dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (03/28/86)
[] > Followups to this article will go to net.politics. > This proof is based on the assumption that freedom more valuable than > anything else -- even life itself. Those who disagree with this > premise may disagree with the conclusion. > > A dead person only has a certain amount of freedom -- how much freedom > this is is not important to the argument, but I do assume that all dead > people have the same amount of freedom regardless of how or where they > became dead. > > A person living under communism can, at almost any time, choose to > become dead. Thus all the freedom available to a dead person is > available to one living under communism. At the same time, the person > who is still alive has other options: resisting, attempting to emigrate > "unofficially" to a free country (if there are any), or living the best > he can under the circumstances. Thus, the living red has more freedom > than the dead man. > > Therefore, better red than dead. QED > -- > David Canzi "Offending with substance since 1985" May I offer a similar proof, but one that counters that? Thanks. A dead person has certain freedoms like: - Freedom to be private or left alone. Not too many people (outside of maybe grave robbers or necrophiliacs :-() are going to bother them. - Freedom from forced labor. Dead people make very poor slaves. - Freedom to be what they are. In this case, dead. Noone can tell them that they must be something else. Under a communist system (or even totalitarianism in general), even where possible, these freedoms are considerably reduced. Thus, someone living under such a system has less freedom than one who is dead. Therefore, better dead than red. QED My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To become Red is to become dead --- gradually." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn