is it ok to be luddite?

[pporteous at worley.co.nz]

Terrorism tends to be a medium practised by those who can see no possible chance
of success by any legal means (refer to US  foreign policy for numerous examples
of this). The rules of the "system" are designed to perpuate and protect itself,
so playing by the "system's" rules will generally result in cosmetic changes at
best. That is why revolutions are the only way that societies are radically
changed.

Just some unworked-through thoughts (you know, email).

peter




I understand what you're saying (and the example you've given isn't really
the best in that the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion caused by
refraction of the light spectrum or something -- further, "truth" is
relative, and is not something which can, or should, be imposed by brute
force, but that's another story) but my point is that if someone has a
cause, or an argument, which they are seeking to promote and propagate then
terrorism isn't a viable medium, either morally (imo) or in populist terms.
It's a lesson that someone like Yasser Arafat learned pretty quickly. I'm
not even sure that Ned Lud's cause was served all that well by his act of
terrorism, even though it was directed against the machinery of oppression
rather than the oppressors themselves: the Luddite Revolt lasted a measly
six years (1811-1816), while the Industrial Revolution continued, and has
continued, unabated.

best