Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:48:54 +1000
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: voting ... A Reply to Noam Chomsky
From: Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann-AT-bigpond.com>


On 5/4/2004 5:31 PM, "Tahir Wood" <twood-AT-uwc.ac.za> wrote:

> Chris, we had a very good example of this in someone who advocated NO CHOICE
> against voting, in other words that the power of the state should be
> legitimately used, as in Australia, to criminalise not voting. You, rather
> pusillanimously, declined to respond to that. Why? It was a reactionary
> position, and expressed in the most arrogant of terms, an arrogance that only
> increased when I questioned it in the hope that the writer had been joking.

...and here you are blabbering about the South African's state ever so
enlightened policy of letting people not vote. YOU are the one arguing for
incorporating abstention as moment of legitimation of the state. Granted:
that is much funnier than anything I wrote...

Mate, you already have no choice in the matter. It is called a state, and it
doesn't get any better just because it is nice enough to let you keep your
soul squeaky clean.

Thiago




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---