>At 08:55 PM 2/12/00 -0500, Petro wrote:
> Or will bother to look in the future.
>
>> What is considered legal/moral/rational today *might*
>>change in the future. Do you really want to take that chance?
>>
>> It's a lot easier to remove your eye-glasses to hide your
>>intellectualism than to hide a decade or twos computerized records
>>of your checking seditious literature out of the library, or buying
>>it from Amazon.com.
>
>On the other hand, you can just blow people off these days if they
>don't like your activities. Since one has millions of possible
>employers and millions of possible residence locations and since
>attitudes are so diverse, you will be able to find people to live
>with no matter how bizarre your practices. Even smokers can find
>work these days. Anarchists have no problems. For some companies,
>anarchism's a positive.
What part of "What is considered legal/moral/rational today
*might* change in the future" confused you?
You're brighter than that DCF. If, say, 20 years from now
Insurance Companies get legal access to your shopping records that
Mega-Chain-Food stores have, and they find out that you've been
buying shrimp weekly, and that shrimp is proven to be a link to
Alzheimers disease, so they deny your policy (or simply ammend to to
cut out treatment for Alzhemiers).
Or if the Facists fully gain power in this country, and
decide that everyone who read Austrian School Economics books needs
to be brought in for counselling and possible reeducation, do you
think that Amazon won't cough up those records so damn fast it makes
tachyons look like the Brown Dodge in the Slow Lane?
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: **********************************************
If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret
the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
