In article <9409201859.AA00254@doom.intuit.com>, Mark Chen <chen@intuit.com> wrote:

...

...

The facts and the law only matter when the government doesn't have a hard on for you. If the government wants to get you [and, perhaps, if you're not a millionaire "sports figure"] it will get you. The crime bill just makes the task a bit easier.

This is quite accurate. Howard Zinn makes the same point in _Declarations of Independence_.

Where does Steve Jackson fit into this theory?

I don't think it's nearly as black & white as you suggest: Our systems are not monolithic and some consitutional and democratic principles do still have some sway. Noam Chomsky discusses this when he talks about reasons for optimism.

Which is not to belittle the orginal point that we have reason to be paranoid: it's just to say that we don't have total justification for despair, either.

Yes, it's often easy to identify a single piece of the overall dynamic and use it to account for everything that happens. I'm only saying that legal guarantees are not necessarily the last word about what the government can and can't do to you. Chomsky's optimism (as you know) doesn't stem so much from a faith that our legal system will one day start working properly, as from a faith that people are capable of evolving - an outlook that you and I seem to share, but that many on this list don't. - Mark - -- Mark Chen chen@netcom.com 415/329-6913 finger for PGP public key D4 99 54 2A 98 B1 48 0C CF 95 A5 B0 6E E0 1E 1D