From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 1 Oct 92 08:31:38 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq TM> How can someone who's been elected, and who can be "unelected", be a TM> dictator? GDC> Do you think Bush can be "unelected"? Very doubtful. Man, you're way to paranoid! Of course Bush _can_ get unelected. Will he? I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks. BUt if he does get _reelected_, he's still put his butt on the line. GDC> No. But I have the right to believe, look at, buy, and live my life GDC> by my own law; when the "majority" attempts to oppress me because it GDC> does not fit their set of standars my rights are being violated. TM> Actually, you _don't_ have the right to live life by your own "law". GDC> I do. To the extent that the way I live does not interfere with the GDC> rights of others around me. So now we get a qualification. "To the extent that the way I live does not interfered..." And who's to judge what "interference" is? Let's take an example you use later on in your last post. Gay rights. To you, advocacy of Gay rights is not interfering. In fact, you percieve it as just the opposite. Your promoting non-interference. Now let's look at it from the other side. Like it or not, there are quite a few people in this world who believe homosexuality is wrong. Some believe it quite vehemently. Has it ever occurred to you that when you're challenging their beliefs you are, in fact, "interfering" with thier life? Ultimately, what we have is conflict. Your beliefs against someone elses. When their is conflict, the most powerful will win. There are several ways to get power (persuade, lie, grovel, compromise, fight, etc.), but what I've described is _fundamental_ to the human condition. The _great_ thing about this country is that there are mechanisms for: (1) limiting power; and (2) basing power in the hands of the people. TM> Like it or not, you're "rights" have to be balanced against other's TM> rights. You can't go out an kill some one just because _you_ think its TM> OK. GDC> My Law recognizes every person's right to pursue happiness in what GDC> ever form it manifests in the individual. Respect for other people GDC> makes murder unacceptable. It is not an option. It becomes GDC> permissible when I am protecting my life or the life of the people I GDC> love. Again, "your law." But what makes you better than someone else? What universal insight have you gotten that the rest of us don't? (I'm only saying this to make a point. To a certain extent I agree with you. The poit I'm trying to make is that just because you and I beleive it, doen't mean a hill of beans unless we can get the society in which we live in to beleive it. ANd guess what? Society has a perfect right to say we're fucked. My point is that if they do say we're fucked, to go about changing the way society works, because there are mechanisms in this country to do that. Your're point is that when society says we're fucked to quit playing the game. Like I said, you want to take your marbles and go home. TM> As a result, any society is a constant balancing act with the ultimate TM> goal of pleasing the most people and offending the least. GDC> I understand and agree with this statement whole-heartedly. The GDC> problem begins when pleasing the most people means oppressing the GDC> individual. This must not be permitted. Take gay rights: If you GDC> are turned off by homosexual practices don't do them; mind your own GDC> business and allow people to do what they think is best for GDC> themselves. If there is literature you consider obscene, don't read GDC> it. etc. Ahhh, if that was all there was to Gay rights, I'd agree whole-heartedly. The problem is that the _radical_ gays and their sympathizers (ACT UP! Queer Nation, etc.) are dedicated to offending the most people they possibly can. It goes beyond tolerance and mutual respect. The radical gays have no respect for anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. They thrive on conflict. The problem with this, is that conflict forces polarization. Its the old "if yer ain't fer us, your agin' us" syndrome. Sides are chosen, rhetoric picks up, and nothing is accomplished. The personal dilema for me, is that quite frankly, if forced to choose, I will _not_ side with the radical Gays. TM> As an individual, you have two, and only two options: get enough power TM> to ensure your interests are taken care of, or persuade that your TM> interests are good for everyone else. GDC> I can pursuade, but not demand; as this makes me just as unjust as GDC> the "moral majority". Power=money. I can't utilize this option GDC> until I become rich and famous ;) Sopken like a true marxist. Power=power. Period. Money is often times a _reflection_ of power, but wealth is a totally different beast. Another _great_ thing about this country, and something that is reasonably unique to the U.S., is that there are opportunities to get and wield power, _EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY TO START WITH_! Of course it's much easier to obtain power if you had some to start with (inherited, class, race, gender, etc.), but, and this is a _huge_ but, power is not strictly a function of ones birth environment. GDC> This seems to be the most popular approach. this election year GDC> however, is projected to be the largest voter turn out ever in the GDC> history of the United States. The young people are finally getting GDC> involved. There is hope :) You call that hope? I call it my worst nightmare! What we're getting are idiot 18, 19, 20 year olds who've learned all about their civic duty from "Rock the Vote" campaigns of MTV! Super. Their kids who can't read, write, or tell you where Mexico is, and we are advocating that they vote?! These are the same individuals who are learning about proper civic behavior from the likes of Axl Rose and Madonna?! I'm incredulous. GDC> Doesn't government have the responsibility to ensure that "the GDC> people" can make choices based on factual information? Governmental GDC> manipulation of the facts has to go the way of the dinasour before GDC> this premise can be applied. One are in which we are definitely in agreement is that knowledge is power. And those who control the knowledge, control tthe power. The problem is in how we view the control of information. I think it's much more insidious what MTV is doning to out kids. But that's my opinion. GDC> "Insects are specialized" (I think Robert Heinlen said that). If we're talking about RH, let's give tribute to the one true great idea the man ever had. Giving the franchise to only those individuals who've but their butt on the line for thier society. If you want one single innovation that will bring about singnificant and positive change to our society, that's it. If you ain t served, you don't get to vote. Period. How can kids who have no idea the cost of freedom be expected to exercise that freedom understanding? (This is why Bill Clinton's service record, and Danny Boy's, is so disturbing to me. How can a man lead a free nation if he refused, _refused_ to put his butt on the line in service to that nation. Bill Clinton does not have the foggiest concept as the the true price of freedom.) GDC> There IS no majority. Everyone is different and therefore one GDC> cannot lump everyone (no matter how much they agree on a specific GDC> issue) into the same category. THAT is what I meant by "Do away GDC> with the majority". When a group of people are brought together, GDC> say the pro-life folks, they have no right to legislate abortions GDC> out of existance because theya re violating the rights of GDC> individuals who might think otherwise. If you don't want an GDC> abortion; don't get one; but one does not have the right to make GDC> that choice for some one else. Abortion is not a very good example in this case, because we're dealing with something a little more than simple individual choice. We're dealing with a fetus/unborn child (take your pick) that is something less than a person, yet something more than scar tissue. To a lartge extent, the abortion debate is not a debate simply about individual choice (though the feminazis would like us to beleive it is), but a debate on balanced choice. One side believes that the only choice that matters is the woman's. The other side believes that the fetus is equal to the mother and has the same sets of choices. Since it is assumed that the fetus would always choos life, the state has a vested interest in protecting that life (as it would for any person). I don't have the right to take your life; I don't have that _choice_. That, in a nutshell, are the two poles of the issue. The problem with these two poles is that most Americans fall somewhere in between. They believe that the mother has priority interestes, but that the fetus is something more than simple scar tissue. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: VITRIOL Area: THE_OASIS To: Frater Almost 27 Sep 92 10:49:12 Subject: Widow's Son Sent UpdReq -=> Frater Almost sent a message to James Beno on 26 Sep 92 01:19:18 <=- -=> Re: Widow's Son <=- FA> Hiram Abiff who represented the Column of Beauty as Solomon was Wisdom FA> and Hiram King of Tyre was the Column of Strength. ;) Hiram Abiff is FA> also known as KHURUM. :) Jackal Laughs. 93 93, Frater. What is the spelling of that? Cheth-Resh-Mem, Cheth-Vav-Resh-Vav-Mem, Kaph-Resh-Mem...? (IOW, what's the Gematria of the name?) WILL LOVE ... But Mark! Active Evil is better than Passive Good. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718