-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> writes:
Well, I'm an anarchist...
...a reputation you have earned well in your postings to this list, which is why your answers matter to me.
and I would have no *philosophical* problem with pursuing redress in the king's court.
How could you do this, without incurring cognitive dissonance?
I would use [government] in the same way I would use an oncoming truck; if someone were trying to mug me, I would consider pushing them in front of the truck.
Government differs from the oncoming truck in that its power comes from its constituency of willing clients generating a demand for its services. Granted, withdrawing your demand will hardly affect that power, because the other hundred million constituents will still be pressing their demands. But how do you deflect accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy? Our archist adversaries use such charges to deflate anarchist arguments. I don't understand and am increasingly unable to abide the inconsistent and hypocritical attitude of many of my anarchist friends who decry government while at the same time willfully patronizing it, even when they have reasonable alternatives. You have apparently accommodated yourself to this inconsistency. How?
Now ask me if I would have any philosophical objection to taking welfare.
Would you have any philosophical objection to taking welfare? This may be drifting away from the charter of cypherpunks, but I'll bet I'm not alone among the anarchists here in wondering how you would answer these questions. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLeVNwsDhz44ugybJAQEzCQP/WLswNle4Ixo50Lf0QGC4I4U4cDyGd1xM eg3t675kioj8zqQMZWwCu5id+GC1V/o5V0FZ0mAxknSR37X+CYlwCTFxEUDBJPEm v//9k9HS97CckEtlFdsCTbB/NTiw3HGFYAVyVDtZaxt4DayDENPETh+joQ2LElog i7duMq7fUxg= =ITjs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----