🚀 go-pugleaf

Matt Walcoff wrote:

> >>It *is* one group forcing a law upon another without making it
> >>apply to itself,
>
> >This isn't a valid line of reasoning.   For an extreme case of "one
> >group vs. another) onsider, say, property rights framed in that
> >context. Or national sovereignty.
>
> It is perfectly good reasoning. In most instances, those affected by a
> law can vote for the same legislators who make it. In this case, most
> of those affected cannot vote or were not able to vote in the last
> election cycle.
>

Democracy is 2 wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Discrimination victims can vote, but they are vastly outnumbered at the polls by
fat old ladies who watch soap operas, play bingo, read tabloids and don't know the
metric system.  The fat old ladies insist on voting wrong, and that's not the fault
of the discrimination victims.  If the fat old ladies see ACTIONS HAVE
CONSEQUENCES, (e.g. cops killed trying to arrest underage drinkers) they might stop
voting wrong.   Only then, will they give a damn.  They don't give a damn about the
rights of discrimination victims.  All they give a damn about is gimme, gimme,
gimme, more Social Security, more Medicare, more housing subsidy.

Armed resistance is morally justified if the government tries to violate the rights
of the people. ["That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."]

Armed resistance is morally justified if the fat old ladies keep voting wrong.
["Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren.  We have warned
them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable
Jurisdiction over us...They, too have been deaf to the Voice of Reason and of
Consanguinity."]

Tom Alciere
talciere@xtdl.com
AllCopsSuk@aol.com