Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

Jeff Golds
2001-10-23T00:02:11Z

Steven Walter wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 04:39:02PM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> > >> > > "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after
> > >> > > they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
> > >> >
> > >> > While I've been generally saddened by Alan Cox's and others
> > >> > anti-America attitude, I am somewhat surprised to find that
> > >> > Alan believes the US bombing of Afghanistan is justified and so
> > >> > is the collateral damage as they call it.
> > >>
> > >> That quote is rather older than the US bombing of Afghanistan. You read
> > >> totally inappropriate things into it.
> > >
> > >Certainly, it is not. This statement applies to Afghanistan, in that
> > >the fact that they have not rebelled means they imply consent to
> > >everything their government does, and therefore are just as guilty as
> > >the Taliban. Therefore, killing civilians (collateral damage) is no
> > >worse than killing terrorists or Taliban officials. This is a stance I
> > >can easily subscribe to, not just with Afghanistan but with any people,
> > >nation, state, or country.
> >
> > 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.

That might be true in a democracy, but what do you do when you don't
live in such a place? What if your government was not democractic but
"whoever has the most guns". Are you saying that people who don't rebel
against people with guns are consenting?

Also, how can "every citizen be aware of the matters concerning the
State" when you live in a society where the State controls the media?

-Jeff

--
Jeff Golds
Sr. Software Engineer
jgolds@resilience.com