RBnDFW on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:59:17 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

OTOH, the problem I have with Unintended Consequences is that it
is too optimistic. Or mayhaps the book ends too soon. Certainly
Henry Bowman's "war" is over. From here on, he will fight no more.
But ... what about others? Those opposed to the DEA (as the Vail
anecdotes relate), are they included? There isn;'t a TLA which hasn't
****ed someone off for what they considered capricious reasons. All
Henry Bowman did was provide a catalyst for the use of political
murder as a means of seeking redress of grievances. The precedent is
now established (in that world) where killing government workers is
accepted.
That is what concerns me, about the book, or a Great Cull.

In this world, our government authorizes the killing of U.S. citizens,
without trial.

"...the U.S. government has created a “hit list” of Americans abroad
marked for murder."

http://pubrecord.org/nation/6905/gov...s-secret-list/

So how far are we from Henry Bowman's world?

1) Hobbes wrote that in a "state of nature" life was brutish,
nasty and short. How is this different than life "in a state of war"?
War lets you do things which would be crimes otherwise: kill people
and take what stuff of theirs you do not break.

2) It is said that "anarchy" is the state of there being no
government. But is a situation where one cannot depend on the actions
of the government any less of an "anarchy" of a society "without
structure". If the rule of law is subject to exceptions based on
race, creed, or connections, then what restricts the in.
Or to put it another way, if Government employees consider
themselves unrestrained by the law, why should I consider myself so
constrained?

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!