[net.politics] you can keep your common guilt

trc (04/01/83)

Nuclear weapons are just that - weapons.  Creating such weapons is not 
a conspiracy to wantonly destroy cities and civilians, at least no more
than creating large supplies of conventional weapons.  And conspiracies, 
by definition, must be kept secret, not widely published as our Nuclear 
capability is.

Contributing money is only complicity when the thing contributed to
is wrong.

Taxes are NOT voluntary (try not paying yours if you dont believe me!) and
so are not contributions.  And the fact that we are a democracy does not
imply that I am willing to be taxed.  Many times citizens have opposed 
taxation, and governments have imposed taxes anyway, "for the good of the
citizens".

So much for common guilt.  If you are for supporting nuclear weapons,
and willingly pay taxes for that purpose, you are not supporting a
conspiracy.  If you oppose paying taxes but do it under duress, you
are not contributing willfully, and so would not be guilty anyway.

turner (04/04/83)

#R:houti:-24000:ucbesvax:7500001:000:1836
ucbesvax!turner    Apr  4 11:35:00 1983

	I have to agree here.  To accede is not to accept.  I am also
    dubious of the tactic of withholding "war taxes", since this is
    little more than a gesture of protest.  Nothing wrong with that,
    as far as it goes -- it just doesn't go too far.

	As for nuclear weapons being "just weapons", this is true.
    I note, for example, that Teddy Kennedy is able to put out a book
    (written over a couple weekends by his staff, no doubt) decrying
    the NUCLEAR arms race, while still supporting boosts in spending
    for "conventional" arms.  Well, if we already have nuclear overkill,
    and arms races (of whatever kind) lead to war, and war, at this
    point, could escalate into nuclear war, then how is Kennedy doing
    any good as a figurehead of the disarmament movement?  Clearly,
    he is working toward the most efficient way of getting into a
    potentially nuclear conflict.  Thanks a lot, Ted.

	(Cranston is no better: with all his nuclear disarmament talk,
    he still supports funding boosts for military aerospace -- as long as
    it's in California.)

	There is an interesting article in this month's New Republic,
    which looks at the Apocalyptic Consciousness movement on both
    the Right AND the Left.  I don't like this magazine very much,
    but it's important to be made to squirm with discomfort once in
    a while.  This one made me re-think a little.

	Nuclear holocaust is the great deferred spectacle of our time.
    We should be wary of attempts to capitalize on a vision of the
    future which paralyzes reason.  Herman Kahn is, I think, no less
    guilty of this kind of showmanship than Helen Caldicott.  My
    sympathies are more with Helen than Herman, but that doesn't
    mean I'm going to open myself to being manipulated by either.

	Michael Turner
	ucbvax!esvax:turner

cng (05/04/83)

What peace has Daniel Berrigan made recently?

And while were on the subject of priests, it seems the US catholic bishops
have finally gone on record as being for a bilateral halt to nuclear
weapons development and deployment.  Fortunately, for all intelligent
catholics, the resolution is not binding on the conscience of individuals.

It seems they feel that any use of nuclear weapons would be morally
offensive and that there is nothing in this world worth keeping that
would justify the use of them.  Even if our Constitution
identifies life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as being things to
cherish and defend, the bishops have adopted the old "better red than
dead" idea.

I wonder how they would feel if the US had developed the atomic bomb in
1942 and could have averted much of Hitler's insanity?

					Tom Albrecht