Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Tue, 14 Jan 97 11:32:31 GMT

> From: Martz <>
> 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?

This is a different kind of situation. The supposed criminals in this case were
responsible (allegedly) for what is essentiall treason. A lot of innocent
civilians were suffering, and as such, the police /as individuals/ wanted
a conviction. It wasn't a case of "Right, we'll arrest them, and convict
whether they did it of not." by the state. It was a case of the police
deciding that these men were going to be convicted. As far as I'm aware, also,
the people involved were investigated, but I don't know the outcome.

This is an example of the armed forces being heavy handed, not the state.

> >How about the Criminal Justice Bill?
> I rest my case.

I studied the Criminal Justice Bill in some depth, and discovered that despite
the fact that it's a really large document, there is actually very little
that's controversial in it. Of around 140 clauses, I found 4 or 5 which could
have implications WRT to individual liberty.

If you're interested in reading through bits of it, I can smail it to you.

> >> >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 'Poll tax'.

See: revoked

> >Our whole judicial system is based around giving people as much freedom as
> >possible.
> Oh, how I wish that mere words could convey how utterly hilarious I find
> that statement.

Go and live in Brazil for a bit, and then tell me that we're not free.

> >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.

We were still on the come-down from a very aristocratic system then, though.

> 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)

But the way you make it sound, the government is going to surpress this
technology, to stop you attaining the goal to which you strive.

Wouldn't surprise me, actually.

> >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.

But how do you know that it'd be cheaper in your state?

> >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.
> <snip>
> >It is a contract by which you
> >agree to do things for them, and they agree to do things for you.
> Yeah?

Yeah, wanna take this outside? :P

>Show me where I signed.

Herein lies the problem. I've talked about this a lot in Politics classes, and
the principle is as follows:

You are born into a state, where, at some point, one or more of your forebears
has agreed, contractually, to be part of the state. Unfortunately, ideal
political theory says that one cannot bind successive generations to the
ideals of another. Therefore, each generation must be able to decide on the
state for itself. The problem then arises that when a couple reproduce, they
must look after their child, and it is not old enough, anyhow to decide about
it's participation in the state. Therefore it makes sense that that child be
allowed to exist within a state, but have no obligations towards it. It pays
no taxes, and recieves nothing in return. All the state asks is that it abides
by the law, which is universal within the nation's boundaries. As such, the
child is subject to the state's "coming of age". For the most part, this
age is 18, right? When the new citizen reaches the age of 18, his forebears
contract becomes valid. He is bound to the state, and has obligations, which
are paid for in Rights. It's kind of like the box on a form which says "Tick
here if you do not want to recieve any further correspondance from this
company". If you don't take the get out clause, then you have signed yourself
into the agreement. You do this, not on a bit of paper, but by occupying
a bit of the state's ground. You don't want to be part of the state?

Then leave, it;s as simple as that.