From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>

...

From: plmoses@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu

Paul L. Moses says:

...

This may be a semantic point, but it should be made.... David Koontz sez: "Avoiding the appearance of endorsing the violent overthrow of government is prudent policy..." Um...I think I know what you mean, but isn't it better to just say outright that violence really is not the way to reform government at all, save in truly historical, exceptional cases (American Revolution, French Revolution...)

I'm not sure either of those cases truly succeeded, either.

Myself, I feel that no good can be accomplished by initiating force against others, no matter what the cause. Violent revolutions go completely against my grain. Any sorts of reforms that will stick are going to have to arise peacefully. This is not to say, of course, that they will necessarily arise via the "democratic process". The government may simply find itself outflanked, for instance. (Imagine as an example if the government realized tomorrow that allowing citizens to know how to read would be dangerous -- its a little late to stop it, so they will never do anything about that.)

Two points of clarification: 1) I do not now, nor have I in the past advocated the violent overthrow of any domestic government. I am also opposed to the overthrow of foreign governments on moral grounds. 2) The necessity to distance ones self or organization (as may have occured in the case of the Libertarian Party) from what should be in effect an expression of free speech, smacks of McCarthyistic opression. (this was what was hidden beneath the cynicism and 'waffle') Thanks for rising to the occasion. ---- A country that can have a McCarthy Era has no business giving more power to its government.