[thechat] The Death of Democracy...

[Chris Marsh]

Ron

[..]

> Why do you characterize this as unpleasant?  On the surface

Sorry, my bad. I don't find this unpleasant per se, the unpleasantness
was aimed at the article behind the link
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/feb03/index678.htm. It's a habit from
another list to post the first paragraph of a link as a quote, rather
than wasting bandwidth emailing the whole article. In retrospect it
wasn't the most intuitive thing to post a quote from a quote so to
speak.

> perhaps one man's regret-ridden exhortation to guard personal
> freedoms more closely -- but underneath, underneath I would
> see it as a more hopeful message believing in the power of
> one voice speaking out to grow into more voices and gain
> enough power and momentum to change the world.
>
> Shouldn't that be more uplifting than unpleasant?

Yes, it should. Unfortunately the author of the article opines that this
message has been buried and ignored, backing up this opinion with
instances of fact. The apparent disdain for the European Convention On
Human Rights demonstrated by the US government to me is staggering.
What's even more mind-blowing is the acceptance of this by the American
people. To bypass law in favour of politics in the punishment and
incarceration of citizens surely makes a mockery of any society that
claims to be governed by law.

Some quotes that say it better than I ever could:

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone
collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is
someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of
slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."

-Ayn Rand

"We are fast approaching the stage in the ultimate inversion: the stage
where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the
citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest
period of human history; the stage of rule by brute force."

-Ayn Rand

"'There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ...
Create a nation of law-breakers, and then you cash in on the guilt.'"

-Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged", Chapter III, "White Blackmail"

This last says it all to me. If the government disagrees with something
that an individual says but the individual breaks no existing laws, the
government must make saying this particular thing illegal. Buh-bye 1st
ammendment...

Sorry if I'm sounding cynical, but it's striking me more and more that
all of this talk of war, conflict and terrorism is benefitting the
governments of the US and the UK, not the people of these countries *or*
Iraq. Somebody tell me the difference between pre-calculated "collateral
damage" and terrorism against soft targets.

Regards

Chris Marsh