From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:30:04 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: New Laws in Oregon - "Land of the Legal betatest"
Message-ID: <199706252316.QAA23656@fat.doobie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Ryan Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> > > We've got a relatively decent style of government here.
> 
> >   Sure, as long as you don't step out of line, like at Kent State
> > or Waco, or at the Democratic convention in Chicago.
> >   Any style of government is "relatively decent" if you don't
> > rock the boat. Buy a fucking clue...
> 
> Do I have to spell out everything for you?  "Style of government" as in
> governmental *DESIGN*, not the current situation.  I'm talking about the
> layout of Congress, the Executive branch, the Supreme Court, etc.

  Better you should concentrate on learning to read than on giving
spelling lessons.
  I'll type slowly and SHOUT, shit-for-brains, so you have a slim
chance of following me, here:
  "ANY (<--that's _ANY_) style (DESIGN, STRUCTURE, METHOD...) of 
government is "realatively decent" if you don't rock the boat."

  Screw the "layout of Congress, the Executive branch, the Supreme 
Court, etc."
  I seriously doubt that the slaves being whipped in the thirteen
colonies ignored the pain by concentrating on the beauty of the
layout of Congress. I doubt that Indians mourning the slaughter
of their families appreciated the structure of the Executive
Branch.

  "Style of government" doesn't much matter a rat's ass. All that
really matters is the balance of power between those in society
and how those who have power use it.
  If there are two of us and only one gun, we can draw toothpicks
to see which of us has "governership" over the gun for the day to
hunt for food, or if you are big and have an attitude you may just
seize control of the gun. If you're using the gun only to hunt and
share the food equally with me, either way is a "relatively decent"
form of "government" of the gun.
  Of course, if you get off on the "power" of controlling the gun,
you are going to get nervous when I start gathering sticks and
stones to build a house and start passing "amendments" to our
agreement or "style of government" that state I can only possess
small sticks and stones, etc, etc. Pretty soon, I'm building a
nuclear warhead in my straw hut...

> This whole discussion has been, from my point of view at least, mostly
> theoretical in a discussion of possible ways to alter the government to
> stay away from the situations that we are in now.

  Simple. Design all future government buildings to match the remains
of the Federal Building in OKC and replace the pictures of our beloved
President with pictures of Timothy McVeigh.
  The problem with any government is not the style, but the maintaining
of accountability. Putting the nuclear warheads in D.C. and giving the
magic button to a barmaid in Denver would likely be as "relatively
decent" a "style of government" as any other alternative.
  You want a "relatively decent style of government?" Make Stalin our
dictator and arrange for Mother Teresa to control a mechanical vice
that contains his nuts.

  Pick any "style of government" at random, as far as I'm concerned,
but don't forget to put a note on the fridge to remind yourself to
pick up some munitions for the coming revolution.
  McVeigh was just "voting early," as is allowed for by law for 
those in the military who may be busy serving their country at
election time.
  Change the style of government to any form you please and the pigs
at the public trough are going to fight (and kill) to stay there.
A change in "style" is not needed as much as a change in "attitude."
(e.g. "Hard weapons, soft targets, no compromise.")

  I don't need to buy a clue. I have a Ryder truck full of clues
that I haven't even used yet.

ClueMonger