But the very nature of government is to be mandatory.
What you say is apparently true to YOU, according to your current
understanding of government. Can you PROVE that it is true for all
people for all time? I rather doubt it. To me, it just appears to be
an assumption, one which you are using to excuse yourself from even
THINKING about the possibility of better alternatives.
We will never find a more just form a government if we never look for
it. And we will never look for it if we can't even admit the
shortcomings of the current system to ourselves, if we are all instead
willfully blind to them. If your forefathers hadn't looked for a
better form themselves, you'd all still be subject to a foreign
monarchy (which I would characterize as an even MORE unjust system).
Moreover, I was not arguing for the abolition or overthrow of (yours
or any other) government - I was just arguing that its current nature
is inherently unjust, and I don't see you arguing with that (you seem
to just be arguing instead that you see no alternative to it BEING
unjust). So I am assuming that we agree on it. 
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein's opinion (from "Stranger in a Strange
Land"), "A man can no more escape government than he can escape the
tyranny of his own bowels, but because an evil is [seemingly]
necessary is no reason to term it a good." I think that it is probably
true that most people are not ready for a more free form of
government. I would think it a bad thing if our current mode simply
disappeared overnight. But as people become better, more possibilities
become available, and I am happy to explore them rather than pledge
blind and unswerving obedience to a system I know to be deeply flawed.
The alternative you're suggesting is anarchy.
I don't see it that way. I think it a bad word to use in any case,
since anarchy can mean a state of violent, lawless chaos, or it can be
a system just as benign (or as some would argue, potentially more
benign) than any other. And even if I were speaking of anarchy, I
would not be arguing for it as a system to immediately REPLACE the
current one, just one that could (and indeed, I believe will) run
alongside the current one, for those who are ready for it.
And again, I am not arguing for dismantling anything. People rarely
seem to listen to me closely enough to hear what I am actually saying.
I am saying that I have little use for the state myself. If any of you
others DO have a use for it, then by all means, support it for all you
are worth! I, on the other hand, will avoid it all that I can. To me,
that is freedom, the principle on which your country is SUPPOSEDLY based.
I am not arguing with anyone's right to participate in, support, or
otherwise approve of government. I am just pointing out (just as you
seem to be) that your government seems to operate by the very
principles of tyranny that it claims to oppose in other governments.
In order for this government (that some other person wants or needs)
to exist, that government must try to enslave ME as well - whereas I
don't need to try to enslave anyone to live my way. That, too, is
freedom to me. And when enough people are ready for it, I predict that
that is the sort of a world we will live in.
Would you rather not have traffic lights?
To be honest, I'd rather not have CARS - I don't own one myself. They
represent a horrendously wasteful use of resources, and they seem to
be inherently incredibly dangerous. More people die every MONTH in
your country from traffic fatalities than died in the Sept. 11th
attacks, your country's (over)response to which threw your you onto
such a seemingly misguided course, to exponentially greater human and
monetary cost.
But that's beside the point to me. I don't think for a second that it
is up to me whether we have cars or traffic lights, because I don't
think that my opinions trump anyone else's. That's kind of what I am
trying to get across here. If we have cars, then we would benefit from
a system to minimize some of the harm that they cause, and if it
benefits me to follow that system (so I get in fewer accidents), I'll
follow it - why wouldn't I?
Besides, when it comes to traffic lights, I definitely have a CHOICE.
If I don't want to obey them, I WON'T. And far more that than 3 people
disobey traffic lights every day, and the entire system doesn't come
crashing to a halt - just a few cars do.
You see, I don't argue in terms of RIGHTS - I think in terms of
choices. I don't think anyone has the RIGHT to run red lights. They
simply have the choice to, if they want, and some always do. The only
thing that they seemingly have no choice about is whether to accept
the CONSEQUENCES of running red lights - that happens naturally, and
the ones who don't comply don't last long (because either they end up
dead or their car does).
It's still just expediency to me, and so when I do (rarely) drive, I
tend to obey the lights because it is the expedient thing to do. It
costs me LESS to do it that way than the opposite. So why would I have
a problem with it?
But to get truly in depth, it would take far more pages than this, and
this is, after all, a VP (not a political) discussion board. So I will
bow out now, and thanks for the chat. Anyone who finds this
interesting, feel free to email me, and I will put your name on an
email list for when I finish working up some essays on the nature of
mind, government, and other aspects of the (apparent) universe, which
should happen some time later this year.
Cheers,
Dana
路路路
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@...> wrote:
