<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ole Husgaard wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:49559718.4010505@sparre.dk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Carlos Ayala Vargas skrev:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I prefer the evolutionary approach mostly because I think that, to legitimate the new regime, one has to respect legality -even to change it-; otherwise, how would be able to expect others, tomorrow, not dismissing our changes by saying "/the changes made by PPI are not relevant/"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I prefer the evolutionary approach for a completely different reason: We should be careful when entering new and unknown territory.
Please note the difference between saying the law is wrong and breaking the law: If we break their old law, we cannot assume that they will not break our new law. That is anarchy. If we criticise their old law, we cannot assume that they will not criticise our new law. That is democracy.
If we cannot say that the old law is bad, we will never be able to propose better new law. Then we can never make any difference.</pre>
</blockquote>
Of course we can say, even should say, that current legal framework is
wrong -otherwise, we wouldn't be willing to change it-. However that
wasn't what Rick said: <i>Rick said that what law says today is not
relevant</i>.<br>
<br>
As I told zzorn yesterday, in a constitutional regime, first citizens
agree a basic set of rules -namely, a constitution, which should
include separation and balance between executive, legislative and
judicial branches-; and then, citizens (directly or through
parliaments) develop the legal framework <b>observing the constitution</b>;
those are democratic essentials, I think. The evolutionary approach
requires to observe the law even to change the law, otherwise it
becomes a revolution -revolutions can be bloodless, they just need to
dismiss the existing state of things prior to creating a new one-; I
wonder whether Rick's approach is evolutionary or revolutionary.<br>
<br>
Rick said what he said -also about the <i>mindset</i> stuff and the <i>coalition</i>
thing-; if he meant to say something else, I'm sure he'll be able to
clarify it. Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
</body>
</html>