From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What Here!?! (Re: Working for change?)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 17:36:50 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep12.011921.8139@bellahs.com> tnelson@bellahs.com (Tom Nelson RD) writes:
    >>Do you REALLY think that Clinton .vs. Bush is a CHOICE?
    >>
    >Yes I do think that there is a choice there, Ross Perot is
    >still on the ballet here in California, Leona B. Felani (did
    >I spell that correctly?) is running. There are plenty of
    >choices out there, you just have to go and find out what they
    >are, not stay home and complain that third party candidates
    >don't get enough coverage in the mass media. Of the two major
    >candidates it is a choice between continued or accelerated
    >progress towards catastrophic social change, and dragging
    >that particular pain out for a few more years (or possibly
    >decades)

Come on NOW. You admit that the choices are between "fuck it all up as usual"
and "fuck it up even faster" and you want me to participate in that
immoral farce???


    >>Get off it. This is a coercive system. It works in secret
    >>(why? eh?). It takes things from people against their will.
    >>It is immoral. It is run and maintained by very immoral
    >>people with zero ethics. The corruption is extremely blatant
    >>(just what does a lobbyist do?). It's about power.
    >>
    >>
    >There you are right Phil and I agree with you completely on
    >all the points you made above: We Live In A Coercive Society.
    >(I even capitalized it for emphasis.) There are [lots and
    >lots] of people here in California alone, and each of those
    >[lots and lots] of people all have their own ideas and
    >backgrounds and histories and they all have to live together.
    >Its called pluralism Phil. That means that when there is a
    >conflict, compromise is necessary. Another way to look at it
    >is: you can't always get your own way Phil. (I learned that
    >in Kindergarten from Mrs. Shanesee(sp) :-) Even though you
    >seem to think that it is some inalienable human right to
    >always get exactly what you want.

No, what you learned in Kindergarten is to wait and share -- share the whip!
That's the bloody little secret -- just wait your turn and you too can
get a taste of holding the whip.

Me, I want the whip abolished. And you are an absolute idiot to confuse
the desire to not be coerced with "always get exactly what you want".


    >I don't expect you to think much of me Phil... I don't live
    >my life for your pleasure, so let's leave that whole issue
    >out of it.

Congratulations!!! You almost have it. If you don't live your life for
my pleasure, then you must live it for your pleasure (the only moral
and sane choice). Thus, laws that require you to live your life
for someone else are wrong and immoral.

    >And like I said before Phil, I don't put any blame on you for
    >the state of the world. Just stay out of the kitchen if you
    >ain't gonn'a cook (if you get my meaning.)

I have the moral right (but not the duty) to resist coercion. I.e., it's
my fucking kitchen the bastards are muckin' about in.

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45716 ca.politics:7847 ba.politics:5369 soc.motss:39178