[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime

>From:	Chuck Thompson , a True Believer, inquired:
>What in the devil are you trying to say?  Maybe I'm one of those stupid
>citizen units.  I just don't get it - I'd like to, but I don't.  How about
>rephrasing your comments so that us average citizen units can understand
>your wisdom.
>Well then I'll spell it out for you:
>.  I actually said that it is "a government" which will posture as
>sympathetic towards the whiningH^H^H^H^H^Hconcerns of citizens.   
>.  Political candidates very well know that citizens (voters) are looking for
>someone to save them from what ails them.  Therefore many candidates will
>make the right statements about upholding similar values. They start making
>sounds like they are going to "do something about it" (about whatever the
>latest issue is).    And their supporters will like these sounds.   Reagan
>made a quote about this sometime, something like:   "They may not hear the
>lyrics, but they hear the music."   The voters feel good because they expect
>that their discomfort will be taken care of.   Therefore they vote for the
>candidate most positive towards their needs.   The candidate is elected to
>the office for which they are running and thereby achieve their goal.
>.  The more that voters seek the attention of government assistance for their
>myriad problems, the more that the sphere of government involvement in the
>details of everyone's daily lives enlarges.  This enlargement of the
>government sphere of involvement, as encouraged by citizens, expands as
>people find more things to complain about.   The more personal control over
>their problems which they abdicate to the government, the more control it
>.  Of course a government does not want to appear to be in totalitarian
>control.   Many citizens do want *someone* to be in control, however.  They
>want a benevolent overseer to be in control.  As the scope of benevolent
>services, as controlled by government, spreads out across the land, many
>people are happy that someone is in control.
>.  Some people are so happy about benevolent government control that they
>want it extended towards things like their own moral preferences.   Any time
>that they see the evidence of anything contrary to their own moral
>preferences, they want these visible signs of contrariness removed.  Moral
>preferences and how they relate to national circumstances are a tricky
>subject for governors and legislators.   But if it makes the citizens happy
>and keeps the governors in office, they are willing to oblige in removing
>these offenses by pursuing the "offenders".
> .  Reducing the expressions of these offenders helps the governors, because
>it enhances their position of control.  It helps to legitimize their
>activities and again enlarges their arena, their domain, of command.   They
>can become quite meticulous in determining what may or may not be expressed
>or said which might be offensive to someone - in particular, to themselves
>(because it may weaken their image of being benevolent and "in command" of
>the situation).
>.  At that point, anyone who can think in the abstract will be able to see
>that, as expression derives from thought, that what is wrong therefore with
>all of the "offenders" is their thoughts.  That is why TC May called this
>kind of offense the equivalent of "thought crime".  There is a book about
>"thought crimes" against the State which you may have heard about, though you
>may not have read.
>.  Thought and its relationship to the State is a deep and complex
>philosophical subject.  There are many posts in the cpunk archives which can
>provide you with insights into the anarcho-capitalist libertarian position.
>.  If you need any more details on "thought criminality", maybe Tim can
>answer them for you, as he's the one who brought up the subject.  I was
>merely agreeing with him.  <g>
>   ..