den Otter wrote:
>We are no Powers, and therefore must co-operate in order to improve
>our situation [...]
Yes, that's obvious. But cooperation does not equate to coercion; the two are mutually exclusive.
>I prefer the one by Anders: "Individualists of the world, unite!"
That always cracks me up. Or how about, "Anarchists of the world, rally 'round your leader"?
>>"a society which surrenders some small measure of freedom
>>for security shall end up with neither",
>If you don't do it, you won't have a society at all (bye progress, hello
>suffering and death).
Why are you assuming that we can't have a society without abrogating one another's freedom?
>Well, maybe the founding fathers were extremists then :-) Or maybe
>it's just rhetorics, not to be taken literally.
No, they were radicals, who demanded consistency. Their principled commitment to liberty was certainly not rhetorical, since they put their lives on the line in committing "treason" against the British Crown. How many of us would've joined them, I wonder? And how many would side with the Tories because, after all, there are other important things in life besides freedom, and maybe it's not worth the fuss because we're only being oppressed "a little".