1997-10-31 - Re: Killing those who need killing (fwd)

Header Data

From: Mark Rogaski <wendigo@ne-wendigo.jabberwock.org>
To: azur@netcom.com
Message Hash: 3c9b7b06e9882a301096d4072490ff2f8f8aa717a67398f9b0e51a6be12ab6b8
Message ID: <199710310242.VAA15800@deathstar.jabberwock.org>
Reply To: <v03102800b07e6492650f@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-31 02:54:27 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:54:27 +0800

Raw message

From: Mark Rogaski <wendigo@ne-wendigo.jabberwock.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:54:27 +0800
To: azur@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Killing those who need killing (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <v03102800b07e6492650f@[]>
Message-ID: <199710310242.VAA15800@deathstar.jabberwock.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Hash: SHA1

An entity claiming to be Steve Schear wrote:
: >:
: >: (Personally, were I to be arrested and held on such false charges, I'd
: >: consider it necessary to kill those who illegally held me. Preferably from
: >: a safe distance, with a sniper rifle. But then I'm a right wing libertarian
: >: whacko.)
: >
: >Right wing, left wing, friggin' wingless ... the above comment still
: >indicates a sociopath.
: Perhaps, but is being a sociopath that bad?  When those who administer the
: justice system in society are out-of-control, or have consciously decided
: to ignore the constitutional protections they are charged with upholding
: then strong, extra-legal, measures may be called for in order to right the
: apple cart.

While being an eloquent statement of support for gang warfare, it still 
disagrees with the old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right" [1].  It does
indicate that this concept of justice causes any traces of "law" to go right
down the drain anytime one person oversteps the boundary.  If Tim were 
justified in breaking the law because a (hypothetical) LEO broke his end of
the Constitutional bargain, wouldn't that make the "law" in question moot?

I'm not attacking your ideals, or Tim's, I'm just wondering if this sort
of reactionary violence is valid.  If Tim were arrested on some bogus charge
[2] and were held as a political prisoner, let's say he does as he says he 
would ... leaving a corpse in jackboots.  Wouldn't that add more fuel to the
fires of the political reptiles, resulting in more oppresive law enforcement?

I'm not saying that he should just turn the other cheek, I'm just wondering if
there aren't more effective ways of dealing with an out of control government.
The American public won't be roused to open revolution quite so easily.  They
have jobs, cars, houses, kids, dogs, digital watches [3] and lots of other
things that they do not want to lose.  Revolution is untidy, and Americans
know this, so does the government ... this gives them a BIG advantage, it
makes the citizenry very compliant.

How do you see Tim's stance as being practical?

: "Those who prefer security over liberty deserve neither."

I agree.

[1] but three rights make a left.

[2] plenty to pick from here.

[3] well, most of them do.

- -- 
[] Mark Rogaski                   "That which does not kill me
[] wendigo@pobox.com                 only makes me stranger."

Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv