Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:12:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: ML Duke <mlduke@resumes-by-duke.com>, "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970725224839.11430B-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <20796.869894192@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > I think you must have been one of those unfortunates born > sarcasm-impaired, but since you've chosen to take me so seriously I > guess I'll respond to a few of your points, some of which I find to be > almost stunningly naieve. > > > What is it that you like to do, want to do or enjoy doing that, were one > > special interest group or another were to manage to have a law passed > > against it, (the point of the gun) that it would cause you distress? > > Just about everything, but then I see law not as a some benign force, > set about purely and altruistically by others for our own good, but > rather as the feudal contract between the serf and his current > overlord. Oh, we've santized and homogenized the whole process of > enforcing a power structure to the point where some deluded fools > actually think they control the process, but it's not about that at > all. Mankind is a wolfpack society, and there's always a hierarchy of > dominance and submission involved. I have come to the conclusion that the fundamental model of government is not the social contract but the gang, perhaps not so different from the wolfpack. The gang has the guns. > > So though my remarks about forcing people around at gunpoint were > sarcastic, they're hardly something which I have deep moral feelings > about. There will always be someone out there who will try to stick a > gun to my head if they think it will further their aims and, should > the situation truly warrant it, it's not a tactic I'd eschew myself. > > What defines us as human beings is our judgement about what does and > does not warrant the use of that kind of force, not some arbitrary > moral line drawn in the sand which you try to get everyone in society > to stand only on one side of (usually, and oh-so-conveniently, allowing > the line-drawer the sole privilege of occupying either side at will). Our judgment about what warrants the use of force may define us as individual human beings, but what defines the society is the extent to which the gang's use of its guns can be limited and controlled, and how one gang can depose another. Thus there are wolfpacks, and then again there are wolfpacks. Some wolfpacks are better places to live not because the alpha wolves are any different, but because the other wolves have better means of controlling the abuses of power of the alphas. > > > The above are in keeping with the natural goodness of our natures, not > > There is no natural goodness to human nature - that is purely learned > behavior. :-) So, you agree on something. :) Meanwhile, I'm having this problem with my tcpwrappers..... Annelise
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970725224839.11430B-100000>