Glastonbury Fayre 2002

[dave hall]

Well said the "anarcho-laminator"!!
All the people who complain about high fences, tend to be the type who
pissed off from Stonehenge and the surronding area leaving it full of their
shite. Leaving it for others to clear up.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK>
To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU <BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU>
Date: 03 July 2002 15:09
Subject: Re: Glastonbury Fayre 2002


>Mahkno nestor writes:
>
>> In a message dated 03/07/2002 14:32:01 GMT Daylight Time,
>> fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK writes:
>>
>>
>> > there's precious little incentive for the rest of us to subsidise
>> > their stay merely for the rather dubious benefit of their company.
>
>> Divide and Rule?
>
>I'm an anarchocapitalist. I've no interest in ruling anyone but myself
>and I'm opposed in principle to any political rule other than between
>consenting adults.
>
>I hadn't expected to have to explain in detail but this isn't workers
>versus bosses or rich versus poor. As I've already pointed out, those
>who are poor can enter Glastonbury legitimately simply by offering to
>pick up litter afterwards or do stewarding during. There's absolutely no
>conspiracy to keep anyone below a certain means away from the party.
>
>The only divide we're talking about is the divide between people who
>will respect each other as individuals and extend that respect to such
>privacy as they have inside their tent and to the property they store
>there, and the people who believe that they have some right, by dint of
>threat or force, to help themselves to that property, or to the persons
>themselves for purposes of violent entertainment or forced sexual
>congress.
>
>It seems to me that any self (and other) respecting anarchist (of
>whatever flavour), leftist, countercultural hippy or just general
>reasonable person would prefer to be counted in the first category and
>would prefer not to spend time with those who regard threat or violence,
>rather than debate and cooperation, to be the acceptable means of
>interaction with others. If you have some point to make at odds with
>this, then perhaps there really is a disagreement here. However
>criminals do not equate to the "underclass", the "poor" or any other
>politically convenient group and to suggest otherwise can only be a deep
>insult to the group concerned.
>
>In short, the fence is there to keep out criminals. The evidence is
>solid enough to indicate that this is achieved by keeping out those who
>want to get in without paying. After all, if they want to get in without
>paying, they're stating by their very actions that they're happy to
>steal from Water Aid, a charity with documented records of lives saved.
>If they don't give a damn about the lives of the very poorest in the
>world, it's hardly reasonable to expect them to respect someone's radio
>or their right to say "No!".
>
>The fence kept the right people out and the disproportionate fall in the
>crime statistics prove it. Let's just hope they can extend it to the car
>parks next year.
>
>FoFP
>