virus: A new government, for the people, by the people.

Reed Konsler (
Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:48:38 -0400 (EDT)

>Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:09:29 -0500
>From: Eric Boyd <>
>Alright. I think I see the basic issue at stake here, and I've known it
>for a long time. One of the logical fallacies is "Appeal to
>Popularity". What it states is essentially that what is popular is not
>necessairly _right_ or _good_. (lots of nice key words in there, eh?)
>In a logical argument, it is a fallicy to claim that just because x
>people beleive in something that it is true (or whatever). Like Tim
>said, Sheep will be Sheep. Just because a few million people beleive in
>a religion and a God don't mean it's so.

I agree with this. But I would not that logic frays a little here. If everyone
believes something often it is true. For instance, the word "up" means
exactly what we intersubjectively agree that it means. All words, all concepts
are similar. Even the bulwarks of our quite objective science rest on the

"Look, guys...can't we all just agree that there is SOMETHING here that
we can study?"

So the idea of "mob rule" isn't SO fallacious or silly. I haven't deconstructed
logic right here becuase I don't want point is just to poke hard enough
that you reconsider what governments or systems are "inconcevably"
corrupt or dysfunctional.

>I agree that this can sometimes not be very nice, but I see no
>/rational/ alternative. If we refuse to accept that what is popular is
>right and good, then how do we govern? Rule by thugs?

I agree absolutley with this sentiment. Propogate that meme!

>If you read what I said again, it's very clear. Do unto others as you
>would have them do unto you. If you want to kill/exile black people, be
>prepared to be killed/exiled yourself. A eye for an eye. I think the
>system would work very well. The biggest problem (isn't it always?) is
>actually determining /guilt/. Did s/he do it? We would still need the
>courts to determine this.

This principle doesn't need to be institutionallized. Karma exists inherently
in any non-zero sum iterative system. Institutions of "Justice" are just
theaters endlessly repeating the same passion plays in order to make this
truth more obvious to the deranged. The moment you start seeing the
finger as the moon black people start get beaten and imprisoned in the
name of "Justice" but for the reason of racism. The purpose of courts
has never been to determine truth or guilt. Stop listening to the words
and start observing the patterns. OJ...McVeigh? I imagine even in a
Theater of the Absurd you'ld still look for the moral message.

>Yah, that the trouble with freedom alright. Sometimes ya gotta /die/ to
>keep it.

Are you kidding? That's the most beautiful part of freedom.

>> Again. I know people I don't *want* to be free.
>And I know people who don't want to be free.

The operative word here is "want", don't you think?
The Buddha said something very important about our "wants"...

...I just forget what it was.

Ah, well, probably not important. ;-)


Reed Konsler