[81602] in Cypherpunks
Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Burnes - Denver)
Wed Jun 11 14:20:01 1997
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:15:11 -0600 (MDT)
From: Jim Burnes - Denver <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
To: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Cc: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <v03102800afc3acb3c6c8@[10.0.2.15]>
Reply-To: Jim Burnes - Denver <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:22:38 -0700
> From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
> To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
>
> >I understand, but my point was that at some point the system of "law"
> >became simply a system of supplicating the masses and no longer serves
> >justice. When the system of law ceases to be a system of law and becomes
> >of system of corruption I no longer refer to it as law. Important
> >Orwellian distinction. Never let the bastards control the definitions and
> >language.
>
> "Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those
> in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former
> of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all
> technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by
> rules fixed and announced beforehand-rules which make it possible to
> foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers
> in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of
> this knowledge."
>
> >From "The Road to Surfdom," F.A. Hayek, as quoted from the classical
> exposition by A. V. Dicey in "The Law of the Constitution" (8th ed.), p.
> 198, the Rule of Law "means, in the first place the absolute supremacy or
> predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power,
> and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of
> wide discretionary authority on the part of government."
>
Steve:
Thanks.
I think you agreed with me there. I agree with Hayek's observation.
When the government is no longer bound by the "Rule of Law" (c),
it is no longer a rule of law, but becomes a capricious set of
miscellany designed to entrap (when necessary) those who would
oppose the priveledged.
(those with access to large amounts of cash, lawyers, connections
etc)
Jim Burnes
