Jerusalem: An
Opportunity
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Throughout
the world, the members of factions in conflict don't really seem to want
to solve their defining problems. Instead, they seem to want their
faction to dominate the other faction. In such situations, compromise
is probably impossible. It's more likely that problem resolutions,
imposed by third-parties and perceived as compromise, will merely force
the conflict into the future, perpetuating it. In such situations,
some result other than either conflict or compromise should be sought.
Jerusalem appears to be at the center of such a conflict. It doesn't
seem like a compromise is possible, only various levels of conflict into
the foreseeable future. I have a suggestion.
Jerusalem
could become a self-governing, politically independent city-state, with
its own laws, its own citizenship requirements, and so forth. Neither
the Israelis nor the Palestinians would like the situation, but at least
it would remove Jerusalem from the list of trophies to be won by conflict.
Neither faction could have it, but everyone could visit it. The city-state
would be governed not by Israelis or Palestinians, but by its own citizens
I don't necessarily like the idea, but only because it violates my
own theory about social contract government. However, it might
be centuries yet before that theory receives a fair hearing, so in the
meantime, a self-governing city-state is probably the best resolution that
is realistically possible.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
Letters to the Editor
I
really liked what that guy had to say about "the
level playing field."
best
regards,
Bob; San Jose, California
Bob's
comment is in response to the untitled reprint, in the July issue, page
2, of a newspaper article that was forwarded by Eric, of Calipatria, California.
editor
Dear Sam
A
basic principle of modern democracy is: all men are created equal.
That doesn't mean we all have the same talents. It was Rousseau who
said that democracy would give men the most freedom, contrary to Plato's
warning that democracy is always "mob-ocracy", i.e. the "tyranny
of the majority." The modern, Jeffersonian "cure" is indeed
supposed
to be the Bill of Rights, but of course the Bill of Rights too
is often "weasel words." There is something wrong with a country
that says: "all men are created equal," but allows non-whites, women,
gays, intellectuals to be insulted, abused, robbed, persecuted. The
ignorant have their right to talk trash, but we don't have our "equal"
right to respond, in a media that, from the NY Times to the Frontiersman,
is so intent on protecting the freedom of the John Rockers of the country.
You all are simply protecting the stupid, the ignorant, the vulgar, from
Rocker to Jr Bush; this is the essence of "mob-ocracy." Meanwhile
Christianity & the UN are indeed in a millennial death-struggle.
Sincerely,
Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
A
government powerful enough to prevent non-whites, women, homosexuals, and
intellectuals from being insulted, abused, robbed, or persecuted would
also be a government powerful enough to enslave us all, including non-whites,
women, homosexuals, and intellectuals. If you want to prevent the
evils of which you complain, then don't expect the government to do it
for you. Fix it yourself.
You
should be happy that I'm interested in the rights of the stupid, the ignorant,
and the vulgar. Who knows? Maybe I count you among them.
If I don't, then somebody else, somewhere else, surely will.
Remember this. Aryeh Neier, of the American Civil Liberties Union,
once said "The defense of civil liberties, by definition, involves the
defense of persons who are most despised by the public."
When
"perverts" don't have a right to publish "pornography", then (eventually)
nobody will have a right to publish anything. All publication will
be a regulated privilege. When irate baseball players don't have
the right to state their own annoying opinions in public, then (eventually)
nobody will have the right to state his opinion in public. All such
statement of opinion will be a regulated privilege. When wild eyed,
foaming-at-the-mouth, arm-waving radicals (like me) don't have the right
to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, then (eventually) nobody
will have the right to advocate anything. All such advocacy will
be a regulated privilege. Those are facts.
editor
Dear
Frontiersman, .... Your articles are always good. I take that
to be a sign that all goes well with you.
Sincerely,
Shirley; Urbana, Illinois
Frontiersman@ida.net |
Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
August 2000
Page 3
|
|