> From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Of course, selective obedience is intolerable to a state.
Or to a functional anarchy!
If you agree to something, you agree to it. I'll bet few of us have
formally "agreed" to follow their government in whatever whim it
follows. (Despite US school children having to recite that silly
"Pledge of Allegiance" every damn day.)
Selective obedience is generally because of stupid laws. Our group
had a "no drugs" subgroup, while others wanted to be able to
discretely indulge from time to time, without feeling like they were
breaking an agreement they had taken on. So we had a pow-wow, and got
the "no drugs" group to deconstruct their reasons for feeling that
way, and came up with a policy everyone could live with. (http://
www.EcoReality.org/wiki/Recreational_intoxicants)
The problem with this approach is polarization -- particularly in a
two-party system. There is no effective voice in US politics for the
legalization of marijuana, for example, yet there are millions of
Americans who indulge.
(This is stated as an example only. I do not want to get into whether
or not any particular law should be rescinded, except that the level
of non-compliance speaks volumes about the wisdom of such a law.)
Requisite Oly content: I once took a picture with an OM-2n of someone
indulging in selective obedience. Perhaps I should destroy that slide
before the North American Union confiscates it.
:::: The biggest crime of all that Microsoft commits is getting
people accustomed to huge, slow, unstable software as the norm." --
Jay Maynard
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Item/003AA23>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|