Re: Singapore Global Action Alert (8/29/96)

["Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon@citenet.net>]

On 29 Aug 96 at 19:25, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Bill speaks sooth. Personally, I agree with Jean-Francois in that
> the Singapore government *does* understand the Net, and is using
> that knowledge to control it within their borders reasonably well.
> Remember the next phase of restrictions goes into effect on
> September 15. 
> 
> But I don't see a problem in being polite the first time. 



Dear Declan.  This post is not personnally against you Declan.  I
like your posts.  Only, I don't agree with you last post.  And permit 
me to advance this: it is through an honnest error of yours that you 
have this opinion.

So, here it is:

I don't agree with you.  The world is being stangulated and
bloodsucked dry by peoples who are nothing but cheap shots.  It is
not a matter of being polite or not, it is a matter of saying things
as they really are.  It is a matter of acknowledging reality.  It is
a matter of integrity.

The best way to blow up their cheap littles looting schemes is to 
simply *say* the truth.  We live in an age where everybody is 
terrified of stating what everybody damn well know but tries as hard 
as they can to blank out.

By giving a simulacre (english word?), a make believe of moral 
sanction, you permit them to commit their crimes against human mind 
and life.  It is *us*, the producers, who grant them a recognition by 
being polite to them while they propose to eat us alive.  You 
wouldn't let a hiway robber to mug you without trying everything you 
can to prevent it, yet, you permit thoses statists leeches to 
confiscate an enormous part of your life, to rule an enormous part of 
your life, to define an enormous part of your life rules.

I grant much more respect to a bank robber than to a politician: the 
bank robber puts his own ass on the line, takes his own risks, and 
doesn't pretend he's doing it for you.  He is a robber but he makes 
no bones about it and he accepts the risks of the "trade".  Ask 
yourself if your friendly neighboorhood politician fits this 
definition.

My famnily owned a land.  The city expropriated us at around 
1.85$/sq.ft. while they evaluated, "for taxation purposes", the land 
at 4.85$/sq.ft.  They sold the land to a local "silicon-valley-style" 
project who went bankrupt so the city could repossess it.  We fighted 
the provincial govt (and won partially) because they planned to have 
the capacity to re-sell the land for housing projects, therefore 
speculating on expropriated land.  Hey, I'd rather have the 10$ it is 
worth that let them have them.  We damn worked this land for 50 years.

And all of this was done in the name of "for the good of science",
technology and high-tech employement, all with the full moral
sanction of our universities most famous universities, provincial, 
federal and municipal govt.  Only, there is not a damn business that 
came to establish itself there.  Finally, one big pharmaceutical did 
but there is probably a lot of corruption underneath.  It stinks.

The way they could perform that extortion was with the aid of 
hundreds of half baked semi truths and fallacies, all in the name of 
some "unknown but all desserving" fucking "public".  If we would have 
simply stood up and named their fallacies in the first place, they 
would have had a much harder time doing what they did to us.  but our 
modern lawyers and "counsellors" said that we should "play along".  

Since the land had 9 co-owners, FUD worked well and most owners were
convinced to play the game, therefore granting them the moral
sanction of acknowledging realism and legitimacy.  It was *all* done
in the name of "tolerance" and of being "open minded".  But as I
said, a little poison is still poison.  In retrospect, by granting
them the semblance of reason, *WE* forged reality for them, *WE* gave
them a moral sanction.  I am not one of the owner.  My mom's family
is.  I watched the scene with rage but I couldn't do anything. Try
to make theses peoples understand after being told for all their
life that "being polite" and "being tolerant" is a must...

There is no such thing as being tolerant to being killed.  You don't 
just "die only a little".  In the same way, you don't loose "only a 
little" taxed dollars or free speech.

I am not a Randian, but I agree with many ideas of Ayn Rand.  I don't 
recite half-memorized paragraph out of her books, I fought and still 
fight as I can the govt in their looting schemes.  I was there, 
sitting with ministers and arguing with them.  I saw the leeches in 
action.  

So, if you persist at advocating politeness in thoses situations,
next time a mugger try to beat you, try to remain polite in the first 
time... 

Many friends of many politicians will get rich on it.  Our layers
will get rich on it.  We worked the damn place for 50 years and
*owned* it.  Land, not that far from there was sold at around 16$. 
Land behind ours was sold 7$.  We got 1.85$.

If anybody wants to argue with me, first send a check for the
difference between 10$ and 1.85$, times the sq.ft. surface of the
land. (e-mail me by PGP to have the figures :)  Then, we could
*start* discussing the virtues of statism.

Regards.

JFA
Who is John Galt?  :)
 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal
 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants: physicists, technologists and engineers.

 PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
 ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891