Re: Legal requirements -> technical requirements?

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 12:19:10 MST

"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> 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.

A community can be prized for many different things. I prize living in
Silicon Valley at the center of so much tech craze and with Foresight
and so on down the street enough to put up with California stupidity and
with ultra high costs, for now. The equation of what is and is not
worth the cost is not simple.

>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.

Having been dirt poor once or twice in my long life I can assure you
that moving is no picnic when you haven't hardly (if at all) the money
for this month's rent plus groceries much less for first, last and
moving costs. The costs you list above is far beyond what can be
afforded when you are really poor. Welfare? I was never eligible for
one bureaucratic reason or another, not even when I was literally down
and out enough to be eating out of soup kitchens. I was pretty dumb and
down and out in those long ago days but I wasn't a simple parasite
following the crumbs of welfare to the easiest pickings.

- samantha

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