‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>>Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder! Merely for self-defense.
>a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all!
I didn't say it wouldn't be, but you are implying that you can somehow 'choose' this outcome, to effectively force it on all participants. My response? I'd say the worst outcome is one that actually happened: These Feds got away with murder, with no real punishment in the end for them. Because that sets up future Ruby Ridges, future Wacos, with the precedent that none of them had gotten punished.
And, I'd also respond that the end you claim "would be better" could actually be achived, if an AP system were functioning. How do you think the Feds at Ruby Ridge and Waco would have acted, differently, if they had known they were going to be targeted by donations from the public if they ended up killing some of the Weavers, and the Branch Davidians? I'd suggest that they obviously wouldn't have done what they did!!! They would not possibly have risked it. So nobody would have died. PRECISELY the end you claim would be "better".
>Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be involved in these two hypothetical situations. I wrote my AP essay about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995. Later, I frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose? The fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice.
>again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better to not kill anyone!
I've already explained how that could be achieved. Maybe you just don't like the idea that Feds could be deterred from engaging in what most of the people would call murder. Ensure that if the Feds knew that if they killed somebody unjustifiably (in the public's opinion; not theirs!) they themselves will be killed, and nobody will kill anyone.
>Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying!
>if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are needlessly dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should fix this too! ;)
> Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the ability to defend themselves. You can morally choose to be a pacifist for yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice for themselves.
>i agree. i cannot force anyone. i can only highlight the fallacy of using murder to right wrongs. expedient? sure. but call it vengeance, not justice nor moral.
The issue is PREVENTION. If a system is set up to ensure that the public can retaliate for outrageous actions, don't you think the frequency of those outrageous actions will be greatly reduced?