cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1997-11-04 - Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)

Header Data

From: “snow” <snow@smoke.suba.com>
To: T.G.Griffiths@exeter.ac.uk
Message Hash: 3886f6cf71ac604c0f5389a5a5176224f6044bc056774bb2133522ac8eddbfa9
Message ID: <199711040533.XAA03610@smoke.suba.com>
Reply To: <b05139e147%Tim@tim01.ex.ac.uk>
UTC Datetime: 1997-11-04 04:45:07 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:45:07 +0800

Raw message

From: "snow" <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:45:07 +0800
To: T.G.Griffiths@exeter.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <b05139e147%Tim@tim01.ex.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <199711040533.XAA03610@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>  We hear on TV etc people saying "If this draconian measure saves the
>  life of one innocent child its worth the loss of my right to walk in
>  the park, or whatever". This is clearly shit, but can people suggest a
>  sensible measure of when new legistlation is justified?

	When you can figure out a way to fix the problem without 
stepping on freedoms. Then legislation is justified. 

	Part of the problem is that people _assume_ that legislation fixes
problems. It doesn't. Laws just give society permission to punish the 
offender. In that case we have plenty of laws, it would be rare that we 
would need another.

Thread