From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 01:41:55 +0800
To: Mark Rogaski <wendigo@ne-wendigo.jabberwock.org>
Subject: Re: Killing those who need killing (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <v03102800b07e6492650f@[208.129.55.202]>
Message-ID: <v03102800b07fbff62fe0@[208.129.55.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>An entity claiming to be Steve Schear wrote:
>: >: Tim May 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?

Yes, such direct measures by a wronged individual can set the stage for
further lawlessness and should only be undertaken after all reasonable
legal measures within the system have been exhausted.  Justice is, in my
opinion, more important than the survivial of the system, when that system
no longer can deliver justice.  If LEOs feel they can overstep their legal
restraints with impunity, because their superiors won't know or care, or
the courts are very unlikely to punish, then the laws have already become
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?

Yes, and this is exactly what is happening with the dramatic militarization
of enforcement units in unlikely government organizations.

>
>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.

At the time of the American Revolution a similar situation existed.  The
crown set the stage with standing colonial armies paid for by colonial
citizens against their wishes, forced billeting of soldiers in residential
homes, harsh and unjust laws and extridition of accused to England for
trials by non-peers, etc.  It has been widely estimated that only 10-15% of
the colonists participated in the Revolution, most being either loyalists
or too afraid to get involved. Of course, we're a long way from this.

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

For those who seek the overthrow of order imposed by who they accuse of
ignoring constitutional guarantees, nothing could be better than to manuver
them into ever more blatant and publicized abuses of civil rights.  So long
as instigators carefully chose the battle ground and keep collateral damage
to a minimum, common citizens (with no particular radical bent) will see
through the spin doctors, revealing the true stripes of those with naked
power ambitions and see themselves as possible next targets for abuse.  It
only takes 10-15%.

Personally, I doubt any actions short of those which sucessfully challenge
the ability of the Feds to protect citizens from lawlessness will cause
significant numbers of citizens to reconsider their allegence.

The problems we are facing were largely explored by Alexis de Toqueville in
the first quarter of the 19th century.  He predicted that "tyranny of the
majority",the darker side of democracy, was a possible result of the
American experiment.  Jefferson's solution, frequent revolutions, has
unfortuately been shunned.

--Steve