OT: Celebrity advice (was: Advice to a Junior in High School?)
peter at engcorp.com
Thu Aug 28 14:56:56 CEST 2003
Gerrit Holl wrote:
> OK; but the last lethal stage is reached *only* if the civilian involved
> *also* defends himself with the same means as the government. So, things
> will get lethal ulmitately *only* if the civilian owns the same arms as
> the government. Consequently, ESR's statement is only applicable to the
> situation he promotes.
> If I resist and keep resisting using only my fists or even a knife, the
> Dutch police will be able to take me to prison without killing me. A
> qualified police force should even be able to do this even when I am
> using a gun, but does not always succeed in this.
You just aren't cut out for this resistance stuff, are you? ;-)
If I had a knife, I'd grab the nearest bystander (one of those types
who hasn't chosen to opt out with me, and is therefore not "innocent" ;-)
and I'd hold him or her hostage. After a while, the state would get
tired of this and just shoot me.
Lulu talks about biological and physical restrictions, but also ignores
the process needed to *get me into those handcuffs* in the first place.
I could be pretty imaginative in finding ways to avoid that, which did
not involve a gun, if you insisted.
But at this point the discussion quickly degrades, because my sole
point was that ESR used the word "ultimately" for a good reason, to
try to communicate to his audience a link between personal choice with
respect to laws and such, and lethal force. I accept his point as
made, even if I agree more with you guys that generally speaking it's
a bit of a reach.
More information about the Python-list