birdwatcher (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
birdwatcher) wrote2009-06-05 08:14 am
birdwatcher) wrote2009-06-05 08:14 am
Кинселла нарыл у Рэнд
Q: Assume the Soviet Union started a war of aggression; assume also that within the Soviet Union there are individuals opposed to communism. How do you handle this conflict?
AR: I'll pretend to take the question seriously, because it's blatantly wrong. The question assumes that an individual inside a country should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and that he accepts—willingly or unwillingly, because he hasn't left the country—and that others should respect his rights and succumb to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even if attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were correct, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we must care about the right social system, because our lives depend on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.
If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there—those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who's standing behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027012.html
AR: I'll pretend to take the question seriously, because it's blatantly wrong. The question assumes that an individual inside a country should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and that he accepts—willingly or unwillingly, because he hasn't left the country—and that others should respect his rights and succumb to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even if attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were correct, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we must care about the right social system, because our lives depend on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.
If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there—those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who's standing behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027012.html
no subject
no subject
Бывает еще такой вариант: во-первых, мы никогда в невиновных не стреляли, все клевета, а во-вторых, стрелять в невиновных следует, лучше всего прямо сейчас.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
я про предполагаемые действия.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
У нее красивые логические построения и ее интересно читать, но когда дело доходит до этики вообще и практических рекомендаций в частности вся логика саботируется нежеланием допустить даже возможность собственной неправоты, в результате чего в рекомендациях начисто отсутствует "коррекция на случай возможной ошибки в рассчетах"