. If you do not vacate your office immediately, I (and history)
> will hold you morally culpabable."
Is a dictatorship under you a form of goverment that is as legitiamte as the
existing democratic constituional republic currently present? (no, it isnt,
in case you are not sure) The fact the you designate this as an example
illustrates the little time you have spent considering the validity of
states and the implications of your ethical ideas. The onus of moral
culpability lies on the presider of the least legitimate state. A
dictatorship is certainly the least legitimate there is, least extropic, and
most immoral. I am surprised this even made it to the list as a 'counter'
argument to my comments.
>
>
> > Again, just as Emlyn, you ignore the Gulf War I, in which
> > Saddam invaded another country we agreed to defend. The
> > resolutions calling for the end of the open fighting in the
> > conflict were the ones that were violated and instigated res
> > 1441. Saddam did nothing less than break the agreements that
> > ended Gulf War I. Yet we were the invaders? Never mind the
> > multiple other compelling reasons to oust Saddam.
>
> Uh, just in case you didn't know, Kuwait was originally part of Iraq,
> Like Sudan was part of Egypt. In point of fact, Iraq refused to
> recognize
> Kuwait as an independent country until 2 years *AFTER* the gulf war.
> So as far as I'm concerned, Saddam didn't invade anybody.
Amazing, so because Saddam, a murderous tyrant, does not recognize a group
of individuals who of their own free will choose to leave his country and
form their own, they are not a legitimate country? Countries exist only as
collections of individuals, and deserve no existence beyond the collective
acceptance of its citizens. If a group of citizens chooses to excise
themselves from an oppresive dictatorial government, they DO NOT NEED HIS
PERMISSION *or* recognition to form a legitimate state!!! What system of
ethics do you prescribe to, the 'Dictator has final say over everything'
system? Do you think the people of Kuwait feel Saddam 'didnt invide
anyone'?
He was
> putting down a long-standing rebellion when the rebels invited in a
> foreign
> power because they were scared of the consequences.
I wonder what consequences they might have been scared of? Kuwait was
internationally recognized and a member of the United Nations before Saddam
took power in Iraq.
This particular
> scene
> With foreign powers and psuedo independent states etc has been played
> out
> Repeatedly through history. I can't technically fault the man for his
> "invasion";
> Kuwait would have expanded his capabilities. 'course he got his butt
> spanked by
> The US, but that's another story.
Again, I am flabbergasted, please explain to me what right a dictator has to
invade another country? Oh, yeah, thats right, he just need not recognize
that country as a seperate one, and thus can do whatever he pleases!
Your statements do not seem to coincide with the idea of being an extropian.
>
> > I am out of my mind? I have still yet to hear you say that
> > no one has the right to be a dictator. As an extropian, can
> > you not even acknowledge the basic moral premise that no one
> > has the right to be a dictator?
>
> It *is* technically better than anarchy.
> <grin>
You did not answer the question, does anyone have the right to be a
dictator, yes or no. Yet again, someone who evades the answer.
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 13 2003 - 17:53:30 MDT