On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Bill Stewart wrote:
Bell's point that government would be much better behaved if the individuals in government could be held individually and personally responsible for their actions is certainly valid. Whether shooting them is an appropriate way to hold them responsible is another discussion (:-).
That was the Founding Fathers' point in instituting direct election of House members every two years. Bell's point, if it was the same, entailed murder. It's not another discusion of ends. It's a discussion of means, and his means border on the insane. That alone doesn't make his idea criminal in a society with a First Amendment, but the fact that he had an end in common with other political thinkers doesn't make his means legitimate. In other words, Bell's point, as you describe it, has nothing original to say about ends. It's all about means, and as such it's pretty well whacko. MacN