Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Steven Walter <srwalter@yahoo.com>]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 04:58:48PM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> At 6:47 PM -0500 10/22/01, Steven Walter wrote:
> >  > That seems like a willful misreading of the original. Where did you
> >>  get "consent"? Alan suggests that non-rebellion implies lack of
> >>  consciousness, which doesn't imply consent.
> >
> >Seems like, but isn't.  It's every citizen's responsibility to be aware
> >of the matters concerning the State.  If they aren't, then again it is
> >their own fault.
> 
> I don't quarrel with the fact that you assert that. However, it does 
> not follow from Alan's statement.

My logic is that a lack of rebellion implies consent.  If you don't
rebel against it, then you must agree with it.  If you don't agree with it,
then you must rebel against it.  Is there a flaw in that logic?  Surely,
there are degrees to it, i.e., you disagree, but not enough to be
killed.  However, in what is practically the scenario now (either
they're are killed by the Taliban for disagreeing or killed by Americans
for agreeing), it only makes sense to align yourself with the same side
as your heart.

> And if non-rebellion by a citizenry against immoral behavior by its 
> government justifies the slaughter of that citizenry, then, to quote 
> Jefferson in a slightly different context, " Indeed I tremble for my 
> country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot 
> sleep forever."
> -- 
> /Jonathan Lundell.

-- 
-Steven
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
			-- George Orwell
Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. War is peace.
			-- George Orwell
Those that would give up a necessary freedom for temporary safety
deserver neither freedom nor safety.
			-- Ben Franklin