"Those who choose to obey the laws" are either those who are the beneficiaries of such instruments, or to whom the instrument has rendered all other choices and possibilities unworthy of consideration. The point is that even in western democracies, people don't actually have a choice in the matter. You obey or you are punished. That is the presupposition of the whole concept: removal (whether it is perceived as voluntary or otherwise) of choice to those who know properly how to do the choosin'.
Government in North Korea is maintained by the same force and threats as it is in most any western democracy. The difference being that in western democracies the populace is encouraged to take an actionable role in their own subjugation and the subjugation of others in an attempt to feel like we belong and have agency in such matters. We are allowed to choose wallpaper patterns for the homes we are allowed to live in by being obedient enough to be granted some kind of economic privilege. In exchange for our co-operation, we earn a chance at a more personally satisfying (to some) servitude. Should any groups of people in a western democracy decide against being servile, we know for sure that force will arrive there to restore servility. I'd prefer not to allow my liberty to be (or at least work to prevent from being) bound by involuntary contracts like constitutions, writs and the like. And after reading over the thread again I'd like to point out: "Those who choose to obey the laws (that they themselves are protected by I might add) do not need to be compelled." This phrase strikes me now as something very similar to what a gangster might say when attempting to expand a protection racket. I'm not suggesting that you are a gangster or run a protection racket, of course, but that the logic being implied by your concept of governance lines up perfectly with what I am describing. I think that we are in agreement about function but just have different biases and perspectives into those functions. On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Richmond <richmondmathew...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 08/02/14 07:06, Bob Sneidar wrote: > >> Only upon the lawless. :-) Those who choose to obey the laws (that they >> themselves are protected by I might add) do not need to be compelled. >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> > There is a small problem there. > > I am sure that most of us here on the Use-List would applaud a North > Korean who broke certain of that > country's draconian laws, > > and, furthermore, > > do not feel groovy about the sort of compulsion that goes on there. > > Now that is one end of a continuum, and the question is, and always has > been, > where one should decide breaking a law is legitimate protest and where it > is > a crime. > > Richmond. > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > -- Regards, Andrew Kluthe and...@ctech.me _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
