: : There is always going to be corruption, but then, who is to what is and what is not corrupt. FOr instance, Barry considers morality to be merely human constructs that are dictated by the economic/social relations and dialectic materialism (I am getting good at the Marxspeak!) while I believe they are absolutes based upon man's nature. His conclusion is that it is okay to have a bloody revolution and that they are exceptable measures, while my conclusion is that morality will not (should not) change over time.
: Then your admiration for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is hypocritical, David. Both documents were very much the product of a 'bloody revolution.' Do not forget that King George, the ultimate symbol of monarchal oppression, also thought that 'morality' should not change over time; had his 'morality' prevailed, there would have been no U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Sorry Barry, I had made a mistake while typing that. I did not mean to say that I was against revolutions (they almost always include violence) but that I am against the idea of killing people because there is conflicting ideology. (How does that Lenin quote go again? Something about hanging 100 kulaks per day regardless of their alleged crimes in order to send a message, my copy of Lenin's biography is somewhere else). For instance, during the revolution monarchists were not mass murdered or hung in public demonstrations (There were a few instances of violence, granted, but it was persecution). Anyways, I believe that force should only be used for self-defense, and only after you have sought other, non-violent, means.
Sorry for the misunderstaning Barry.