Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)

From: Vance Dereksen <vance_at_ikickass.org>
Date: Sun Jul 8 11:40:03 2001

Reponses inline:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:

> I didn't say that. I said that if folks don't want to obey the existing laws,
> they should, within the existing legal framework, endeavor to change them, not
> simply disregard them.

There are times when endeavoring to change a law is simply not enough.
Suppose that the law called for your execution for something that was out
of your control? Like the circumstances of your birth? How about forced
sterilization due to a genetic abnormality? What if the majority believes
in this? Without civil disobedience, our black friends would not be our
black friends. They would simply be the niggers living screwing up our
neighborhoods. There would still be acceptable scientific theories
regarding the genetic superiority of certain races.

> > Are you saying that the laws where you are currently make the penalties
> > for infractions and misdemeanors the same as the penalty for shooting
> > Dick?
> >
> No, but perhaps they should be. The real offense is the violation of the social
> contract, not the petty misdemeanor. I didn't say, and certainly don't believe,
> that the best thing to do is make all penalties the same, but I do think and
> have stated that it would lead to better adherence to the law.

Some of the most grave injustices are social contracts that were forced on
people. Sometimes simply "leaving" is not an option.

> I said that you don't just step off a cliff on a whim, and, therefore, it's
> reasonble to assume that, since the outcome would be the same, you wouldn't spit
> on the sidewalk if the penalty for that were capital. It's not, of course, but,
> clearly, if everyone gets to choose which laws he/she obeys and which not, then
> we're all in trouble.

But if you accidentally step off a cliff, you still die. Are you saying
that, through no fault of your own, if you break the law, you should be
executed? I cannot and will not subscribe to this idea.

> Think about it! One guy thinks it's OK for him to spit on the sidewalk.
> Another thinks it's OK to drive 40 mph in that 25 mph zone. He can afford to
> pay the fine. Acceptance of that means that the guy with a 7-figure income
> basically can ignore the "lesser" laws that carry penalties he can afford to
> pay.

That's why we have license revocation and demerit points. Do you think
millionaires *like* to pay fines? No way. Millionaires become
millionaires (outside of the inheritance case) by being thrift-wise.

> Now, another guy thinks it's OK to have a couple of extra drinks before he
> drives home from the bar. He figures it's worth the risk, and he can afford to
> pay the fines, and he can afford to hire a lawyer to minimize what he does have
> to pay. In most states there no significant additional penalty for being drunk
> and killing half a dozen people than simply for causing a wreck resulting in
> jnjury because he's drunk. Is that the right way? Should he be able to make
> the choices resulting in the deaths of several people just because he can pay
> the fines and pay the lawyers? Should we tolerate that he do it again? How
> does that differ from the guy who gets drunk and shoots his neighbor in an
> argument? What about the guy who shoots his neighbor in an argument, but
> doesn't get drunk first? What if there was no argument first. What if he just
> sneaks up on the guy and shoots him? What if he does it in order to rob the
> guy?

Well, ideally, the public defender should be the best attorney in the lot.
Ideally.

> > What color is the sky there?
> >
> Same as where you are, but I'm really tired of folks ingoring the "minor" laws
> we, as a society, have put in place in order to make the community safer and
> more liveable, only to have some jerk who feels he's more important than the
> rest of us go off and do somethng that puts us, our safety, and our peace of
> mind at risk. The business with the illegal fireworks that everybody views with
> a blind eye seems a good example. Another one would be the really loud car
> stereo.

You are aware that most of these "really loud stereos" don't violate noise
ordinance right? Even the ones with 4 12-inchers in a three-way bandpass.
You advocate communism. Everyone is the most important. That is what it
means to live in America. Move to Cuba. Or bettter yet, move to China.

> What it boils down to is that adherence to the social contract is, for some
> people, what they expect of others, though they don't expect to adhere to it
> themselves. I just believe that THAT is wrong.

That is why I say that you value the society over its members. Let me say
that I don't completely disagree with you. It is just that it is not the
American way. Period.

Peace... Sridhar
Received on Sun Jul 08 2001 - 11:40:03 BST