cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

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

Header Data

From: Jim Burnes - Denver <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
To: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Message Hash: cbd05b45a6ffddb6c1d506fbe6c4402c71b6a5f923b107636cc82253cee7b589
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970611110952.5748A-100000@denver>
Reply To: <v03102800afc3acb3c6c8@[10.0.2.15]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-11 17:34:33 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:34:33 +0800

Raw message

From: Jim Burnes - Denver <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:34:33 +0800
To: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
In-Reply-To: <v03102800afc3acb3c6c8@[10.0.2.15]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970611110952.5748A-100000@denver>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text





On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:

> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:22:38 -0700
> From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
> To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
> 
> >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
> >language.
> 
> "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."
> 

Steve:

Thanks.

I think you agreed with me there.  I agree with Hayek's observation.

When the government is no longer bound by the "Rule of Law" (c),
it is no longer a rule of law, but becomes a capricious set of
miscellany designed to entrap (when necessary) those who would
oppose the priveledged.

(those with access to large amounts of cash, lawyers, connections
etc)

Jim Burnes

Thread