On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Pirate Praveen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Excuse me, can you site the relevant section of Indian law which gives
> NSA rights to read your email?
>
No, I cannot, and neither can I cite the relevant section of Indian law
that gave the Pakistani Army the rights to be in Kashmir. A State is
"Sovereign", it gets its authority from itself, not from its neighbours.
To quote Elizabeth I: Must is not a word to be used to princes!
I did not know this too. I thought states are restricted by
> constitution, a contract between the citizen or state.
That is seen these days as a rather extreme view, for example by the Tea
Party in the US, or Hobbes in the 1600's. I agree with you that a
Constitution is what the people have granted the Government of a State, and
the Constitution defines the State (which is why, as in France, each time
the Constitution was overhauled, the State changed name ("The Fifth
Republic").
(BTW, may I recommend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29
). You should be able to get an online copy.
However, in effect, how are we going to enforce this contract?
Another, tangential issue: My grandfather may have consented to the
Constitution of India, but no one has ever asked me :-) What about _my_
consent?
Or are you saying
> might is right? Then why are we even having the debate? These crackers
> had the might to break and take personal photos.
>
I am NOT saying Might is Right. I am saying that once we have a State, the
difference comes down to: In what conditions, and with what controls, can
the State do something it forbids its Citizens to do? This question goes
to the heart of what type of Government we want. I shifted to Singapore
because it has a different answer to this question (different, not better),
which I was happier with.
Me asking you for 10% of your profits, or else, is forbidden. The State
asking you for 10% is allowed. What is Right cannot be discussed, because
the State defines what is Right.
I am not sure why you think I am saying the crackers had the right, or
might, to take these photos.
It gives a perspective into the scale of loss and sometimes helps to
> such perspectives allow us to channel our angers at the bigger issues.
>
Yes, I agree with you completely. I am not clear why the NSA has to be
dragged in. As I said, your sorrrow does not lessen because the NSA did
stuff that was legal or otherwise.
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
