Jonathan Gibson wrote:
>
> I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first
> just to be sure we have enough to cover your ethically
> challenged accounting methods.
>
The problem is that my own family _is_ into the furnace right
now. And probably yours too - but a difference furnace, one
powered by fissionable nuclei.
The world is a dangerous place, and absolute pacifism sounds
like unconditional surrender.
> What if this nice round conceptually dead-simple number of
> 100K isn't enough dead and the battles continue decades,
> and numbers reach millions? When is enough dead enough?
> When all you and yours lay at your feet? Are you prepared
> for that, because this is a logical {and time-tested!}
> course of action your apparently willing to embrace.
>
Obviously, there's a limit to how many people should die
to prevent a tyrant to have his wishes. It would be wrong
to start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war.
> Having lived in Holland I've seen what happens when you
> remove the profit from drug-running: the mafioso go away.
> The guns go away. Petty crime goes down as junkies don't
> need expensive per-diem fixes. Same thing with prostitution.
>
Ok, but that happened because the drug dealers could easily
cross the borders and continue their trade elsewhere. If
we wanted to have this solution for all western nations, there
would be an enormous increase in crime - because criminals
would find more violent ways to compensate their losses.
> Ghandi said something appropriate {roughly}:
> " War will not stop war until darkness makes darkness go away"
>
Yes, but India's independence only succeeded after England
had suffered a lot in WW2. As much as I admire Ghandi's pacifism,
it could only work in those special circumstances. It would
not be possible, for example, for iraqi citizens to depose
Saddam with hunger strikes.
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
