On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Lizsue wrote:

On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Frank wrote:

==========

"Those who refuse to support and defend the state have no claim to 
protection from the state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not 
be defined as murder in a legalistic sense.  The offense against the 
state, if any, should be using deadly weapons inside city limits, or 
creating a traffic hazard, or endangering bystanders, or some other

misdeeamor."

Hey!  Who said pacifists don't support the state?  I'd call wanting to keep 
the state out of war pretty damn supportive.

It could be argued that a pacifist is benefiting from the state defending 
him or her without being willing to themselves take up a share of the 
burden and risk of defending said state. 

Such argument has problems with the fact that degrees of pacifism exist, 
etc, etc...

But frankly, this isn't a forum for arguing about pacifism, supporting 
the state, etc...


John Walter Biles :  MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. Kansas         
ranma@falcon.cc.ukans.edu   http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~ranma/index.html 
"Love is the image you place around your significant other, and how close 
it is to being true love depends on how closely he or she fits into 
the mold."--Orlando de La Cruz