From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:41:17 +0800
To: Mark Rogaski <azur@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Killing those who need killing (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <v03102800b07e6492650f@[208.129.55.202]>
Message-ID: <v03102801b07ef19bb4e1@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 7:42 PM -0700 10/30/97, Mark Rogaski wrote:

>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

The essence of this country's founding, and of specific statements by
Jefferson (tree of liberty watered with blood of patriots and tyrants),
Franklin (those who seek security over liberty deserve neither), and many
others, is that the people will seek vengeance in extra-legal ways if the
law enforcers become corrupt. Thus we see the Militia Movement, the Posse
Commitatus groups of years past, Assassination Politics, fragging of
corrupt and incompetent commanders, and direct action taken against the
Feds in their headquarters.

Sounds predictable to me.

>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 saying that vengeance for wrongs done and unrighted by the courts means
the people are justified in acting against those who did them wrong.


>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?

Yes, but bringing on the End Times is perhaps needed. Sometimes things have
to get worse to get better.

>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?

I don't claim the herd, the sheeple, will join in this revolution. I'm
saying that if I were to be imprisoned for months because I had squashed
vitamins in my pocket, which some gung-ho cops and DAs thought were drugs,
that I would then seek to kill all of those who falsely imprisoned me.

Sounds fair to me. So long as they understand that they can't use toilet
plungers on innocents, imprison people falsely, etc., they've got nothing
to fear.

But they have plainly lost sight of their responsibilities. Maybe their
death has been earned.

Might send a valuable lesson to the others.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."