🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:44:58 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Morgan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:28:17 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Paul Morgan wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:11:23 -0400, "Jacko" <jacko@jacko.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
>> >> >> government?
>> >> >
>> >> >its a fundamental stipulation of democracy that if the people are
>> >> >dissatisfied with the current government that they can expel it and impose a
>> >> >new type... remember, democracy's definition is government of the people by
>> >> >the people for the people. Just everyone isnt aware of this and well most
>> >> >people are scared to get off their butts and do anything about it. Remember,
>> >> >most nations were born of despotisms, then moved to feudalisms, to
>> >> >monarchys, to socialist states, some to dictatorships, with most all
>> >> >eventually ending up in a democracy. Governments have changed like this
>> >> >before, why do it have to stop evolving now?
>> >> >
>> >> >J
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Good of you to jump in and answer for Ed.
>> >
>> >It's an open thread, anyone is free to jump in and offer their opinion. That's
>> >what democracy is all about, isn't it Paul?
>> >
>>
>> Usual manners are that when a question is directed at an individual,
>> you wait for the reply.
>>
>> >> Anyway Ed, by what means do you think we have the right to change
>> >> government? Do you propose violence or wait till next election?
>> >
>> >I certainly do not advocate violence. I advocate peaceful and legal change when
>> >possible, and if that isn't practical, then I believe in the approach advocated
>> >by  Mahatma Gandhi, which includes civil disobedience. Gandhi said "Civil
>> >disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it
>> >denies...  Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with
>> >good...  All through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have
>> >been tyrants. . . and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they
>> >always fall, always."
>> >
>> >Of course *if* a government responds with violence towards it's citizens, the
>> >natural right of self-defence mandates that the citizens resist such violence by
>> >any means at their disposal, IMHO.
>> >
>> >Does that answer your question Paul?
>>
>> But the citizen must give violence first as the governments action is
>> a response.
>
>Are you saying that a government would never initiate violence towards it's citizens?


A government, surely. A properly elected Canadian government, no.
And before you start with the G-8 analogy, violence was offered first
by protesters.