<!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">
Richard M Stallman wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:E1LHQJ3-0006SE-Mf@fencepost.gnu.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I doubt that I agree fully with that statement. The immoral "principle" that unjust privileges can be created but not destroyed deserves to be abolished; if "the present legal order" includes that "principle" then I cannot agree we should preserve it.</pre>
</blockquote>
As long as revolutions can be bloodless,I think we just came back to
the <i>evolutionary vs revolutionary</i> debate. Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
<br>
P.S.: From UDHR: "<i>it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to
have recourse, as a
last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human
rights should be protected by the rule of law</i>". Of course, if
citizens weren't allowed to change current state of things -for legal
framework, and at some point after a transitional period, even for
pre-change works-, talking about revolutioning things may be
understood. As long as changes are allowed, why to revolve things
rather than make them evolve?<br>
</body>
</html>