[OT] will amuse you Linux fans

[Richmond]

On 08/02/14 17:51, Andrew Kluthe wrote:
> "Those who choose to obey the laws" are either those who are the
> beneficiaries of such instruments, or to whom the instrument has rendered
> all other choices and possibilities unworthy of consideration. The point is
> that even in western democracies, people don't actually have a choice in
> the matter. You obey or you are punished. That is the presupposition of the
> whole concept: removal (whether it is perceived as voluntary or otherwise)
> of choice to those who know properly how to do the choosin'.
>
> Government in North Korea is maintained by the same force and threats as it
> is in most any western democracy. The difference being that in western
> democracies the populace is encouraged to take an actionable role in their
> own subjugation and the subjugation of others in an attempt to feel like we
> belong and have agency in such matters. We are allowed to choose wallpaper
> patterns for the homes we are allowed to live in by being obedient enough
> to be granted some kind of economic privilege. In exchange for our
> co-operation, we earn a chance at a more personally satisfying (to some)
> servitude. Should any groups of people in a western democracy decide
> against being servile, we know for sure that force will arrive there to
> restore servility.
>
> I'd prefer not to allow my liberty to be (or at least work to prevent from
> being) bound by involuntary contracts like constitutions, writs and the
> like.
>
> And after reading over the thread again I'd like to point out:
>
> "Those who choose to obey the laws (that they themselves are protected by I
> might add) do not need to be compelled."
>
> This phrase strikes me now as something very similar to what a gangster
> might say when attempting to expand a protection racket.
>
> I'm not suggesting that you

To whom does "you" refer to?

Unless that is cleared up somebody is going to feel their nose has been 
put out of joint :)

Richmond.

> are a gangster or run a protection racket, of
> course, but that the logic being implied by your concept of governance
> lines up perfectly with what I am describing. I think that we are in
> agreement about function but just have different biases and perspectives
> into those functions.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Richmond <richmondmathewson at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/14 07:06, Bob Sneidar wrote:
>>
>>> Only upon the lawless. :-) Those who choose to obey the laws (that they
>>> themselves are protected by I might add) do not need to be compelled.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There is a small problem there.
>>
>> I am sure that most of us here on the Use-List would applaud a North
>> Korean who broke certain of that
>> country's draconian laws,
>>
>> and, furthermore,
>>
>> do not feel groovy about the sort of compulsion that goes on there.
>>
>> Now that is one end of a continuum, and the question is, and always has
>> been,
>> where one should decide breaking a law is legitimate protest and where it
>> is
>> a crime.
>>
>> Richmond.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
>
>