[...]It is true that to trace the exact boundary between rightful and wrongful resistance is impossible: but this impossibility arises from the nature of right and wrong, and is found in almost every part of ethical science. A good action is not distinguished from a bad action by marks so plain as those which distinguich a hexagon from a square. There is a frontier where virtue and vice fade into each other. Who has ever been able to define the exact boundary between courage and rashness, between prudence and cowardice, between frugality and avarice, between liberality and prodigality? Who has ever been able to say how far mercy to offenders ought to be carried, and where it ceases to deserve the name of mercy and becomes a pernicious weakness? What casuist, what lawgiver, has ever been able to nicely mark the limits of the right of self-defence? All our jurists hold that a certain quantity of risk to life or limb justifies a man in shooting or stabbing an assailant: but they have long given up in despair the attempt to describe, in precise words, that quantity of risk. They only say that it must be, not a slight risk, but a risk such as would cause serious apprehension to a man of firm mind; and who will undertake to say what is the precise amount of apprehension which deserves to be called serious, or what is the precise texture of a mind which deserves to be called firm. It is doubtless to be regrettet that the nature of words and the nature of things do not admit of more accurate legislation: nor can it be denied that wrong will often be done when men are judges in their own cause, and proceed instantly to execute their own judgment. Yet who would, on that account, interdict all self-defence? The right which a people hast o resist a bad government bears a close analogy to the right which an individual, in the absence of legal protection, has to slay an assailant. In both cases the evil must be grave. In both cases all regular and peaceable modes of defence must be exhausted before the aggrieved party resorts to extremities. In both cases an awful responsibility is incurred. In both cases the burden of the proof lies on whim who has ventured on so desperate and expedient; and if he fails to vindicate himself, he is justly liable to the severest penalties. But in neither case can we absolutely deny the existence of the right. A man beset by assasins is not bound to let himself be tortured and butchered without using his erapons, because nobody has ever been able to precisely define the amount of danger which justifies homicide. Nor is a society bound to endure passively all that tyranny can inflict, because nobody has ever been able to precisely define the amount of misgovernment which justifies rebellion.[...]


Aug. 31st, 2007 08:50 pm
Mike: You're in denial.
Marc Antony: I don't believe so, no. Unless this is a very large boat we're in here.

I love love love these books.
Channeling Cleopatra was totally funny, and Cleopatra 7.2 is hilarious. And it makes me paranoid about the characters because by now I expect every single person they meet out to betray them, kill them, steal their DNA or something like that.

[livejournal.com profile] martianmooncrab, thank you so much!
And please tell EAS that I love her and I want to have her babies. ;-D
I have 66 LJ friends.
I don't think I ever had 66 friends. Ever.
And when you take away those that are secondary journals of people who have more than one, the remaining number is still more than I ever had in RL.

I love me some internet.

Why did I just notice? Well, typing 66 usernames into GJ to find secondary journals is too much for my attention span. Especially as some of you guys seem to exist over there, I'm just not sure the people there are really you.

Sooooo, do you have an account over at Greatest Journal? One of those backup, LJ is down again, OMG I can't post, the world is falling apart journals?
I do, same username. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could friend me if you're over there too.
Just like a good boy scout. Be prepared.

My headache is better. Still, I'm going to go to bed soon. Maybe read a bit.

Which reminds me that I owe [livejournal.com profile] wolflady26 a book review for Game of Thrones.

In short: You. Are. Evil.

In longer form: I need to read the next volume.
I liked it, I really did. I wasn't bending over backwards to get as much reading time as possible, and I do admit to once thinking the author likes to kill a character off if he's bored or doesn't know what else to do. But the story is intriguing, I admit it. And I want to know where it's going. The end of that first volume is a mean cliffhanger.
So yeah. I do care about some of the characters. It might not come as much of a surprise that both Arya and Danaerys intrigue me, as does Jon. Sansa makes me want to strangle her. Tyrion - very interesting, that one.
As is Varys. I simply adore shady politician characters with unknown motives. Littlefinger, on the other hand, hasn't yet managed to capture my interest too much. Danaerys' knight, Mormont, is another interesting quantity. Eddard needs to get rid of some of his righteousness, but he does have a cool wife. Who in turn has an obviously crazy sister.

Anyway, next time I come to visit, I want the next volume. I'll bring you another Auel instead, I think I didn't the last time.
Oh, and do you still have my Narnia books?



August 2012

12131415 161718


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios