Good Versus Evil

[J.Klebanoff]

Joe said:

You realize of course that if the US had not declared independence, the chances are that there would be no Canada. Instead, there's at least as good a chance that had it not been for the stabilizing effect of the United States, rather than three large, relatively peaceful governments North America would instead have spent a long period of time as a number of small, independent warring colonial nation-states not unlike South America or Africa.

No, I don't realize that. It is impossible to look back on history and say with any certainty whatsoever, what the outcome would have been if a different path had been taken. Maybe there wouldn't have be a Canada. Maybe there would. Maybe there would have been one large democratic country across all of North America that gained its independence through negotiation rather than revolution. Maybe there would have been one or more countries that formed a sort of United States of the New World that democratically chose to be a part of the British Commonwealth and elected members to the British parliament. Maybe we would still have all been colonists of Britain, France and Spain. Or, maybe we would have broken down into a lot of warring factions. I just don't know. Nobody else does either. We just know what did happen. Joe said:

I guess they don't teach much about the American Revolution in Canada, but really, they did some pretty good writing back then. There's one really good one called the Declaration of Independence that's one of my favorites; it spells out the concepts quite clearly.

Actually, I suspect that they teach considerably more about the American Revolution in Canadian schools than they teach about Canadian history in American schools. That's not a complaint. I wouldn't expect it to be any other way given the relative populations, economies and world power of the two countries. I agree that they did some pretty good writing -- and I'll add that they did some pretty good thinking -- back then. I said in a post to forum attached to another of my articles (I forget which one) that I feel that the core ideals underlying the founding of the United States and underlying the country today are second to none in the world. I believed that when I wrote it. I still believe it. How can any thinking human being argue against liberty and a society based on the rule of law? How can anybody argue against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the founding principles of a country? I sure can't. Does that mean that I've always agreed with the way that American administrations have implemented policies supposedly to further those ideals? No, it does not. Then again, there have been an exceptionally large number of policies adopted by Canadian governments that I've disagreed with. The conversation in this forum got into a discussion about gun control. (Don't ask me how an article about the way that technology has been used for both good and evil in the wake of the tsunami disaster evolved in to a discussion of gun control. Forums attached to my articles have this weird tendency to go off on bizarre and unexpected tangents.) The point I was making was that I, in what I admit is just my opinion, believe that the evils that guns facilitate are greater than the benefits of guns and, therefore, that there is the need for some gun control. The second amendment of the U.S. constitution which the gun advocates quote says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I've just never been able to understand what a "well regulated militia" has to do with allowing every damn fool to own some awfully deadly weapons. Somebody jumped into the conversation with the contention that guns were necessary to protect us against evil people who may gain control of the government (I'm paraphrasing his argument for brevity). I found that proposition to be more than a little frightening. Who gets to decide who is evil and therefore worth defending with a gun? You are right. I don't know who "the people" are, except as their expression through democracy. If, despite living in a society that elects its governments through long-established democratic institutions, such as in the U.S., Canada and Europe, you feel the need to use a gun to protect yourself against your government then it means that you believe that democracy has broken down. If so, how do you measure the will of the people? Do you and a bunch of your friends get together and say "democracy has failed. We represent the people and this government is bad so we are going to start a revolution against it." Don't you find that frightening? You see, I too believe very strongly in democracy and do not take it as a joke. Since I turned voting age I have only missed voting in one election -- that includes federal, provincial and municipal elections. That one omission was due to a death in the family. I think that democracy is at the heart of all of the other things that are good about our societies. I think that we all need to protect it. I also think that the low voter turnouts in both of our countries is a sad commentary on our democracies, but that's another topic and this forum has already veered way too far off track. I just think that we need to explore ways to protect, enhance and expand democracy without violence and the threat of violence being the big gun (pun intended) that we use to do so.

[J.Pluta]

Good Versus Evil

Nobody else does either. We just know what did happen. However, reasonable people can extrapolate from historical data, and historically two out of three colonial continents were turned into a patchwork of warring colonial nations. North America was headed exactly the same direction until the United States basically kicked everyone out. I just don't know. But my scenario is far more plausible than yours, and backed up by two other continents. Actually, I suspect that they teach considerably more about the American Revolution in Canadian schools than they teach about Canadian history in American schools. Ah, you just didn't listen. Forums attached to my articles have this weird tendency to go off on bizarre and unexpected tangents. I wonder what the common denominator is? Do you and a bunch of your friends get together and say "democracy has failed. We represent the people and this government is bad so we are going to start a revolution against it." Don't you find that frightening? No, I find that as fundamental to the process of freedom as the man standing in front of the tanks. As long as the government they intend to replace the current one with is a representative one, then I have no problem with the concept. Joe P.S. I'm ignoring the gun control issue. If you choose to continue that conversation, don't roll your eyes with amazement at the "tangents" your columns take .

[David Abramowitz]

Good Versus Evil

Joe Pluta wrote: However, reasonable people can extrapolate from historical data Reasonable people can play all sorts of games coming to conclusions that don't mean much. This is far better done after two or seven beers. And after watching the Jets blow a big one in OT, that's just what I'm gonna do. Dave

[J.Pluta]

Good Versus Evil

Reasonable people can play all sorts of games coming to conclusions that don't mean much. Extrapolation is not game playing, it's a reasoned exercise of intellect. My observation that without a strong local stabilizing influence colonization tends to lead to highly fragmented continents is simply that: an extrapolation. And while it may not mean much to you, I found it relevant, and I'll rely on that as my benchmark. This is far better done after two or seven beers. If, after seven beers, you discuss colonization and continental fragmentation, then dude, you are one party ANIMAL. Joe

[J.Klebanoff]

Good Versus Evil

Joe said:

reasonable people can extrapolate from historical data, and historically two out of three colonial continents were turned into a patchwork of warring colonial nations.

I'm going to be taking a short vacation in Southern California at the end of this month. I don't plan to extrapolate the temperature there from the weather trends as I get on the plane in Toronto. For extrapolation to produce a result that comes even close to being valid other than purely by chance, the starting conditions and mechanisms at work have to be identical or at least similar. The cultures and numbers of the indigenous peoples, the numbers of colonists, the socio-economic conditions, the geography, the natural resources, the nature of the colonial government and probably a number of other factors were all different in the other two continents that use as your basis for extrapolation. Why would you think that they have any relevance in extrapolating what would have happened in North America had the American revolution not occurred? I would contend that the starting conditions were closer in one colonial continent that we haven't mentioned, Australia (although that is still far from a perfect benchmark since it was initially used by Britain primarily as a penal colony, which might have influenced the course of its history). Australia achieved its independence fairly peacefully and it has remained fairly peaceful since. I've never visited, but from what I can tell they seem to be doing OK, so now the score is tied 2-2. That hardly suggests that one would make a better basis for extrapolation than another. Even if you can find similar situations, in complex systems (what could be more complex than political, international and human relationships?) with an almost infinite number of variables (every action of every individual, the weather, tectonic forces -- everything -- effects the outcome), many interactions among variables, and considerable randomness (if Christopher Columbus had not received funding or his ships had sunk before ever crossing the Atlantic, I think the history of the Americas would have been somewhat different), extrapolation is not likely to produce a valid result, particularly when played out over a couple of hundred years, because the chaos theory comes into play. A very small variation in one of the variables can ripple out to cause an exceptionally large variation in the outcome.

But my scenario is far more plausible than yours, and backed up by two other continents.

I didn't present a scenario. I presented three and only as an illustration that there were many possible outcomes. Clearly there are many more possible scenarios. As to the "backed up by two other continents, see above.

Ah, you just didn't listen.

I didn't say that Canadian schools taught me as much American history as American schools taught you (or that they put the same spin on the interpretation of the meaning of the events). I just said that I suspected that they taught me more American history than they taught you Canadian history. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that they would have had to teach us much American history for that statement to be true. (Before anyone jumps on me, as I said in my early post, given the relative size, economies and powers of Canada and the U.S., I do think that situation is right and just.) I readily and gladly bow to your vastly superior knowledge of American history.

I wonder what the common denominator is?

You are absolutely right Joe. I should learn to appreciate the fact that my readers spend time contemplating such a broad range of issues. (Even if, on the rare occasion, some of their thoughts scare the crap out of me.) Actually, my self-esteem is such that I'm amazed to learn that anyone reads my columns at all.

No, I find that as fundamental to the process of freedom as the man standing in front of the tanks.

I too honor the man standing in front of the tanks and think him brave and fighting a just cause. That is one of the images that will be burned into the human psyche for some time to come. However, this conversation got started when somebody suggested free access to guns was necessary to protect us against the possibility that our currently democratic governments will be taken over by tyrants. The man standing in front of the tank was unarmed. His was a Gandhi-like act, not an American Revolution-like act. Of course, while he stopped the tanks, Tiananmen Square still happened and China still abuses human rights and is still undemocratic, so his gesture ultimately failed. So are you saying that citizens should equip themselves with weapons sufficiently powerful to counter tanks, since that is what is in the hands of governments?

As long as the government they intend to replace the current one with is a representative one, then I have no problem with the concept.

I get back to how this conversation started -- citizens owning guns to protect themselves against governments that are currently democratic becoming tyrannical. Who gets to decide that our governments are no longer representative and that the new one will be? In the case of China, where the man stood in front of the tank, I think that it is obvious to every rational human being that the senior level of government is not representative (although some members of the Chinese Communist Party might disagree with me). But the thread that led here was talking about the situation in North America. Someone suggested that people needed guns in America because there was still the danger, however remote, that tyrants may in the future maneuver to take control of the government. So I ask again, who gets to decide that our government, despite going through the pretence of democratic elections, is no longer representative and therefore an armed insurrection is justified? Me, you, Timothy McVeigh, somebody else? I'm sorry Joe, but you haven't yet calmed my fears.

[J.Pluta]

Good Versus Evil

I'm going to be taking a short vacation in Southern California at the end of this month. I don't plan to extrapolate the temperature there from the weather trends as I get on the plane in Toronto. The starting points of Africa, South America and North America were about as similar as you would be able to get, especially given the context of the discussion. Far more similar than the climate of Toronto and Southern California. I get back to how this conversation started -- citizens owning guns to protect themselves against governments that are currently democratic becoming tyrannical. Actually, I specifically avoided the guns issue. That's your particular hot button. I got into this conversation because you implied that the American Revolution was unnecessary, because Canada became independent without a revolution. I think your comparison is inaccurate and your logic flawed, and I stated why. What I find odd is that you compare two completely different situations (Canada being given home rule by Britain in the late 19th century and America throwing off colonial rule in the 1700s), yet you get on my case for comparing three very similar circumstances (the colonization of Africa, North America and South America during the European imperialism of the 18th century). Which is it? Can you compare things that are not exactly alike, or not? Isn't your comparison of Canada and America closer to comparing the temperatures of Toronto and SoCal than my comparison of European colonization of the various continents? Who gets to decide that our governments are no longer representative and that the new one will be? The People. Those who are being governed. The Declaration of Independence wasn't written in a shack in the woods, it was written as a common treatise among the involved parties. It wasn't easy to write, nor was it easy to get the people to sign on. Heck, even after Independence was declared, there were still loyalists. But the majority of the people chose to secede, and secede they did. Me, you, Timothy McVeigh, somebody else? I'm sorry Joe, but you haven't yet calmed my fears. I doubt anything could calm your fears, especially if you're unable to determine the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Timothy McVeigh. Joe

[J.Klebanoff]

Good Versus Evil

The starting points of Africa, South America and North America were about as similar as you would be able to get

I beg to differ. The cultures of the indigenous peoples of Africa were very different than those of North & South America. Not necessarily better or worse, just different and that has to effect the post-colonial period. And the form that colonization took in each continent also varied. I still contend that the situation in Australia was more similar to the one in North America than the situation of Africa versus North America, so why don't you use Australia as the basis for your extrapolation? I just don't think that extrapolation serves much purpose when you are talking about such complex systems as political, international and human relations with even slightly different starting points and even slightly different geo-political mechanisms at work. It goes back to the chaos theory. In exceptionally complex systems, very small variations in inputs can result in huge differences in outputs. As to my use of the weather in Southern California versus Toronto, it was merely an analogy for a complex system. Forget about it if you have a problem with it.

I got into this conversation because you implied that the American Revolution was unnecessary

If I implied that the revolution was unnecessary, I apologize. As I've said before in this thread and others, I think that the result was excellent and the founding principles of the U.S. are second to none in the world. I'm not saying that just to get you off my back. I mean that. I was responding to your contention that Canada likely would not exist as an independent country if there hadn't been an American Revolution. What I said was that I don't know and that I don't think that extrapolation provides a particularly accurate answer to that question.

I doubt anything could calm your fears, especially if you're unable to determine the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Timothy McVeigh.

I have absolutely no difficulty distinguishing between Thomas Jefferson and Timothy McVeigh. And I have absolutely no idea how you could have assumed that I was equating the two. If that was the impression that I left then I apologize. My point was, didn't Timothy McVeigh rationalize (although I'm uncomfortable using the word "rationale" in this context) what he did with the thought that the government no longer represented the people and they had to be stopped. In a letter that he asked a friend to give to a British newspaper (I'm quoting from an article on the BBC website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1321244.stm): he explains that he lost patience after waiting for the government to apologize for Waco. "I reached the decision to go on the offensive - to put a check on government abuse of power, where others had failed in stopping the federal juggernaut running amok," he said. ... He thought that the government had gotten out of hand and had to be stopped. Clearly, I disagree with his "thinking." But in his deranged mind, he thought that he was acting on behalf of "The People". You keep saying "The People" as if that answers all questions. IT DOES NOT. Who gets to speak for the people, if not the duly elected government? Timothy McVeigh apparently thought that he was acting on behalf of The People. This conversation got started because someone suggested that people needed access to weapons (I know that you don't want to use the "gun" word) to protect themselves against the possibility of a tyrannical government coming to power. You refuse to answer how you gauge the will of "The People" if not through democratic elections. You just throw out the phrase "The People". And, if you DO trust democratic elections, then why do citizens need weapons (guns or any other) to protect themselves against an elected government? My point was that if you are not willing to define how this revolutionary will of "The People" can be expressed against a sitting government when the electoral system is claimed by some (everybody is one of "The People", after all) to no longer represent the will of The People, then aren't you giving sanction, at least in their very sick minds, to people like Timothy McVeigh. And, if you aren't able to say when the will of "The People" has been expressed and when it has not other than through the existing democratic process, then who gets to decide who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist?

[thomconlon@aol.com]

Good Versus Evil

Well, you need a pick-me-up on the good uses of technology. I urge you to read Robert X. Cringely's comments on "Open Source Development as a Substitute for Political Will". You can find a reference in this article: I, Cringely | PBS Here is an excerpt that should restore your faith in mankind and technology. "The Open Tsunami Alert System has a blog and a Wiki (they are in this week's links) and is gaining some real momentum, not just because it is a good idea but also because it fills a crucial vacuum."

[J.Pluta]

Good Versus Evil

You keep saying "The People" as if that answers all questions. IT DOES NOT. Who gets to speak for the people, if not the duly elected government? This is simply bizarre to me. I honestly don't think we have any common ground on which to build, Joel. But I'll try. First, there WAS no "duly elected government" over the colonies. The whole taxation without representation thing was the crux of that particular situation. So let's assume that you weren't carping about the American Revolutionaries. If not, then the only possible thing you could be afraid of now is that the second amendment is a precursor to a bunch of armed maniacs storming Capitol Hill and taking over the American government if they don't pass a decent prescription drugs bill. That's really not what the second amendment folks are on about. What they're saying is that, despite the great success of the American system up until this point, there is still the outside chance that something bad might happen. Let's say some Ludlum-esque plot manages to get a bunch of Communists (or Hollywood types) in the Oval Office as well as the Congress and the Supreme Court. And let's say that this group declares martial law and suspends all elections, appointing Governor Schwarzenegger as Supreme Commander For Life. At that point, I'd fully expect the masses to rise up and toss the bum out on his ear, but without guns there's a good chance that wouldn't happen. Just to be complete, there is another scenario that justifies the second amendment. Let's say a terrorist attack manages to completely obliterate the White House and the Pentagon. If you'll recall, there's a good chance that this was exactly the plan of the 9/11 bombings. Tie that with some financial panic and perhaps a crippling of communications via a simple but massive EMP, and you have chaos and the setup for a full-scale invasion of the American mainland. At that point, it would be a good thing for America if the regular citizen was armed. And yes, Joel, I can use the word gun. I can discuss gun control, gun safety issues, and the evidence for and against negligent behavior on the part of handgun manufacturers. I can also intelligently distinguish between rifles, handguns and assault weapons (or even truckloads of oil and fertilizer). However, I won't get into those discussions here, because they've got damned little to do with the issue that I had clearly focused on, which was whether or not armed revolution is ever necessary. Timothy McVeigh apparently thought he was acting on behalf of The People. I've made it entirely clear under which circumstances I find insurrection to be acceptable: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Does this sound like Timothy McVeigh to you? If so, you and I have little more to talk about. If, however, you are willing to concede that the writers of the above paragraph had a justified grievance, then perhaps we can continue. Working forward with this frame of reference, do you think the American Revolution could have been won had the colonists been unable to bear arms? Hardly. And indeed, in nearly every fight for independence, armed insurrection has been necessary. And thus the second amendment. Anyway, enough on this. As far as I know, I don't need guns to protect myself from the American government, but there is always the chance that my government will be corrupted, destroyed or disabled. And if that ever happens, my friend, guns will be a good thing to have. Joe

[J.Klebanoff]

Good Versus Evil

Thom, Thanks for that reference. It is good to see technology being put to a good use, a use that will hopefully help to make the world a little better place. I particularly liked the last paragraph:

For the kind of people who make projects like OTAS a success, there is also a lot of benefit that can come from doing good. Charlie Martin was two weeks ago an unemployed developer looking for work. Today he is an unemployed developer looking for work who is also the lead OTAS architect. Though I've never even met the guy, by the time this is over and OTAS is up and running, I'll bet Charlie has a job.

Thanks also for bringing us back on topic. I don't in any way own this forum. It is the property of MC Press. I'm a freelance writer for them and participation in these forums was never discussed as part of my gig. So anybody is free to use it to discuss whatever they want and I, despite my better judgment, will often take the bait. That being said, I must admit to feeling a bit of a false sense of ownership of the forums attached to my columns. When I wrote this particular article, I didn't know if anybody would carry the conversation forward in the forum, but I was hoping that if anybody did, it would be more along the lines of what you added. Thanks!

[J.Pluta]

Good Versus Evil

I was responding to your contention that Canada likely would not exist as an independent country if there hadn't been an American Revolution. What I said was that I don't know and that I don't think that extrapolation provides a particularly accurate answer to that question. I wanted to break this topic off, because it's a different issue entirely. I said "Instead, there's at least as good a chance that ..." having the US as a stable "superpower" on the continent in turn helped Canada's stability. Thought exercise: rather than a large, homogenous country to the south, picture a situation where the west coast was Spanish, Montana and the Dakotas were English, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois were a German colony, Pennsylvania and New York were owned by the Dutch, and Vermont and Maine were French. Under these circumstances, do you think Quebec would still be a part of Canada? Finally, the Australia issue. Australia is unique in the annals of history. It was never an amalgam of warring interests, unless you consider the interests of the imperialists vs. the indigenous peoples (in that context, they are similar to the sad state of affairs the world over). It was six separate British colonies that eventually just sort of "became" independent. In fact, there IS no Australian independence day. To my mind, it's unlikely that this particular series of events is likely to ever have occurred anywhere else. Joe

[J.Klebanoff]

Good Versus Evil

there WAS no "duly elected government" over the colonies.

You're mixing up two conversations here. When there is no duly elected government then I have no problem recognizing that is not a government that represents the people and that a popular revolution would be acceptable. I said in my last post that I'm happy with the result of the American Revolution.

What they're saying is that, despite the great success of the American system up until this point, there is still the outside chance that soothing bad might happen. Let's say some Ludlum-esque plot manages to get a bunch of Communists (or Hollywood types) in the Oval Office as well as the Congress and the Supreme Court. And let's say that this group declares martial law and suspends all elections, appointing Governor Schwarzenegger as Supreme Commander For Life. At that point, I'd fully expect the masses to rise up and toss the bum out on his ear, but without guns there's a good chance that wouldn't happen.

Fine, if that exceptionally unlikely event ever happens then I will agree with you that there is no duly elected government and the one that is there deserves to be subject to a popular revolution. At that point, call me up and I'll come down and help you with your revolution if you think that I can be of any assistance whatsoever. I don't own or know how to fire a gun and, even if I did, I am not sure that I would ever be able to kill another human being no matter how noble the cause, but I'd be happy to come down and barbeque some hamburgers and serve beer to your revolutionaries. It would, under the circumstances that you described, definitely be a noble cause.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Ah, see here's where I begin to have a wee bit of a problem. Who gets to define what is an abuse and what is just a bad judgment on the part of the government. I bet that I could name a number of things that the government (yours or mine, I could probably do lists for both) has done which I think were an abuse of their powers and/or really bad policy. I'm willing to bet that you could name a few too, whether it’s the current administration or any other one, you pick. I suspect that our lists would differ, but we could both come up with lists. When are they abuses worth fighting (physically, not just verbally) for and when are they just bad judgments that we don't like, but which we accept from our governments? And when does a few abuses become a long train of them? And, more importantly, the question that I keep asking, who gets to decide on the answers to those questions when the situation is somewhat less than your Ludlum-esque scenario?

And if that ever happens, my friend, guns will be a good thing to have.

Guns are a red herring in this discussion. I don't care whether you use guns for your revolution or you, as trained Karate experts, use your bare hands to overthrow the government. The question is who gets to decide where the line is between a few really bad judgments by the government and a train of abuses and usurpations, and who gets to decide when we've crossed that line? And, while we're on it let's talk about that red herring. We're not back at the American Revolution when a few muskets (yes, yes, I know that's an exaggeration) were enough to run the British out of town. Governments today have at their disposal tanks, fighter jets, rockets, grenades, missiles, atomic bombs and a whole host of weaponry that I know nothing about. If you ever do reach the point where you feel that it is necessary to counter an evil government with force, I don't think that your guns will do you all that much more good than a wet noodle.

[J.Pluta]

Good Versus Evil

And, more importantly, the question that I keep asking, who gets to decide on the answers to those questions when the situation is somewhat less than your Ludlum-esque scenario? And I think we may be finally coming closer to some sort of understanding. In my mind, I can think of no "non-Ludlum-esque" situation in which I would advocate insurrection. Up until that point, it's battle by ballot, baby. That's what our forefathers fought for, after all. But since you're such a nutball for specifics, let me turn the question back on you. You say you agree that the American Revolutionaries were correct in their actions, and that Tim McVeigh wasn't. Where on the spectrum in between do YOU think actions cross over from freedom fighting to terrorism? What is YOUR specific, objective qualification? How do YOU distinguish between Jefferson and McVeigh? Because if you can't give a quantitative answer then it's perhaps a bit unfair that you ask others to do so. Me, I just think there are occasions when revolution is required, and like pornography, I may not be able to define it, but I'll know it when I see it . (This, I hope you recognize, is a paraphrase of Justice Stewart's concurrence in Jacobellis vs. Ohio, so I'm not being entirely facetious here.) Given human nature, one must always be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best, and the right to bear arms recognizes the former. And in a way, I guess one's personal decision to not do so would epitomize the latter. Joe

[J.Klebanoff]

Good Versus Evil

I tried to get to sleep early last night (which was before I saw your most recent posting) because I'm fighting off a cold. I tried to sleep, but failed because I was troubled by our discussion. Something bothered me about your thinking, but I couldn't figure out precisely what it was. After lying awake thinking about it (and not successfully fighting off my cold), I feel that I have a clearer understanding now. Your comments up until your most recent post led me to think that you believe that we live in a world of only extremes. Either there is a government that represents the people, and that situation is so clear that everyone with half a mind recognizes it, or there is not a representative government and, again the situation is so clear that everyone with half a mind recognizes it. (That still leaves us with the problem of what to do with people who have less than half a mind, but that's another discussion) Of course, life is not like that. We live in a world of infinitesimal variation and infinite possibilities. Yet, we still have to come to a decision that this person is a freedom fighter for what he or she does and that person is a terrorist for what he or she does.

Up until that point, it's battle by ballot, baby.

If you are saying that whenever there is a ballot that you will accept that, then I'm a little more comfortable, but even then I don't think that always provides the correct answer, and I'm not just trying to play devil's advocate here. There is often a question of whether or not the ballot is valid. Ukraine is an obvious example. There was fraud in the first ballot. The people peacefully protested and justice prevailed. But what if it is not so clear-cut? What if it isn't intentional fraud, but rather ballots were inadvertently lost or the voter's intention was not clear to everyone (hanging chads come to mind)? What if there were enough of those cases to affect the outcome of the election? If a group of patriots thought that, as a result, the elected government did not represent The People, would an armed revolt be in order? How do we answer that question? And even if there is no election fraud or errors and a government is duly elected and continues to act on the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box, does that mean that there is never a just cause for revolution against it? What if the duly elected government was elected on a platform of "kill all x" where x is some minority racial, religious or ethnic group? What if the government then held a referendum specifically confirming that platform? If they then started to carry out that platform, wouldn't a revolution against them still be justified even though they were elected by an honest ballot? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any cases where genocide was carried out quite so democratically, but I can think of a couple of cases where it did happen without a referendum and the conditions were such that it might still have happened had elections and referendums been held to approve the policy. Rwanda and Nazi Germany come to mind. You would probably say that yes, revolution is justified in those situations. I know that I would. But again, what if it weren't so extreme? What if instead of saying "kill all x" they said, "enslave all x". I might still think armed revolution is justified, others might not. What if instead of "enslave all x" it is "don't bother building good schools or hiring good teachers where x tends to live"? I think that is definitely still worthy of some level of protest, but full-scale armed revolt? I am less certain at that point. You say that I'm a nutball for specifics. I'll ignore the personal insult of "nutball", but yes, I used to be a programmer many years ago, which leads me to favor specifics since computers have a hard time dealing with ambiguity. It would certainly make me very happy if you could provide a formula, a formula that is clearly just, that said "If (a + b * c / d > x) then {revolution} else {no revolution}", where a, b, c, d are political and societal variables that can be measured precisely and x is a threshold value. But, of course, that is impossible. You say that I'm a nutball for specifics, but that is not true. What bothers me, and if I've been misreading you then I apologize, is that your thesis seems to be that we can just merrily act as if there are clearly recognizable specifics. You put forward the formula of "When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." and treat that as if it is the same as "If (a + b * c / d > x) then {revolution} else {no revolution}". You seemed, to me at least, to be saying "the formula is there so we should just accept it and move on." It is not just inputs that can't be precisely defined. The appropriate response can't be precisely formulated either. I think that there is NEVER a time when it is inappropriate to verbally criticize a government policy if you truly believe that the policy is deserving of criticism. Nonetheless, there are some people who disagree with my belief and have, in the past, labeled mere verbal criticism as "unpatriotic". To my way of thinking, if you truly believe that the government is doing something that is unjust, the MOST patriotic thing that you can do is say so. Beyond verbal criticism, but before armed revolt there is non-violent civil disobedience, such as sitting down and blocking traffic--or, yes, standing unarmed in front of a tank. There are times when that is morally justified and there are times when the people committing those acts are properly labeled as nothing more than troublemakers. How do you differentiate the two? I don't know, but I believe that it is important to think about the distinction, rather than just accept that the difference will always be obvious.

Where on the spectrum in between do YOU think actions cross over from freedom fighting to terrorism? What is YOUR specific, objective qualification? How do YOU distinguish between Jefferson and McVeigh?

I readily admit that I don't have those answers. That troubles me. But it troubles me even more to think that you think that you do have the answers and, therefore, it is not in need of any more thought. Personally, I doubt that the answers are knowable, but I do believe that we still have to consider the issues.

Because if you can't give a quantitative answer then it's perhaps a bit unfair that you ask others to do so.

I'm not asking you to give a quantitative answer. What I'm asking you to do is admit that there isn't one and that we (by "we" I don't mean you and me, but society as a whole) need to spend a lot more time thinking about it, discussing it and figuring out how we can answer these questions without blowing each other up, because we will, from time-to-time, have to answer them.

Me, I just think there are occasions when revolution is required, and like pornography, I may not be able to define it, but I'll know it when I see it .

My problem with leaving at just "I'll know it when I see it" is that Timothy McVeigh was convinced that he saw it. I'm in no way trying to equate you with Timothy McVeigh. You probably deplore his actions as much as I do. What I'm saying is that if we just leave it at "I'll know it when I see it", then we are in for some exceptionally dangerous times because there are, no doubt, more Timothy McVeighs out there and most of them are probably convinced that they are not Timothy McVeighs, but rather freedom fighters, because they "know it when they see it." No, I don't have all the answers. Hell, I probably don't even have one. But I'm not convinced that you or anyone else does either. Let's face it, you and I are relative nobodies in the grand context of the broad geo-political mish mash, but I think that our conversation is a small part (a very small part) of the solution and it is important that the conversation and ones like it be undertaken throughout society. No, I still don't have any of the answers at the end of this conversation (are we at the end?), but, yes, I do think that it is vital to seriously consider these issues when we live in a world that is comprised of more than just extremes.

[J.Pluta]

Good Versus Evil

Joel, you gotta lighten up a bit . "A nutball for specifics" is no more derogatory than "those with less than half a mind". You seem to me to be a born worrier, and you expect others to do for you that which you cannot do for yourself (is that the definition of a Liberal?). You get upset because I don't have the answers, and yet you don't have any either. And actually, I DO have an answer... "it depends". Rather than try and create some hard and fast rule which requires no meaningful discourse at the time of application, I instead opt for the idea that each circumstance must be taken on its own merits, and that we as a People will eventually determine the right course of action. It sometimes takes a while, as in Civil Rights. It sometimes even comes a bit too late, as in Native American Rights. But I trust that a democratic society will make the right choices. At the same time, there's no set of rules that says "these are the absolute and only circumstances under which revolution may occur." One simple reason is that I have no crystal ball, and I can't see future situations that might occur. But I can give you an example. Your bit about the elections is one that I can address. If I find that some folks in a district in Florida are misrepresenting vote counts, I arrest them and throw them in jail. There is no reason to talk about insurrection or rebellion; it's just typically human bad behavior. If, however, in the course of investigating the vote fraud people begin to disappear, and there are reports of people grabbed off the streets by men in suits driving black vans, then I begin to suspect governmental abuse. And that would be cause to being to think about more drastic measures. Does that make sense? Joe