1993-08-18 - Re: Violent overthrow?

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: fad7262cd1a93f96745a15443db0dd0d3d33dafdbfa63f75ec7bee20ccf9bb10
Message ID: <9308181653.AA20990@snark.lehman.com>
Reply To: <9308181629.AA16838@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-08-18 16:55:56 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 09:55:56 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 09:55:56 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Violent overthrow?
In-Reply-To: <9308181629.AA16838@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <9308181653.AA20990@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Paul L. Moses says:
> This may be a semantic point, but it should be made....  David
> Koontz sez: "Avoiding the appearance of endorsing the violent
> overthrow of government is prudent policy..."  Um...I think I know
> what you mean, but isn't it better to just say outright that
> violence really is not the way to reform government at all, save in
> truly historical, exceptional cases (American Revolution, French
> Revolution...)

I'm not sure either of those cases truly succeeded, either.

Myself, I feel that no good can be accomplished by initiating force
against others, no matter what the cause. Violent revolutions go
completely against my grain. Any sorts of reforms that will stick are
going to have to arise peacefully. This is not to say, of course, that
they will necessarily arise via the "democratic process". The
government may simply find itself outflanked, for instance. (Imagine
as an example if the government realized tomorrow that allowing
citizens to know how to read would be dangerous -- its a little late
to stop it, so they will never do anything about that.)