|
>> You said: "A negative answer means you are a redneck who thinks the purpose
>> of the war is to kill as many innocent Iraqis as possible." >> In that case wouldn't you pick a number bigger than the population of Iraq? Or
>> do you mean a negative correlation between killing innocent Iraqis and the war
>> being unjust. I would take a negative answer to mean the US somehow has to
>> raise the dead, i.e. those who argue that war is unjust because `sanctions have
>> killed millions of Iraquis`. Agreed - I really meant a negative correlation. >> And now for some comments on the definitions: >> You claim here that "you cannot morally own someone else" which seems
>> inconsistant with you definition of morality which states: >> * It is your right to do anything, except initiate force against
>> another person or their property. >> From this follows the corollaries: >> * You are responsible for all your own choices.
>> * You are not responsible for any of the choices of anyone else.
>> * More choice does not make you a victim. >> So while I would not choose to live in a country where adults could sell
>> themselves into slavery (that would certainly encourage careful reading of
>> small print) why is it immoral? How much freedom do you have if you cannot give
>> it away? Selling yourself into slavery is like consenting to being raped - it isn't rape
any more if you consent to it. >> I think the description is possibly a bit harsh on Africa I would be happy to change the entry if you could provide the name of one
successful African country. >> "Maintaining a military is a necessary overhead. Any nation which is wealthier
>> than its neighbors will be invaded almost immediately without a military
>> deterrent. Some libertarians believe that governments not take taxes to pay for
>> a military. In a perfect world (where no one had a military), this would be
>> fine, but in the existing international political climate it is just
>> naive. These people should either get a life, or end theirs." - Military . This
>> seems to have forgetten about Switzerland, which has done rather a good job of
>> not being invaded without having an army by simply arming the civilian
>> population and staying neutral unless attacked. While it may not be suitable
>> for say America due to international terrorism it has the advantage of
>> significantly favouring the defender. Switzerland does have an army - and every able-bodied adult male is in it.
It is true that the form of the army is very different to the form of most
modern Western armies. The people in the military in Australia and the US for
example are 'professional soldiers' - that's all they do. The Swiss have taken
a different approach - turning the whole population into amateur soldiers. Australia has a different history, and different situation, and a different
way of handling her defense. Australia has a history of fighting her wars
overseas, and an amateur army just isn't going to cut it. Fighting the
occasional war overseas is necessary for maintaining the allegiances. Your point is that we would be better off without the allegiances, which
would allow us to follow the Swiss model. I think the approach has merit, but it would be very dangerous. >> Have you been spending some time in the ministry of love learning to count for
>> this difinition. [prisons]. I feel like I'm in the ministry of love every time I turn on the ABC. Being
forced to pay taxes to professional victims so that the Australian government
can show how much we all care. >> Anyway, great site, kind of a 21st century Devil's Dictionary. Thanks for reading. I have modified the prisons
entry after I checked your reference. It was a bit scrappy. It was actually
two separate entries from old postings or emails which I just cut and pasted,
and forgot to merge. It reads a bit better now. >> Literal Elite Hmm .. sounds suspiciously like the intellectual elite
to me ..
| 
