Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:6733 misc.legal:3373 alt.flame:1425 Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!alleng From: alleng@killer.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.flame Subject: Re: The lawsuit of the year! (politics and higher laws) Message-ID: <3017@killer.UUCP> Date: 21 Jan 88 19:15:24 GMT References: <2832@killer.UUCP> <1606@mind.UUCP> <11143@sri-spam.istc.sri.com> <11762@sri-unix.SRI.COM> Reply-To: allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) Distribution: na Organization: Oh gosh, folks, I forgot! Lines: 80 Keywords: conservative vs liberal, views, means Summary: Please read this. In article <11762@sri-unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.sri.com (Valerie Maslak) writes: >Well, here we go again... > >Here's how I look at it. No way would I have driven a train >down a track when I knew there were likely to be people sitting on >it. > >The Navy, and the engineers of the train, make me ill. > >Wilson was noble enough not to sue the Navy, as I understand it. >The fact that the engineers are doing this is despicable. ...but Valerie is not the only one! She was kind enough to say what the opponents to the train engineer's revenge have been driveling about for some time. The fact is, there was this poor guy named Brian Willson (sp?) who decided that there was this "higher law" that he subscribed to. This "higher law" called him to sit on some railroad tracks (and others to trespass with the intent to disrupt) to protest movement of nuclear (and other) arms he may have felt was possibly for distribution to the contras. Well, lets look at this... Brian was trespassing... he was sitting on a railroad track that he *knew* was to be used by a train, right! He knew this was a dangerous place to sit and *whether or not* the train was ordered to stop, go or whatever. THE TRAIN HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THOSE TRACKS... *legally*. Whether or not you feel that they had the right of way *morally* depends on whether you subscribe to the same "higher law" that Brian did or not. There is substantial evidence that there are people on both sides. Valerie says she wouldn't have driven down the tracks if she knew that there were going to be protestors there. But, Valerie, what business did the pro- testors have being there? As you will recall, there have been times in the past when Concord protestors have actually climbed on board the trains and attempted to remove/destroy (or something) items on board the train. Well, Valerie, I happened to have paid for some of that stuff with my tax money and don't agree with some idiot who wants to take the law into his own hands to destroy it without due process [what do you think about that :-)]. So if the order had been to not stop for anyone/anything, perhaps it was to protect goods and insure uninterrupted progress. As for running over Brian... I admit, as much as I feel what he did was stupid, I feel sorry for the guy. I think it was tragic that the accident occurred. If I had been the engineer, I'd feel horrible. By the same token, though, I am a strong subscriber to the theory that one should take the consequences for one's actions. Now maybe Brian will use this opportunity to sue everyone/everything in sight... or maybe he will use this tragedy as a learning tool to figure out if there are better ways to enforce this "higher law" he subscribes to. As for the politics involved... I am quite conservative politically (as if you couldn't have guessed). The easiest tendency for anyone with strong political beliefs is to close his/her mind to other's views. Try asking someone who's views you feel you don't agree with, sometime. "What do you think is wrong with this country/world?..." If that someone is extremely liberal, you will probably get "too many starving people", or "too much violence", or "too many bombs". Then ask yourself if you saw a starving person and you had some food in your hands, what would you do? How about if there were a way to rid the world of bombs or violence... would you object? I hope not :-) . I guess the thing that really separates the conservative from the liberal is the means and the priorities, rather than the end results. Brian probably felt that what he did was a means for accomplishing his end result (or at least getting on down the road [no pun intended :-)]). He probably truly felt that he could make a difference in a world where a difference was needed. If Brian had been on a committee that had ordered the destruction of those arms based on a 100% mutually verifyable signed treaty (with an honorable party), would he have been such a bad guy? So... his means showed evidence of short-sightedness, maybe even a little malice. He is, though, entitled to his own opinions. The question that needs to be asked (regardless of how you feel on the issue) is that just because you have an opinion, does this give you the right to express it any way you want? Valerie, if I don't like the color car you are driving, may I walk into your garage and destroy it? Barry, if I don't agree with your postings, may I remove your access from Usenet? Don't my rights stop where your rights start? Don't Brians? Please think about it... -- Allen Gwinn / email: {ihnp4!decvax!killer}!sulaco!allen \ USPS: P.O. Box 740444, Dallas, TX 75374-0444