Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)

Martz (
Tue, 7 Jan 1997 01:05:22 +0000

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, wrote:
>M. Traynor wrote:
>> >No matter how paranoid one may be, the police and armed forces are not
>> >out specifically to "get you".
>> Pardon? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you can think of no
>> example of where an individual had need to defend himself from the
>> unwelcome attention of a heavy-handed state?
>No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the Army and the Police
>force, etc.. are not set up with "Get the Public" as their guiding
>force. They are upholders of the law, not the law in themselves.

Guildford, Birmingham ... need I continue?

>What we're talking about,
>though, is setting up a system of ideas which would right all the wrongs
>that are currently occurring within our state.

Ah, the idealism of youth.

>How about the Criminal Justice Bill?

I rest my case.

>Of course not. Every day there are acts and bills debated within Parliament
>which adversely affect and persecute people who don't necessarily deserve it,
>and I *don't* agree with it. Fact is, if you want something to change, then
>you have to fight for it, and you will be opposed all the way by the
>people who make a cushy living out of that same legislation.

Agreed. I never said 'easy' (hell, I never even said 'possible').

>> >They may come across as not all that
>> >pleasant sometimes, but there is a system of laws (no matter how
>> >ineffectual) which protects your rights against them.
>> No. There isn't.
>Yes. There is.

See 'Criminal justice bill'. See 'Poll tax'. Even civil insurrection
didn't stop it. Neither did votes because the majority is easily
manipulated, I trust it far less than I trust myself. That's why I'd
like to minimise the effect that they have on my life.

>Our whole judicial system is based around giving people as much freedom as

Oh, how I wish that mere words could convey how utterly hilarious I find
that statement.

>Admittedly, in recent times, there have been some controversial
>laws passed which have attracted a lot of attention. Just think about it,
>though. Who is more free, us, or the people in the late 19th Century?
>I know which time I'd rather live in. Times are a changin', my friend.

Yes they are. Democracy was probably the best system then, and maybe
still is. But if you remember from early on in this thread (you do read
these things, don't you) I made clear that what I'm talking about
requires a certain level of technology. I'm not sure what that level is
but I think we're close (in the west at least)

>What we all hope for is going to come true eventually, thanks to people
>fighting for our rights.

Now you sound like an ad for Amnesty Intl. What was I saying about

>> The judicial system is (in this country at least) just
>> one more arm of a self-perpetuating beaurocratic monolith which makes
>> its own rules, with its own loopholes and escape clauses.
>The beaurocracy is a fair analogy. There is too much, I'll agree with that
>but unfortunately it is, as you say, self-perpetuating. Beaurocracy breeds
>beaurocracy. The system itself is unaffected by such [I can't type the B
>word again, it's too long :)], in most ways other than time.

And money. Huge greats wads of my damn cash.

>> Wrong. Your right to protection from me is upheld by the state, my right
>> to protection from you is upheld by the state. Who upholds our right to
>> protect ourselves from them?
>The State.

See above for evidence to the contrary.

>The only reason that a state can remain in perpetual existance is because we
>allow it to. There is a contract between it and us.
>It is a contract by which you
>agree to do things for them, and they agree to do things for you.

Yeah? Show me where I signed. I'll bet you can't even find the fucking


For my public key, <> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.

No more random quotes.