Re: Legal requirements -> technical requirements?

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 09:23:30 MST

Adrian Tymes wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > > Seriously. Many people who are, legally, perfectly innocent believe
> > > they have something to fear from police and other government enforcers.
> >
> > I'm with you there. I know I'm a law abiding citizen. I also typically am armed.
> > I have nothing to fear legally from cops, so any action they take against me is> by definition illegal action, and I am legally able (and justified) to defend
> > myself against such *felonious* criminal actions by police. Any jurisdiction
> > which would treat me any differently is, by definition, a tyranny. Insisting on
> > living under tyranny implies the acceptance of that tyranny, if the means and
> > ability to leave that tyranny exist. If you fear such tyranny, vote with your
> > feet. If you don't, its like not voting: you don't get to complain.
> And what of those, typically poor and/or with non-easily-mobile assets
> (like their family or community) to defend, who can not practically
> leave, but who live in a tyranny as you have defined it?

A community is not an asset that belongs to you, and if its tyrannical, it must
not be worth much, or else you must enjoy tyrannical communities. Make up your
mind. I personally find that more poor people move around far more frequently
than more affluent people, so your argument does not hold. Welfare people seem
to find it quite easy to move from city to city and state to state to follow the
best benefits, according to the data. U-HAUL and KOA are wonderful things. I
could move my own household for $500-$1000 from coast to coast with little
trouble. People seem to excel at finding reasons to not do things far more than
finding reasons to do things.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT