Mark Rogaski writes:

An entity claiming to be 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.

I agree. One of you two is a sociopath. Methinks you're pointing the finger at the wrong person. Reexamine your assumptions. When you reach a conclusion as grievously in error as the one above, one (or more) of them must surely be wrong. FingerPointingMonger

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."

An entity claiming to be 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.

And the problem with that is... You must live in such a nice world, where the sky is always blue, the grass always green, and the police eager and willing to serve a happy populace. Can I come live in your world?

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