On 01/03/2014 03:10 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote: > --On Thursday, January 02, 2014 8:53 PM -0500 Ulex Europae > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At 04:38 PM 12/31/2013, James A. Donald wrote: >>> In practice, it is pretty obvious that most practitioners of civil >>> disobedience believe they are above the law, that they usually *are* >>> above the law, and that in particular Swartz believed he was above >>> the law, and was shocked to find that he was not. >> You seem to be laboring under a pernicious misapprehension: that there >> is a legitimate mandate to obey laws that are unconstitutional and/or >> unjust. There is a mandate, but it is just as illegitimate as the >> unconstitutional or the unjust law. > ..but youre implicitly asserting that people are supposed to obey 'laws' > that are 'constitutional'?(whatever the fuck 'constitutional' means) > > > this list just keeps getting better. or worse. I see what you're up to.
Illegitimate =? unconstitutional | unjust As for me, I don't give a fuck about your constitutions, and in many cases I don't care about your theories of justice either.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
