December 22, 2004
Overheard in Oakland and Environs
Melanie has a fantastic voice, a rich dramatic soprano voice with a range that often amazes me. Furthermore, she has a good ear, superb phrasing, and an innate musicality that is rare.
So it was a bit surprising the other day when Melanie was singing and Amalia pipes up from the back seat, "Mamma! Quit Squawking!"
Then this morning I was talking on the phone with my friend who has a sentimental attachment to democracy.
I was talking about my upcoming plans on making vermouth and some other goodies. I said that I was thinking about making gin and the whole issue of a still came up. I told him that I believed that it was the duty of every man, woman and child to set up a still, because the law against it is so patently unjust, etc.
Anyway, I mentioned that a friend had shown me how to make a still with an electric pressure cooker and surgical tubing.
"You know what the last words of many a redneck is?"
"No, what?"
"'Watch this!'"
Posted by erik at December 22, 2004 11:06 AM | TrackBackMr. Smithers,
You must realize that my authoritarianism is Italianate, so there is always room for negotiation, persuasion, bribery, etc. While Anglo Puritans decry this sort of thing as corruption, these things are nothing more than built-in corrections to harsh law.
Furthermore, the authoritarian has the authority only insofar as it is used justly. Once an authority does something like start a new Protestant Church, he is not longer the authority, but just another antichrist. There is a Law higher than that of the Duce. Hard to imagine, but it is so.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at December 25, 2004 6:42 PMha! that is so funny...what our little people say! the other day my two year old was looking thoughtful and then turned his head over to one side, asked me "can christmas come over?" (: his understanding of christmas is a good one. have a great holiday! there is always something interesting to read on your site. keeps me thinking...
Posted by: jenny vorwaller at December 23, 2004 8:43 AMFor consideration: Legal positivism wouldn't, in asserting that law and merit are different things, require one to equate law with merit. Applied, it simply seems to require that the subject realize that they *are* subject to the law, and thus can be punished for breaking it, just or not.
Given any sort of trial/appelate system, however, this also means they can hope to change the law by their argument (or the pangs of authoritarian consciences) should they be caught.
Posted by: BP at December 23, 2004 7:31 AMYou accept the notion of unjust laws. Yet, legal positivism is integral to any form of authoritarian government.
What gives? Please explain.
Posted by: Thaddeus Smithers at December 22, 2004 8:51 PM