🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jul20.191912.12293@cs.sfu.ca> bremner@cs.sfu.ca (David Bremner) writes:
>In article <26793@mindlink.bc.ca> Alan_Moulton@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Moulton) writes:
>>
>>If you cannot work within the system (because you do not think it works) then
>>change the system. Anything else is unacceptable. To flagrantly disobey the
>>courts of the Land shows a lack of respect for your fellow man and all that
>>we stand for (read this as being good things). If you cannot do this then
>>perhaps you should rethink wether or not you really want to be a part of this
>>society.... and if not then please feel free to leave.
>
>Is this post a setup to try and start a flame war about the validity
>of civil disobedience?  If so, I guess it will probably succeed.  If not,
>let me in typical USENET fashion respond to what I read rather than what you
>wrote :-)
>
>Now, I am the first to agree that people doing civil disobedience should 
>go in with their eyes open:  the whole point is that one is upset enough
>about something to risk going to jail.  Furthermore, I am not going to argue 
>that the ends justify the means; I can rant for hours on how bogus that is.
>However, to suggest that any sort of civil disobedience shows "a lack of 
>respect for your fellow man" implies a rather scary lack of willingness 
>to think for one's self.
______________
I can understand the need for civil disobedience under circumstances of
legally enforced or legally directed persecution.  Before I go on, let me
define this:  Government sanctioned or directed restriction of freedom and
liberty enforced by law on threat of personal suffering.  Apartheid is an
example, so was historical race law in the US.  I would go so far as to
include the expropriation of personal wealth in order to fund welfare but
in Canada I have difficulty finding an audience.

Society provides laws and government to administer those laws rightfully
in the protection of individual freedom, including freedom from murder,
theft, and assault, and the establishment of contract law to ensure fair
and equitable treatment between men.  Civil disobedience finds its place
where this functioning has broken down, or never existed.

The BC Government freely entered into contract with MacMillan Bloedel
whereby the rights to timber only were exchanged for cash based on the
governments estimation of the timber value, commonly called stumpage. 
Since the government makes the laws that administer their own contracts,
it is relatively simple to alter the terms afterwards.  The government of
B.C. has done so on many occasions, reducing the term of TFLicences from
perpetuitiy to ,I believe, about 10 years.  The government has overhauled
the stumpage system twice, each time dramatically changing how it is
calculated.  If any party has been abused, it is the forest tenure holders
in B.C.  It seems that they bear the brunt of criticism merely because
they are successful.  

How can we seriously criticize forest companies for viewing future planing
As far from certain when it is the government that has been monkeying
around with the process!  If a forest company looses money for a few
years, it goes bankrupt.  If the government looses money-- it issues "BC
Bonds!".

>The fact that we elected these bozos  (or worse elected the bozos that 
>appointed them) in no way implies that we owe them, on _MORAL_ grounds
>absolute obedience.  There is a tenuous connection, if any, between law
>and morality; often there is direct conflict.
______________
I beg to differ!  A system of law that holds the protection of individual
freedom is a system in direct support of morality.  The system of law in
Canada frequently and often systematically supresses freedom.

The N.D.P. are making sure that the citizens of this province owe most
significantly a lot of money.  Shuttung down the mining industry (#2 in
B.C) and pounding away at the forest industry (#1 in B.C.) is a sure fire
way to ensure that no one is left to pay what we owe.

>The sad fact (O.K., my strongly held belief) is that the people need 
>protecting from the government a lot more than the government needs protection
>from the people.
______________
Hear Hear!  Seems you end by arguing my point....

>--
>David Bremner / bremner@cs.sfu.ca / ubc-cs!fornax!bremner
/ (604)291-5938(days)


-- 
Robert Froese  VE7MOQ
taganov biogeocoenose approach                  "Clearcutting is not a Crime"
taganov@unixg.ubc.ca