blanc,
i clearly understand your point. where bell and i differ seems to be in the
perception of the role of the individual working for the govt -- it appears
to me that bell equates the individual as the govt and so can direct action
against the individual. this is similar to the justification-philosophy of,
say, november 17, which targets individuals for their symbolic (or personal)
importance (average citizens count in symbolic value to them as much as govt
workers do.) in fact, as i write this, it occurs to me that bell's
justification (as i understand it) is similar to many such groups as nov 17
around the world -- and perhaps this is why he attracted the attention he
did -- in the view of many, he's acting/talking like the really bad bad guys
do.
thanks for the clarification.
phillip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Blanc
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 10:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Interventions r gud
>
>
>
> Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
>
> Bell's AP includes neither a system of due process nor a method for the
> accused to confront his accusor. do you think he's rejected the AP as
> invalid, or simply realizing how beneficial simple rights as
> these are when
> being accused of crimes? is it relevant to refer to these rights when he
> himself rejected those rights for others?
> --------------
>
>
> It does seem ironic that someone who apparently would deny to others these
> rights, within the concept of AP, should yet himself be provided with a
> "fair trial" as a matter of course, in way the legal system has
> been set up
> to do (or to at least have everyone go through the motions and present the
> appearance of it).
>
> It is valid to inquire whether one who is guilty of such an oversight is,
> conversely, deserving of equal treatment (similar to the statement that
> "those who would give up essential liberty for a little safety deserve
> neither liberty nor safety".)
>
> But if you examine the AP article closely you will note that Jim has based
> his ideas on the Libertarian rejection of the *initiation* of
> force against
> others. His conclusion is that, since the government of liberty and
> freedom, which was set up to defend against the unjust imposition of force
> upon the unwilling, has itself violated that expectation (in the
> process of
> extracting taxes, i.e. taking property from us, without our explicit and
> willing consent), then it is no longer deserving of the respect of the
> citizens - that it has opened itself up to being treated as one
> would treat
> any criminal who does not respect these fundamental rights.
>
> So he can be said to be rejecting those rights for those who have already
> abrogated them, or who have accepted the allowance - in the form of
> government policies - for doing this.
>
> This is where the questions come up about the "legitimacy" of government
> actions - of what individuals may be allowed to do for "the
> people" as their
> representatives - that "the people" themselves are not allowed to likewise
> do. It seems to be very hard for people to agree on what will be assigned
> to and allowed to a designated group, vs what will be allowed to an
> individual, within a political setting where everyone appears agreeable to
> being a member, and agreeable to being subject to the supposedly
> agreed-upon
> laws. It is hard to argue against appearances and convince over
> what is, in
> fact, the actual circumstance.
>
> ..
> Blanc
>
>
>
>
>
