Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 13:30:40 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Different approach to terrorist threat


Eric wrote:

>Shawn and Steve have talked about how government is merely a historical
>and technological aberration, one that has usually not been on the side
>of human life. I agree. Government as a weapon has often been used in
>the past to dominate and oppress its own citizenry.  Government as a
>weapon is a loaded gun and, therefore, always dangerous.

>As Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out, however, government as a
>weapon is also a two-edged sword.  In the past, it has often been the
>vehicle through which grievances has been addressed, rights defended and
>positive as well as negative freedoms granted.

Yes, weapons are dangerous by definition. A gun that won't fire is only a
club.

The scale of government is very important.  The rules in the home or
congregatiion, club or workplace can be harsh of mild, but essentially
affect only those groups.  International rules are only as strong as the
nations who support them.

Most nations have had "Civil" wars and slaughtered thousands of their own.
England's civil war was quite long ago, but England slaughtered its own
American colonists including some born in England.   That happened not long
before the French civil war, we call their "Revolution"..

The local governments that keep most of us relatively safe from fires and
criminal attack, operate within a framework of nation-law. The U.S.
Constitution permits a process which allows a change of leadership and
rules, subject to review by severall levels of courts, and ultimately,  the
Supreme court.

The law of the land is what the Supreme Court says it is.  Such is the only
government we have, the only means of protecting ourselves from each other,
from other nations, and from future McVeighs or Bin Ladens.

We've had WWI and WWII.  Some of us may be ready for American Revolution II.
Like all Revolutions, it could only be accomplished by the bonding of
traitors, spying on and killing our fellow-citizens, carnage on a massive
scale, think of the War between the States.

On the other hand, there is freedom to make peaceful change.  By a
combination of loyal and disloyal acts, as in the Civil Rights  and Vietnam
War resistance movements, you and those who share your views, can change
hearts and minds and conduct, and replace the the policies of the only
government we have, with policies you support.

Thus would be fashioned a reformed weapon of government.  This nation would
then be in a position to commence the task of changing minds, attitudes,
practices, of the near 200 nations who share the Globe with us, and begin a
movement to solve  problems of Globalization, create a new form of Global
Government that works.

What such a plan would have in common with the Bush plan would be patience
and courage when each new terrorist tragedy is launched.

Best,
Hugh