Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
i clearly understand your point. where bell and i differ seems to be in the
perception of the role of the individual working for the govt -- it appears
to me that bell equates the individual as the govt and so can direct action
against the individual. . . .
-----------
If an individual identifies him/herself as the leadership of an evil
government vs the innocent citizens - then he equates that individual with
the evil government.
I also disagree with Jim's idea on the proper and effective method of
dealing with the problem of being educated to expect the opposite of what we
actually receive. He forgets that in a free world, only the support of a
majority of the citizens can maintain the status quo, even if that support
is based on ignorance, presumption, or deception and results in a debasement
of their character.
The reason for having courts and and all those procedures of "due process"
are so that Reason may live - so that people may take the time to examine
actions and methods and determine what is the right way to live together and
what is justice for all, etc. and achieve consent on the matter. Jim's
method precludes all that activity, a very valuable intellectual exercise
which can (potentially) achieve an understanding of the facts of reality,
essential for humans living in arrangements based on abstract ideals.
My preferred method of dealing, for instance, with the IRS would be a long,
protracted court case wherin the proponents are slowly skewered by nine
sharp Supremes. I'd contribute $1 on the yearly tax form to that. And sign
it with my Real Name.
..
Blanc
