It's all in the timing. If the censors are the last to judge, they self proclaim the right to punish or take corrective action. So justice is held in a pyramid scheme where those not fortunate or not able to be on top are by definition the only liable to be judged by terrestrial powers. The odd thing about this is judgments are punitive in nature, so those at the bottom slip further down; distancing the judging party from the judged. Kind of a reinforcing cycle. Can you think of mechanisms to trigger this cycle Jim? Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> wrote:
On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:
Your last paragraph is a little too complicated for me Jim, I'm interested in what you have to say but please break it down for me.
Somebody does something. As a consequence another party is considered to have contributed to the first persons act, without actually participating in the act.
So, if the first person is not fully responsible, why is the second party fully responsible? How do you test this?
If a party whose actions contribute is responsible for the consequences then isn't the censor themselves, since they take an active role, also responsible?
Doesn't this put a party in the defence in the role of presecutor and judge? That seems to be a considerable conflict of interest.
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1