Nicholas Geti wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ricardo Araoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I guess we disagree on this topic. I think your govt would be 'optimal'
>> if you had a mechanism by which people could kick off any public officer
>> if enough signatures are obtained, even a pre
m: Nicholas Geti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [OT] Anarchy, was Cops tasering
> To: "ProFox Email List"
> Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 11:48 PM
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ricardo Araoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
- Original Message -
From: "Ricardo Araoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I guess we disagree on this topic. I think your govt would be 'optimal'
> if you had a mechanism by which people could kick off any public officer
> if enough signatures are obtained, even a president before his mandate
> i
On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
> Of course, it was a fight for supremacy between the northern
> industrial
> complex and the southern agricultural states, of course both wanted a
> different management of the economy. The problem was the north
> needed to
> stop the secessio
Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
>
>> If a club or a society (let's say a neighbors society) would hire an
>> engineer, they would also insist in being able to fire him at will.
>> And
>> that's a group of people. Besides if roughly half the people does not
>>
On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
> If a club or a society (let's say a neighbors society) would hire an
> engineer, they would also insist in being able to fire him at will.
> And
> that's a group of people. Besides if roughly half the people does not
> want him to do what he is
Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
>
>> Funny that. If you hire a lawyer or an engineer you would be adamant
>> in
>> keeping your right to fire him at any time (nothing about the engineer
>> "focus on doing what is right, not what is" your wish "at the moment".
On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
> Funny that. If you hire a lawyer or an engineer you would be adamant
> in
> keeping your right to fire him at any time (nothing about the engineer
> "focus on doing what is right, not what is" your wish "at the moment".
> Same thing if you hire
Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
>
>> I guess we disagree on this topic. I think your govt would be
>> 'optimal'
>> if you had a mechanism by which people could kick off any public
>> officer
>> if enough signatures are obtained, even a president before his ma
Jean Laeremans wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Pete Theisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now you are going to tell me that he got a b*b on the job, in the
>> workplace, with a subordinate and then lied under oath about it? Or
>> maybe that the Ds are so embarrassed about their last i
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Pete Theisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Leafe wrote:
>
> Now you are going to tell me that he got a b*b on the job, in the
> workplace, with a subordinate and then lied under oath about it? Or
> maybe that the Ds are so embarrassed about their last impeachm
Ed Leafe wrote:
> Bush has committed several clearly impeachable offenses, but Congress has
> utterly failed in its duty to prosecute these matters.
Hi Ed!
Well, for heaven's sake, it is your D congress after all. You would
think that these "clearly impeachable offenses" would be an opportuni
On Sep 6, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
> I guess we disagree on this topic. I think your govt would be
> 'optimal'
> if you had a mechanism by which people could kick off any public
> officer
> if enough signatures are obtained, even a president before his mandate
> is complete. That
Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
>
>> In that case I could say that govt from the top also assumes that
>> those
>> who command have society's best interests in mind. And THAT is also a
>> 'simplistic' philosophy. As is the one that says that majority must be
>>
On Sep 6, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
> In that case I could say that govt from the top also assumes that
> those
> who command have society's best interests in mind. And THAT is also a
> 'simplistic' philosophy. As is the one that says that majority must be
> right... or rule, plain
>Exactly. You take some reasonable general notions (people are good),
>and extrapolate that to unreasonable extremes. It's just another form
>of fundamentalism.
Wow, with that kind of thinking, Ed would probably even be fussing about Vince
Lombardi.
--
Larry Miller
--- StripMime Report
Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh wrote:
>
>>> IMO, the fatal flaw here is that it assumes that all individuals have
>>> 'good' flowing out of them.
>> It seems to me that all extremist (that is to say "simplistic")
>> philosophies suffer from a similar flaw: beli
On Sep 6, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh wrote:
>> IMO, the fatal flaw here is that it assumes that all individuals have
>> 'good' flowing out of them.
>
> It seems to me that all extremist (that is to say "simplistic")
> philosophies suffer from a similar flaw: believing that others
> be
Ed wrote:
> IMO, the fatal flaw here is that it assumes that all individuals have
> 'good' flowing out of them.
It seems to me that all extremist (that is to say "simplistic")
philosophies suffer from a similar flaw: believing that others
believe as they do, and if they don't, they should. Wh
19 matches
Mail list logo
