On Thu, 1 Sep 1994 blancw@pylon.com wrote:

What should really be said is that theft does not happen of its own accord; someone must decide to accomplish the so-called criminal act. To describe theft as the result of another's inaction is to imply that human action of any kind is mostly automatic, that there is a pull like gravity which will cause action upon intelligence the way gravity affects inanimate objects, and that nothing better could be or should be expected from it.

Some belive that human action is automatic, while semming to be by choice, that the past of this persones life defines how they will react to a certin situation. I do however agree that someone does decide on there own that they will commit a criminal act, however if people protected themselves would they be acted apon? If you use PGP does someone else read your E-Mail? If not what happens? (assumming that you are writing something that someone else will want to intercept, ect.)

It is also to imply that the possession of intelligence is negligible because any opportunity for taking advantage of another's vulnerability will be irresistible to humans, as if they were basically scavengers looking for the spoils of other people's negligence.

I have known many people to be this way. They will and DO take every advantage of any situation they can.

In which case, rather than speaking of bad government, the subject should be a question on the existence of intelligence & the possibility for morality. I don't know who would be qualified to discuss it, though, without the possession of the one and an appreciation of the other.

The United States is made up of ignorant people who know what they need to get by in life, and do not want to take the time to do what it takes to improve themselves, ie. vote. As for morality, I feel it is somthing that we all wish to be but find it hard to be. I know I find it hard to be moral. Groove on Dude Michael Conlen