Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>

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-

If we could do so without stolen money and without collateral damage, would it be moral to invade countries and kill their governments to prevent the oppression of their people?

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?

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

DCF

What does the concept of right and wrong have to do with it? I would say that a more relevant phrasing of the question is one that needs to be answered on a case by case basis : is it possible to kill that particular government? What's in it for the aggressor? Access to rare earths, risk reduction, a warm-water port, a Pepsi factory, supermodels? I doubt that any 3rd party would incur the expense of killing an entire government completely out of a sense of right unless that cost were extremely small - pocket change, so to speak. Mike