From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 16:45:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: LIMBAUGH ON TV  [Political Rant]
Message-ID: <199607270636.XAA15627@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:27 PM 7/25/96 -0400, hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
>The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it
>is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional
>circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws.

I haven't seen society making laws recently; I've seen
societies tolerating governments and governments making laws,
generally to benefit one special interest or another, and I include 
bureaucratic growth and self-preservation as special interests.
I don't see how duty attaches to any of that.  Duty attaches
to keeping committments you've made to other people and
living up to your moral values, and in spite of government
telling me I've got a duty to it, I don't.

Meanwhile, society is a bunch of individuals and the interactions 
they have with each other.  If you want society to work well,
there are lots of things you can and should do to help - 
but duties are to individuals.  Letting other people live their
lives in peace may count as a duty - and if it does, then
governments have the duty not to make laws unless there are
exceptional circumstances.  The facts that people can lose money
gambling or get stoned by taking drugs or make money by helping
other people do these things are certainly not exceptional...

>I don't argue against breaking laws which are immoral, indeed 
>I am still refusing to pay a Poll tax bill from the UK despite
>the fact that the amount outstanding is inconsequential.

Why?  Aside from the fact that Maggie and the Parliament were
quite obnoxious in enacting and implementing it, what's wrong?
If you're think that some people's Fair Share of the cost of
supporting society is higher than others', and object because
this tax