RE: Killing the G8 Anarchists,
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: Jim wrote:
Speaking for myself, I'm not "owned" by anyone. I obey state and federal laws though, if that's what you mean.
Even when they're unconstitutional I bet... Some American.
You don't need a gun to enforce ownership, what do you think contract and
..so does this mean you're going to be the first to share with the readership exactly *which* state and federal laws you break on a regular basis? LOL ridiculous. property law is all about.
Which is worthless without the explicit and well advertised threat of violence. See G8 demonstrations today for a explicit example.
"all power flows from the barrel of a gun?" Maybe so. But most people who sign contracts are more motivated by the threat of lawsuits, jail and fines than the direct threat of violence.
Sometimes words or a fist do just as well... What any of this has to do with supporting the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is totally unclear.
See G8 today.
Nothing I see there really points to personal disarmament being a wise course of action.
By the way, why don't you think people have a right to defend their own lives and property? Don't the people demonstrating have a right to defend their lives and property?
Absolutely, no doubt about it. So how does it follow that this somehow makes it okay to harm other people and destroy their property without being held accountable for it by the people themselves? Legitimate protest is one thing, but the problem is, people who are out to "fuck shit up" aren't too discriminate about their targets. If your business was in the middle of a riot zone, would you just choose the "roll over and die" option? Somehow I think not.
Their claim is it is being abused and destroyed.
There are too many disparate groups under the umbrella of "anti- globalization" to be able to sum it up into a single claim like that. Abused and destroyed? What, how, when, by whom? How can you hope to make policy around some vague generalization. More analysis, less rhetoric.
Where is their spokesperson at the G8? Where is there forum?
That's what NGOs are for. There are some interesting books about their growing importance and the role of technology in making it happen that are really encouraging...have you seen a book by David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla called "The Zapatista Social Netwar in Mexico"? I don't know if you can get a online copy somewhere but it's worth a look.
When I'm attacked, why shouldn't I fight back?
Hypocrite. Freedom for me, not for thee...
Where did that come from, I believe 100% in the right to be left alone. Anyone on this earth can do whatever they want, but attack me and be prepared to PAY: what could be more honest and straightforward than that. It's just insane to expect people to put themselves at the mercy of anyone who comes along: what are you really saying here, feel free to fill me in! A great place to start might be defining "anti-globalism", the reasons behind the need for violent indiscriminate protest, and how any of that bears a relation to the second amendment. Sheesh... ~Faustine.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:
"all power flows from the barrel of a gun?" Maybe so. But most people who sign contracts are more motivated by the threat of lawsuits, jail and fines than the direct threat of violence.
What you are missing here is that the threat of jail and fines are only a threat *beacuse* of the threat of the gun which stands as the alternative, i.e., submit to our sentence of jail, or we will shoot you.
Legitimate protest is one thing, but the problem is, people who are out to "fuck shit up" aren't too discriminate about their targets. If your business was in the middle of a riot zone, would you just choose the "roll over and die" option? Somehow I think not.
Agreed, 100% Paradoxically, I also agree that the "fucking shit up" is often necessary to generate suffucient public recognition of the issues at hand. No, I don't have an answer to this paradox. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 measl@mfn.org wrote:
Agreed, 100% Paradoxically, I also agree that the "fucking shit up" is often necessary to generate suffucient public recognition of the issues at hand.
No, I don't have an answer to this paradox.
Paradoxes arise, usually, because the relationship is being viewed in the wrong context. Read the first two para's of the DoI for one solution to the 'paradox'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Faustine -
Jim Choate -
measl＠mfn.org