[MD] loose change

[Stella Lindblom]

Den 2006-10-09 22:00:28 skrev Gene M <boredandunstable at gmail.com>:

>> Is it morally right by the government to do practically anything to
>> preserve their power? Is it morally right for people to question this
>> behaviour?

> Socially, it seems like it is completely moral for a
> government to try and retain it's static latch, it is essentially it's
> purpose. However conspiracy theories, to me, are moral in that they
> are intellectual patterns of value trying to assail a social pattern
> that they perceive as immoral. Thus the actions they take in
> attempting to topple a social pattern are intrinsically moral.
>
> Since the loose change ideas are of low
> Quality to my perception, I oppose them.

So, the LC people are morally right in their actions, but their product is  
of low moral quality? I can live with that.

> The fact that in so doing I
> am essentially supporting the government is not something I worry
> about. I still disapprove of the government on pretty much everything
> else, just in this case, I think they're being illegitimately
> attacked.

So, if the LC people had tried to oppose the government in another  
question than this, they would be morally right, then? Or, rather, the  
quality of their attempt to topple a social pattern would be moral, as any  
attempt at keeping a government on it's toes would be morally right?

When I first saw the Twin Towers topple, I thought "This is not right.  
They are not supposed to do that." This was not a "right" as in morally  
right, but a purely technical "structures don't do that if they are not  
deliberately helped to do so" kind of right from my experience as an  
engineer. As a student of political science, I am also aware of power  
structures and ideological projections on the world around us. Let's agree  
on that there is a Truth about this situation that is not widely spread -  
if anybody at all have the whole picture. Nobody on this list have all the  
evidence, so a discussion on what is true or not is only time consuming  
and counterproductive, as it is not within the limits of this group to  
discuss conspiracy theories. But it is within the scope of this list to  
discuss conspiracy theories _as such_ and the moral quality of them. I'm  
reiterating this just in case, because I don't want to discuss the  
details, as I have no clue to what is true or false in this mess. 'Nuf  
said, and back to the last passage:

"So, if the LC people had tried to oppose the government in another  
question than this, they would be morally right, then? Or, rather, the  
quality of their attempt to topple a social pattern would be moral, as any  
attempt at keeping a government on it's toes would be morally right?"

Would there be any difference, between what would constitute a  
"sufficiently high moral" to oppose a government if the government were  
perceived as morally sound or not? (NB. Not saying anything about the  
current regime.) Would it be morally sound to oppose a tyranny in _any_  
case, but a semi-tyranny only in some cases? And who were to decide on  
what cases the opposition would be morally high, how and when?

I guess what I'm trying to divest is the limits of democratic behaviour.  
When are we as citizens in our right to oppose what we feel is not right?  
Who or what is to decide on how morally correct our assumptions and  
opposition is?

Just trying to get the hang of it,
Stella