roundtable: Re: Bombs-R-Us - comment

roundtable: Re: Bombs-R-Us - comment

Re: Bombs-R-Us - comment

Keith Quigley (kjq@OnRamp.NET)
Tue, 17 Jun 97 03:08:33 GMT 

To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: Bombs-R-Us - comment
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 97 03:08:33 GMT
Message-Id: <M.061697.220833.47@ppp12-8.dllstx.onramp.net>
From: kjq@OnRamp.NET (Keith Quigley)

    > FINS: Communicating the Emerging Philosophy of The Information Age       
    > CLOSING THE "VALUES-GAP":
    > Bombs-R-Us
    > By Vigdor Schreibman
    > 
    > snip:
    >                  The actions of the Unabomber and the Oklahoma bomber were
    >                appalling, acts of terrorism, but also expressions of
    >                political outrage demanding redress from the violence and
    >                political abuse by the governing powers... 

"...expressions of political outrage..."

Frankly, if this is the type of "expressions of political outrage" that you feel needs redress, 
then there is clearly a difference of opinion between you and me. These were not acts of anything 
other than expressions of deeply troubled, sick individuals. Why make an attempt at painting 
either McVeigh or Kaczynski as some sort of thwarted patriots? Perhaps they don't need to be 
executed; perhaps they need long-term mental care instead.

    >                              
    >                  The United States Government now has a harsh and unworkable
    >                welfare reform policy, a nasty surplus labor strategy, an
    >                obscene distribution of income, an unjust crime strategy, and
    >                an unsustainable environmental policy [Fins-NC5-05,07].

Really? Where are your supporting arguments, backed by clear examples of facts? Additionally, how 
do you define the colorful adjectives you've employed?  "obscene, unjust, nasty, harsh"

    >                This new public policy is designed to insure economic supremacy,
    >                while disregarding the essential interdependence between the
    >                economic, social, and ecological components of reality.

Again, a lucid definition of this "interdependence between ... components of reality" would be of 
inordinate help in deciding whether or not to give any serious thought to your treatise.

    >                  The legal and economic consequences of human transactions
    >                cannot be disconnect from the larger, spiritual or natural
    >                sources from which they spring.(sic) Despite contrary claims under
    >                the fictions of law and economics, "We can have no true moral
    >                judgment except as we live our life with others."  Citizens
    >                cannot be expected to compliantly sit on their heels in the
    >                face of murderous conduct against their brothers, or impending
    >                technological disasters; particularly, when the sovereign
    >                democratic powers of the people have been usurped by
    >                privileged groups to lock the needs of the people out.  
    > 
Who are you quoting in the above paragraph?

What "impending technological disasters" are you referring to?

What are "fictions of law and economics"?

    >                  What this all adds up to is the immutable fact that, "The
    >                power to shape the world does not derive ultimately from
    >                rulers or their monopoly of the means of violence," as
    >                Australian John Keane wrote in his biography of Tom Paine,
    >                published in 1995.  Instead, Keane observed,  
    >                
    >                     Rulers surrounded by spies, police, jurists, tax
    >                     collectors, generals, and administrators cannot rule
    >                     for very long.  Power ultimately emanates from below.
    >                     Rulers can rule only insofar as they have the tacit or
    >                     active support of the ruled.  Without it, they become
    >                     impotent in the face of citizens acting together in
    >                     solidarity for the achievement of their own common goals.
    > 

I agree. In fact, as we live in a society where "rulers" are elected, it would seem to follow that 
they "rule" at the whim of the people they govern.


    > PEOPLE POWER * RISE UP LIKE LIONS AFTER SLUMBER * WE ARE MANY, THEY ARE FEW
    > ============================================================================ 
    > Federal Information News Syndicate, Vigdor Schreibman, Editor & Publisher

My last question is, what are you asking for in your closing admonition? If, as I have gathered 
from reading your post, you identify McVeigh and Kaczynski as somehow akin to Thomas Paine, as 
some form of misunderstood patriots, then I believe you are perhaps, in my humble and non-medical 
judgement, in need of some serious counseling as well. 

Sincerely,
Keith Quigley
Q@Whoever.com

[CNI Home Page]