1997-06-11 - Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism

Header Data

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
Message Hash: 7cdf856d122dddc0eea496f3e3af8900c20c0a4817e7a14bebb2abe2efbab76f
Message ID: <v03102800afc3acb3c6c8@[]>
Reply To: <11LV8D23w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-11 02:24:23 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:24:23 +0800

Raw message

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:24:23 +0800
To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
Subject: Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
In-Reply-To: <11LV8D23w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <v03102800afc3acb3c6c8@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>I understand, but my point was that at some point the system of "law"
>became simply a system of supplicating the masses and no longer serves
>justice.  When the system of law ceases to be a system of law and becomes
>of system of corruption I no longer refer to it as law.  Important
>Orwellian distinction.  Never let the bastards control the definitions and

"Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those
in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former
of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all
technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by
rules fixed and announced beforehand-rules which make it possible to
foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers
in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of
this knowledge."

>From "The Road to Surfdom," F.A. Hayek, as quoted from the classical
exposition by A. V. Dicey in "The Law of the Constitution" (8th ed.), p.
198, the Rule of Law "means, in the first place the absolute supremacy or
predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power,
and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of
wide discretionary authority on the part of government."