Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids

On 19 Jul 1996 19:51:39 Hallam-Baker wrote
>It is no coincidence that the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with
>blood on occasion.

As a native Bostonian, I have to tell you that the original "Tree of
Liberty" was cut down many many years ago and in it's place now stands a
storefront, if you look up onto the second floor you will notice a frieze
of a tree. This is all that stands to commemerate the "Tree of Liberty".


oh btw that storefront is in the comabat zone of boston, and the last time
I checked that  store was called either the "Naked I"or the "Pussycat
lounge", can you guess what they sell?

It's been a while since I've been in that neighborhood, so I dont remeber
the street corner, ask bob hettinga if you want to know where.

Speaking of Bob Hettinga put it to words best, told me that standing on the
Concord bridge he could see the colors of the American flag eminating
outwards to the rest of the country. Yup this is where it all started..



Vinnie Moscaritolo
"Law - Samoan Style"
http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/
Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

> On 19 Jul 1996 19:51:39 Hallam-Baker wrote

>>It is no coincidence that the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with
>>blood on occasion.

Nope, that wasn't me who said that. I don't normally quote the words of 
slave owners on the subject of liberty.

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
> > On 19 Jul 1996 19:51:39 Hallam-Baker wrote
> 
> >>It is no coincidence that the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with
> >>blood on occasion.
> 
> Nope, that wasn't me who said that. I don't normally quote the words of 
> slave owners on the subject of liberty.

No one would ever accuse you of supporting freedom, Phill. I'm sure it
was an accident.

(BTW, Jefferson's slaves were inherited and an an entailment clause in
the will prevented him from freeing them during his lifetime. Not, of
course, that this matters -- the idea of confusing the messenger and
the message is the ad hominem fallacy.)

Perry

>No one would ever accuse you of supporting freedom, Phill. I'm sure it
>was an accident.

Actually I have been very active in circles like Liberty (the UK version
of the ACLU). Its just that we have entirely different ideas of what liberty 
is. Perry believes that libery is license and I believe in the utilitarian
formulation of Liberty as advanced by Mill, Russell et al.

>(BTW, Jefferson's slaves were inherited and an an entailment clause in
>the will prevented him from freeing them during his lifetime. Not, of
>course, that this matters -- the idea of confusing the messenger and
>the message is the ad hominem fallacy.)

Nope, ad-hominen is a perfectly acceptable form of attack when calling
into question a speaker's credentials. The words are used because they
were Jefferson's and because he is held up as a supporter of liberty.
Pointing out that the words are the cant of a hypocrite is entirely
justified.

Notwithstanding entailment clauses, Jefferson was under no compunction to
exploit his slaves by exploiting their labour. He could have paid them 
competative wages and allowed them to chose to work for others. In short
he could in effect have freed them. Of course then he would not have had 
the financial means to live as a member of the privileged classes. 

Genuine philosophers have made such sacrifices. Russell gave away his 
inheritance after completing Principia because he objected to the idea
of inherited wealth. 


Of course if Perry was interested in genuine liberty instead of a slave
owner's idea of liberty - liberty to exploit others he would see the 
contradiciton in his rhetoric.


		Phill

> Actually I have been very active in circles like Liberty (the UK version
> of the ACLU). Its just that we have entirely different ideas of what liberty 
> is. Perry believes that libery is license and I believe in the utilitarian
> formulation of Liberty as advanced by Mill, Russell et al.

    Well, you're in a country of _free citizens_ now, Limey, so if you
don't like it, then go back to England - a whole nation of people who foam at
the mouth with pride and pleasure over their status as feudal _subjects_.

Dja ever notice that Charlie Mountbatten married a gorgeous young babe,
but was irretrievably drawn to to an elderly woman of great ugliness? 

No, Phil, do NOT ask me to call him Prince.   I'd sooner follow the 
example of Lady Liberty in the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

>   Well, you're in a country of _free citizens_ now, Limey, so if you
>don't like it, then go back to England - a whole nation of people who foam at
>the mouth with pride and pleasure over their status as feudal _subjects_.

O.K. lets see if we brits were to offer you yankees the Windsors,
plus an assortment of flunkies, corgies and stuff are you so sure that
your people would reject it? After all someone sold you a bridge so
it's not that implausible.

Given the way your press goes nuts over big ears and his ex wife
(aka familly brood unit) it is clear that you would jump at the 
chance if the price was sufficiently high (i.e. is the Brits asked 
for enough money).

>Dja ever notice that Charlie Mountbatten married a gorgeous young babe,
>but was irretrievably drawn to to an elderly woman of great ugliness? 

>No, Phil, do NOT ask me to call him Prince.   I'd sooner follow the 
>example of Lady Liberty in the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Actually Lord Mountbatten was not a prince of the UK, he was a prince
of the Greek royal family and his name was not Charles. The Prince
of Wales is Charles Windsor an he comes from a distinguished line of
Germans. 

If you wish to insult our royal familly please learn how to do it 
_right_. You could refer to Charlie's wish to be reincarnated as a
tampon used by Camilla Parker-Bowles or his famous debate with a
house plant.

Which brings us to the point, the choice between the babe who
happens to be neurotic or the woman with a face like a horse?
People in those circles start riding horses at the age of four 
and so they probably don't look too bad to them. Besides, the
favourite position of the house of Windsor is the bucking bronco.


		Phill

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

>  
> >   Well, you're in a country of _free citizens_ now, Limey, so if you
> >don't like it, then go back to England - a whole nation of people who foam at
> >the mouth with pride and pleasure over their status as feudal _subjects_.
> 
> O.K. lets see if we brits were to offer you yankees the Windsors,
> plus an assortment of flunkies, corgies and stuff are you so sure that
> your people would reject it? After all someone sold you a bridge so
> it's not that implausible.
> 

America didn't by the bridge; an American bought the bridge. It was 
purchased as a theme park attraction. I think the Windsors would make an 
excellent theme park attraction. We'll put them down the road from 
Graceland. You can go see the Queen after you've visted the King ...

How much are you asking? (O.K. - how much minus the corgies?)

- r.w.

At 4:49 PM -0700 7/22/96, hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
>
>>   Well, you're in a country of _free citizens_ now, Limey, so if you
>>don't like it, then go back to England - a whole nation of people who foam at
>>the mouth with pride and pleasure over their status as feudal _subjects_.
>
>O.K. lets see if we brits were to offer you yankees the Windsors,
>plus an assortment of flunkies, corgies and stuff are you so sure that
>your people would reject it? After all someone sold you a bridge so
>it's not that implausible.

Some of us love the occasional rabbit's foot but we don't carry the live
rabbit around with us. Maybe if you offered us Charles' Rolls Royce, or the
odd Crown Jewel...

>
>Given the way your press goes nuts over big ears and his ex wife
>(aka familly brood unit) it is clear that you would jump at the
>chance if the price was sufficiently high (i.e. is the Brits asked
>for enough money).
>
>>Dja ever notice that Charlie Mountbatten married a gorgeous young babe,
>>but was irretrievably drawn to to an elderly woman of great ugliness?
>
>>No, Phil, do NOT ask me to call him Prince.   I'd sooner follow the
>>example of Lady Liberty in the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

If you won't call him "Prince", how about "Rover"? (pun intended)

>
>Actually Lord Mountbatten was not a prince of the UK, he was a prince
>of the Greek royal family and his name was not Charles. The Prince
>of Wales is Charles Windsor an he comes from a distinguished line of
>Germans.

And judging from recent exposes, Wallis Simpson's Duke of Windsor was
trying very hard to get back to the mother country and his kindly old Uncle
Adolph.

How's THIS thread for off-topic? The first reader who fails to be amused is
given one free pass to tell both Phill and I to take it to e-mail.

David

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
> >No one would ever accuse you of supporting freedom, Phill. I'm sure it
> >was an accident.
> 
> Actually I have been very active in circles like Liberty (the UK version
> of the ACLU). Its just that we have entirely different ideas of what liberty 
> is. Perry believes that libery is license and I believe in the utilitarian
> formulation of Liberty as advanced by Mill, Russell et al.

You don't believe in Mill's formulation, Phill. If you did, you
couldn't possibly support 90% of the garbage you talk about. Mill was
a libertarian in the modern sense -- he opposed virtually everything
government did. Yes, his opposition was utilitarian, but so what? You
use utilitarianism to justify the indefensible.

You say I think that my idea of freedom is license. Perhaps. However,
I think my notion is closer to the common conception than yours, which
owes more to Orwellian redefinition than to the normal use of the
term.

> Of course if Perry was interested in genuine liberty instead of a slave
> owner's idea of liberty

Again, that is ad hominem. You say that ad hominem's are fine when one
is questioning a speaker's credentials, but the point is that
Jefferson's credentials are immaterial. You call him a slave owner as
in order to try to taint his ideas. However, ideas cannot be
tainted. If Adolf Hitler felt that high speed autobahns were a good
idea, that doesn't make highways a bad idea simply because of the
person who conceived of them.

Jefferson could have been a mass murderer for all I care. His words
may be evaluated fully independently of his actions. They are not
interdependent.

Perry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> Nope, ad-hominen is a perfectly acceptable form of attack when calling
> into question a speaker's credentials. The words are used because they
> were Jefferson's and because he is held up as a supporter of liberty.
> Pointing out that the words are the cant of a hypocrite is entirely
> justified.

You fail to mention that Jefferson tried to pass a law through Congress that
would make slavery illegal by 1800.  The bill failed to pass by one vote.
Also, he deplored slavery and considered it evil.

> 
> Notwithstanding entailment clauses, Jefferson was under no compunction to
> exploit his slaves by exploiting their labour. He could have paid them 
> competative wages and allowed them to chose to work for others. In short
> he could in effect have freed them. Of course then he would not have had 
> the financial means to live as a member of the privileged classes. 
> 
> Genuine philosophers have made such sacrifices. Russell gave away his 
> inheritance after completing Principia because he objected to the idea
> of inherited wealth. 

This is an entirely subjective and philosophical argument about whether the
means justify the ends.  I won't debate any of the issues here.  However,
consider the fact that if Jefferson didn't have as much money as he had, he
might have not had as much policial impact.

Also think about the fact that all libertarians who drive cars, are by your
definition, hypocrites because they drive on tax-funded roads.

Sometimes it is necessary to violate one's principles in order to help the
greater good.

- -- Mark

PGP encrypted mail prefered
Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/  


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMfP6j7Zc+sv5siulAQF1TAP/XX2fPK7HpBnI7tykVoCFCl+CFZF/7Jj+
pttjhuraBCZ1qmW2QUzbbFNAATWB6toMhIAui75b3hZo1Bc+L6zerUYqkLeiACB1
0QVfVyztBnptNmLfUw9W6+EXEE0iLv9AoAHKPzbv4sQhjbr4ndraplVuDgItu25B
wDfsxVbplYk=
=bhCN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>> Notwithstanding entailment clauses, Jefferson was under no compunction to
>> exploit his slaves by exploiting their labour. He could have paid them 
>> competative wages and allowed them to chose to work for others. In short
>> he could in effect have freed them. Of course then he would not have had 
>> the financial means to live as a member of the privileged classes. 
>> 
>> Genuine philosophers have made such sacrifices. Russell gave away his 
>> inheritance after completing Principia because he objected to the idea
>> of inherited wealth. 

>This is an entirely subjective and philosophical argument about whether the
>means justify the ends.  I won't debate any of the issues here.  However,
>consider the fact that if Jefferson didn't have as much money as he had, he
>might have not had as much policial impact.

No, the argument is over whether a person should live by the ideals he
preaches. I have more respect fot the likes of Kant and Russell who made
rather more of an effort than Jefferson.

The observation that history is made by rich people and written by rich 
people is not a new one. Until this century there were few countries
where politics were open to anyone but the very wealthy. In the USA
that is still by and large the case.

Rather than attempting to excuse Jefferson it would be better to
accept that not everything he said was valid when he said it and
to try to engage ones brain rather than using his words as slogans.


>Also think about the fact that all libertarians who drive cars, are by your
>definition, hypocrites because they drive on tax-funded roads.

Since they are denied the "right" to live in Libertopia they have
no choice but to live in the real world. That doesn't make them
hypocrites. They are not directly contradicting their principles.

On the other hand there are plenty of "free-market" economists
who live entirely on grant money from the public purse and plenty
of those "libertarians" will be accepting government assisted
funding through college or would do so if it was available.


>Sometimes it is necessary to violate one's principles in order to help the
>greater good.

Yes, but how can a Randite libertarian do so in good faith? For such
people there is no greater good, it is all the self.


		Phill

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
> Since they are denied the "right" to live in Libertopia they have
> no choice but to live in the real world. That doesn't make them
> hypocrites. They are not directly contradicting their principles.
> On the other hand there are plenty of "free-market" economists
> who live entirely on grant money from the public purse and plenty
> of those "libertarians" will be accepting government assisted
> funding through college or would do so if it was available.

    If the government money wasn't taken from us to begin with, we could 
better afford tuition. If there was no government aid, the schools 
would be cheaper. If there was no government aid, the schools would assit
one more in getting private aid. 

> >Sometimes it is necessary to violate one's principles in order to help the
> >greater good.
> Yes, but how can a Randite libertarian do so in good faith? For such
> people there is no greater good, it is all the self.

     Yeah, and to a fscking statist you give your all to the state. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> (BTW, Jefferson's slaves were inherited and an an entailment clause in
> the will prevented him from freeing them during his lifetime. Not, of

It would be hard to prove the case that this was the only thing 
preventing earlier manumission, but then the whole issue is one of the 
hardest things to understand about Jefferson; many of his closest friends 
were leaders in the abolitionist movement of the time, and it's almost 
impossible to believe that he didn't know slavery to be morally 
indefensible relatively early on in his political development. Guess it 
was just part of his programming he couldn't throw off.

Still leaves him just ahead of FDR as best american president, but does
drop him a way behind Paine for best  political theorist of the revolution

 ---
Cause maybe  (maybe)		      | In my mind I'm going to Carolina
you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th.
And after all			      | Email address remains unchanged
You're my firewall -    	      | ........First in Usenet.........

> Nope, that wasn't me who said that. I don't normally quote the words of 
> slave owners on the subject of liberty.


   How do you feel about womanslaughterers and drunkards?  I can send you 
a list of your senior US Senator's  quotations.

>   How do you feel about womanslaughterers and drunkards?  I can send you 
>a list of your senior US Senator's  quotations.

I don't normally quote Ted Kennedy on anything. You can add 
"appologist for terrorism" to that list if you like. On the 
other hand did you see the alternative that was offered????

US politics frequently gives one a choice between two people who 
individually would be unacceptable but together are acceptable
only because the other is even worse.

When Weld beat Silbur a large number of Mass Liberals voted
for the republican Weld as the more left wing of the pair. The
Presidential race is hardly enthralling with a choice between
a Democrat so right wing hes prepared to sign a Republican 
welfare bill and a septugenarian Republican who can barely 
string together enough words to make a sentence.

Oh and to complete the picture, we have a collection of assorted 
fruitcakes which make Dan Quaylee look apealing.



		Phill