Subj : Re: free speech
To : Arelor
From : Boraxman
Date : Sat Jun 07 2025 10:22 am
-=> Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Ar> @MSGID: <
[email protected]>
Ar> @REPLY: <
[email protected]>
Ar> [1m[34mRe[0m[34m: [1m[36mRe: free speech
Ar> [34mBy[0m[34m: [1m[36mpoindexter FORTRAN [34mto [36mArelor
Ar> [34mon [36mWed Jun 04 2025 05:13 pm[0m
>
> I'd claim that the claim to authority is valid, but grift, while
> damaging isn't a reason to deny the claim.
>
Ar> It is easy.
Ar> In a modern nation-state it is understood that the legitimacy of
Ar> authority comes from the fact they represent the interests of the
Ar> people, who delegates power in the government. I don't agrtee but let's
Ar> follow with the argument.
Ar> If a government does NOT represent the interest of the voters then you
Ar> cannot say they are using the power the people delegated on it as
Ar> intended. If they are outright abusing such power and not representing
Ar> the people then they don't get to claim they work with the authority of
Ar> the people and therefore nobody must take their ethical claims
Ar> seriously.
I would go one further.
If the government is acting against the interests of the nation, and
by that I specifically mean its people, then it is *treasonous* and
should be treated as such.
A government that treats its people as hostile, has not only lost its
legitimacy, but its right to continue. The people would be right to
treat it as an enemy.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
