Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
I would love to say that all good intentions turn out for the best. I would love to say that the majority of people can decide what’s best for everyone. I would love to say that we can trust our governments to stop when enough is enough. The disappointing truth is that none of these statements are correct.
It doesn’t matter how good your intentions are, when you give away your ability to choose what’s best for yourself to our governments then you give away your ability to choose anything that’s best for you.
When you roll over and acquiesce to a majority rule then you give away your ability to choose how you always want to be ruled.
When you desperately believe that our governments will stop when enough is enough then you give away your ability stop evil and abuse by those very governments.
When you give away your ability to choose then you choose to become responsibly disabled.
I can sympathise and empathise with people who want to see guns removed from society. There is a natural fear of what can go wrong that they desperately want to avoid. Guns become the focus because it is more palatable than addressing the real, underlying causes.
The majority often does a reasonable job of determining some general guidelines for society. This is not particularly surprising as most of us are similar in many areas of beliefs and morals. Disturbingly, many people do not understand that individuals can co-exist harmlessly with the majority even when there is a difference in beliefs and morals. To force everyone to comply with the majority’s wishes is repugnant, short-sighted and narrow minded.
To believe that governments will stop when enough is enough is fairly easy to understand. Yet, the history of humanity and it’s governments is the insidious proof that this is naïve and dangerous thinking. There are probably several examples of governments stopping short of the precipice, yet history (both past and present) is tormented with examples of governments sending their subjects to their doom.
So when you argue with me about a subject as narrow as controlling a piece of machinery (guns) for the good of all then please don’t be surprised if I smile and nod, turn my other cheek and hope fervently that you’ll examine the complete ramifications of the Genie you propose to unleash on the world you purport to love.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
History has demonstrated repeatedly that religion can be abused to commit crimes and hate against innocents and innocence. Fundamental Christians and Fundamental Muslims today show that this treachery against harmony and self actualisation is still possible.
History has also demonstrated that the bones of common decency and self responsibility can be sadistically snapped in the interest of National Security.
When I put the testing questions: "Is it justified?"; "If justified, will it fix the problem?" against the sorry lineup of National Security's foul ups, I find it wanting. Not always, just nearly always.
When those in power are virtually absolved of responsibility by the apathy and inactions of those who serve them (the sheeple) then an outcome of abuse is a natural evolution.
At the very least, I feel I am obliged to think about what is on the spoon that is attempting to ram down my throat.
There's always another way to look at a problem.
The debate over stem cell research is being whipped to fluffy peaks by the mixer of religious zealotry. I can't help but be reminded of the joke where a preacher is sitting on top of his flooded house, about to be drowned by the rising water. He knocks back 3 rescue boats while crying out "No, I'm going to keep praying, God will save me!" When he drowns and comes face to face with God he asks "Why didn't you save me God?" God snorts and retorts "I sent you 3 boats."