At 06:02 PM 10/2/2001 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
At 09:41 PM 9/30/01 -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
While I would *like* to think that your point is _completely_ valid and all-encompassing, I'm afraid I can't :-( Unfortunately, we are just as interested in "liberating" everyone else (read: forcing them do do as we please, but not necessariily as we do) on the planet. The U.S. has a rather intense ego problem.
Actually that raises the interesting question-
That is, since all governments violate people's rights and some violate them more than others, would attacks on governments by outsiders be proper (as internal revolution presumably is)?
My poli sci prof once said "after the 'Revolution' of 1845 in England, the Liberals imposed laissez-faire." Can one impose non-imposition?
Is it wrong to kill a government?
I had a debate with my poli-sci prof, too. I asked her, specifically, about anarchic institutions and the role of government. After a preamble about there being nothing to discuss if there weren't any government, she replied something like, "The role of government is to plot a vector towards the unobtainable, in hopes that people will reach for it. Bad regimes will throw lines at horror. Good ones throw them at the stars. If a set of people with the reins of power steer things the wrong way, it is indeed the duty of those governed to set them right." I am sure I misquoted her, so I am not including her name. On another note, I just rejoined the CP list after a rather long hiatus. I hope people will be just as abusive as when I left before. -j