I concur with your general direction. two thoughts came to mind:
first, govt. employees aren't subject to lawsuits because of their official
acts. plus, in many cases, we need to give govt. employees specific
exemptions/rights so that they can perform their work (eg. a soldier can
kill during a war and an irs agent can examine your income tax return, etc.)
second, madison wrote: "if men were angels, no government would be
necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government," he
said, "which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty
lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed,
and next oblige it to control itself."
i think he sums it up pretty well.
phillip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Choate
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Interventions r gud
>
>
>
>
> And why, ethicaly, should the individual receive unlimited protection? Why
> should an individual who acts in a unjust way receive protection simply
> because they work for the government. Where in the DoI, Constitution, or
> anywhere else in Democratic theory is this a requirement? Near as I can
> tell, all governments (or particular agencies for that matter) that
> require these sorts of exemptions are either fascist or socialist. Does
> going to work for the government take away ones responsibilities and
> rights as an individual? Are there valid times for the Nuremberg Defense?
> I thought, at least in this country, the purpose was to represent the
> people. Not to take personal advantage personaly or of the people (or
> indivudal or given classes) on some procedural hell. It's supposed to be
> equal protection under the law FOR ALL.
>
> Government employees (of any type) aren't supposed to receive protection
> from harms they may cause. If an incompetent causes harm why should
> government employment (the n-1 people sitting around potentialy being
> harmed by their actions) pay for it? Don't the people have a right to say
> "Fire the dumb-ass!" Doesn't allowing this sort of stuff provide the EXACT
> form of DEMOCRATIC government we want? If all men are held accountable for
> their actions, won't they act with more deliberation?
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
>
> Chris Lawson
>
> The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
> Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
> -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
