Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 11:57 AM 4/13/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
>I will not, of course, reply to Bell's reply.


That's strange.  George Orwell (in the book "1984") said "Freedom is 
slavery.  War is Peace."  etc.  In 1993 Waco, the FBI said "This is not an 
attack!"

Today, Unicorn says, "I will not, of course, reply to Bell's reply"

I would have to agree that yours is not a _good_ reply, but it sure appears 
to be some kind of reply, despite your silly claim.

>On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> At 07:59 PM 4/12/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
>> >The government of the United States doesn't play "fair" when they want 
>> >something.
>> 
>> But if the government of the United States does play "fair," then why can 
we 
>> not play "fair" and kill their agents who violate what we feel is our 
>> rights?
>
>Are you planning on affording them due process rights? 

There are over 150 nations in this world, today.  Each of them probably has 
a different view of what "due process rights" are.  Which nation's "due 
process rights" are you referring to?  And are you referring to the letter 
of the law (or Constitution) or merely what passes for "due process" in each 
of these countries?   Are you showing your biases by using a term of art 
such as "due process rights" at all?

In any case, not all criminals at not all times are entitled to "due 
process."  Self-defense is legitimate, without trial, in the case of an 
emergency.  I suggest that what constitutes an "emergency" depends on the 
likelihood of getting assistance and justice if that self-defense and 
counter-attack is foregone.   If you've just managed to tie your attacker to 
a tree, and the cops are a phone call away, society declares that you 
shouldn't shoot him, and should let the court system handle it.  However, if 
you're a black in 1955 Mississippi, and the sheriff's brother has just 
attacked you with a knife out in the woods and you grab a gun and are 
holding him at bay, I think it is not unreasonable to conclude that the 
fairest outcome that you can expect is to shoot him dead for his stupidity, 
then run and hope that nobody figures out who did it.

And the whole basis for asking people to forego their own version of justice 
is simple:  Society claims that courts exist to provide justice, and also 
claims that a criminal who's caught will get a fair trial.  But it's obvious 
that government will not judge its own agents fairly (except in unusual 
cases where incriminating videotape exists, and sometimes not even then), so 
there is no presumption that a person victimized by government can expect 
justice.  I think it's clear that whatever "social contract" that you might 
want to claim exists no longer applies in such a circumstance, and it's 
reasonable to act entirely outside the current "justice system" in those 
circumstances.  Naturally, government thugs will disagree, but they're PAID 
to disagree!


> What about other 
>rights generally?  At least the U.S. government attempts to do this. 

More accurately, it occasionally attempts to APPEAR to do this.  But since 
the government, through the SC, claims to be the final arbiter of what those 
"due process rights" are, you can't expect an unbiased opinion from it in 
this area.


> How about a trial, or does it merely take a single bidder with 
>money to have someone offed?  Sounds like tyrrany of the rich to me.  I 
>might add that if this is the way things were the richest would be the 
>survivors, able to kill their enemies, protect themselves better, and 
>deploy their own agents. 

In fact, to a "rich" person it would look like quite the opposite situation! 
 Even a relatively small number of non-rich people could finance his death, 
and he wouldn't even know who his enemies are.  As usual, you show almost 
not grasp of the concept.  Your opposition is based on your desire to 
maintain the current tyrannical system, or at least enough of it to allow 
you to keep your current privileged position. 

>> After all, the government is merely the representative of the 
>> people (at least in theory!) and it 'must' follow the rules (laws, 

>> Constitution, etc).
>
>I think the U.S. government does a much better job at this than almost 
>any other sovereign excepting perhaps the U.K., which has still had its 
>share of self contradiction.

Is that relevant?  I don't recall ever having stated or implied that the USG 
is the worst offender, either qualitatively or quantitatively.  However, it 
_is_ an offender.  Sounds like you're trying to set up a straw-man again; 
par for the course for you.

>> To whatever extent it exceeds those limits, and to 
>> whatever extent the public can't get justice to prevent those violations, 
>> why would the public be obligated to accept them?
>
>Really Mr. Bell has recognized something important, though I'm not sure 
>even he realizes it. 

Unfortunately, I think that Unicorn hasn't recognized anything.

> Specifically, that when his allies are so few in 
>number he must resort to general terrorism and low intensity conflict to 
>have any hope of success at all.

I've never supported "general terrorism."  In any case, the term has been 
abused over the years so that it carries a lot of rhetorical baggage.  If 
you know of a "terrorist" that would  prefer to attack innocent civililians 
(those who are not government employees) instead of the people who are 
really causing the trouble, please  tell me who he is.   And 
"low-intensity conflict", in many cases, exists ONLY because the government 
maintains it.  Much of the warfare in the inner cities, for instance, exists 
ONLY because of the so-called "war on drugs."    I think it's realistic to 
conclude that this is not simply an accident.


>> To believe otherwise is to believe that the government has some sort of 
>> special dispensation to violate the law.  I don't believe this; it wouldn't 
>> surprise me to hear that you do, however.  Which is it?
>
>I don't believe anyone has any special dispensation.  It's all a question 
>of who can get away with it. 

For a long time, governments at all levels and in all countries have been 
"getting away with it."  I favor a system that makes this impossible.  You don't.

> For all your moaning and whining, you are 
>still less able to get away with it than agents of the CIA and the men on 
>top.  It must be killing you.  I can feel the way the knife twists in you 
>with the realization that you are another small gear in the machine.

What gear?  which machine?  I must be a gear that got away!


>You and the Unabomber.  Horrified at the thought that you might be 
>insignificant.  Driven by the need to be important, noticed.

Having not read his manifesto, I hesitate to comment.  However, from what 
I've read about it, he's long on discussing what he sees as being the 
problem, short on prescribing a practical solution. And he seemed to select 
his targets without regard to whether killing them would do any "good."    
I'm quite the opposite: 
 I don't pretend that my AP essays contain a complete description of what I 
see as the problem, or even the outline of it.  In fact, I carefully avoided 
the issue in most cases, for that would have increased its length manyfold.  
(I assumed that most people who read it would already have at least been 
aware of many problems, whether or not they conclude that my solution is 
justified by them.  I don't claim that my view of the problems is somehow 
special, merely that everyone knows of enough problems to justify 
formulating a solution.) 

My solution, however, despite being distasteful to some people, is 
frequently if not usually thought of as being not only possible, but in fact 
practical.


>Some people work to change the system by developing structures to work 
>within it, or around it.


I intend to go THROUGH it, every bit of it.  But it isn't just me; 
essentially everthing I've described is merely the unavoidable consequence 
of the modern developments of networking, good encryption, and digital cash, 
three facts that no government is going to be able to stop.  Some of what 
I've discussed was considered years ago by others; I've merely extended it.


>You call for the assassination of (not even particularly important) 
>public officials on the whim of the individual who happens to have cash.

 That's not true.  Hey, they can always resign!  And I've repeatedly stated 
that most of them will resign, especially when their paychecks stop coming.