Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <7800877@inmet.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Jan-86 20:26:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.7800877 Posted: Fri Jan 10 20:26:00 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:32:33 EST References: <1265@brl-tgr.UUCP> Lines: 72 Nf-ID: #R:brl-tgr:-126500:inmet:7800877:177600:3571 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jan 10 20:26:00 1986 >/* Written 3:11 pm Jan 7, 1986 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics */ >>It's easy, Mr. Carnes. If they're Marxists, they're Bad Guys. There >>may be some humane, enlightened, or constructive policies they >>follow, but they're still Bad Guys. > >I'm glad that at least one person has grasped the basic principle of >dividing people into Good and Bad. One reason for so doing is that >it provides a parsimonious and easily understood explanation for all >the conflicts raging in the world. Good people will always be in >conflict with evil people. In all of the world's conflicts, it is >possible to discern a good side and a bad side. Some examples: >.... Huh? I thought the original article made it clear that Marxists were Bad Guys, but that (especially given the example of the Sandinistas rebelling against other bad guys) it didn't follow that the other side was "the good side". >>Would you be pleased if the changes taking place in Nicaragua were >>taking place in YOUR home state? If not, then the people running the >>Marxist states are Bad Guys -- regardless of the fact that the Czar, >>Chiang Kai-shek, Batista and Somoza were also Bad Guys. > >Wouldn't it be simpler to ask the Nicaraguans themselves if they are >pleased with the various changes that have taken place in their >country? I don't know the answer, but it is either Yes or No. That's an interesting idea. If the implication is that each Nicaraguan would say "Yes" or "no", then we agree (with the reservation that a Yes/No choice might have to be forced). But if you think the answer would be "Yes" or "No" if you were to ask the MASS of Nicaraguans (subject it to a country-wide voice-vote, say) then you've taken them as a collective entity capable of only one opinion, which is surely a mistake. >... >>The people of these countries are not guinea pigs, for use in some >>Grand Experiment to show how a New System can build a New Socialist >>Man. They are human beings just like you and me, and if WE wouldn't >>like to live under such an experiment, THEY shouldn't have to, >>either. > >How disgusting that the Sandinistas are using the Nicaraguans as >guinea pigs -- just like Auschwitz. How different from the Founding >Fathers, who when drafting the Constitution wisely contented >themselves with copying the time-tested features of European >political systems, instead of trying anything new and experimental. Would opening the doors of a lab experimenting on human beings and letting the victims out be classed as an experiment also, because it happened in a lab? Perhaps, but there's a difference here: you experiment on someone (in this context) against their will. If you simply let them out, (as the Founders did) you've *ceased* to experiment in the nasty sense -- you've given control of the "experiment" to others. I make a point of this because in the big libertarian-socialist flap a while ago, libertarians were accused of (from memory now) "ALSO trying to legislate their ideas into reality". On the face of it, correct. In a more important way, not correct. Libertarians are trying to NOT legislate their ideas into reality -- rather they're trying to release everyone from legislation (which may, of course, involve the legislative activity of removing legislative interference). By the way, I wouldn't automatically class a Marxist (that is, a believer in the Marxist theory of history, or an advocate of communism) as a Bad Guy, but as soon as they try and IMPOSE their theories forcibly, I'd say they've crossed the line.