6 ms·

"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu

dfc 13y ago
Do you know where that quote is from? Everything I saw seems to indicate it is from 3 musketeers but I could not find it in the project gutenberg edition or the wikisource version
- muyuu 13y ago
  I also tried to find this some time ago. The older attribution I found is from "Guillaume le taciturne et sa dynastie. Histoire des Pays-Bas" (1852) It's not exact, it goes like this: "Donnez-moi une ligne, disait-il, la plus indifférente de la main d'un homme, et j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre." and it's attributed to Cardinal de Richelieu. It probably has changed in many ways from quotation to quotation, but that is verbatim as I found it in that old book.
zxcdw 13y ago
This is a huge problem with a surveillance state. Everyone has something which you can use against them. This means that if you piss off wrong people you're going to jail. Otherwise not. Possible implications to politic balance are astounding.
- temp453463343 13y ago
  "This means that if you piss off wrong people you're going to jail." Except that's not the reality. The reality is that if Obama really really hates someone and wants to make their life miserable, the most he can do it make it hard for him to fly (ie. the no-fly list). The government is constrained in what it can do, surveillance and omniscience doesn't change that.
  - ctz 13y ago
    The government is constrained in what it can do I'm wondering if you consider the existence of Guantanamo, rendition, etc. to be within or outside these constraints.
    - baddox 13y ago
      I also wish he would finish the sentence by filling in the blank: "The government is constrained in what it can do by _______." As soon as you realize that "government" is the only thing filling the blank, you should realize how silly (and scary) the whole scenario is.
      - hga 13y ago
        Ah, but you can also fill in the blank with "the well armed populace". Maybe not anyone you know, but at least half of the nation, 300+ million guns and more every day. Heck, 2/3rds of the nation lives in shall issue concealed carry regimes, with well over 8 million licenses granted. This puts constraints on a would be out of control government. Let us hope we don't have to file a claim on this insurance policy.
        zxcdw 13y ago
        Please remember that these concepts apply outside US too, where gun ownership and constitution defending the citizens aren't as available. This is one of the reasons why the "but we have guns to take 'em down if needed" is not very applicable argument when talking about these issues. The other being that the means to achieve influence and share of power should be political, and not rely on violence.
        baddox 13y ago
        Well, sure, there's always the armed populace, but that is inherently illegal rebellion against the government, and it would be violently resisted by the government. (And, for the record, almost everyone I know owns guns, and that percentage was even higher before I moved to San Francisco.) But even though founding fathers wrote about the inevitability and even duty to violently resist an oppressive government, that's certainly not built into the government's rules for itself (the Constitution). Nowhere in the law does it say that these laws only need to be followed if you believe them to not be oppressive, or that you are free to overthrow the government if you find it oppressive.

dfc 13y ago

Do you know where that quote is from? Everything I saw seems to indicate it is from 3 musketeers but I could not find it in the project gutenberg edition or the wikisource version

muyuu 13y ago
I also tried to find this some time ago. The older attribution I found is from "Guillaume le taciturne et sa dynastie. Histoire des Pays-Bas" (1852) It's not exact, it goes like this: "Donnez-moi une ligne, disait-il, la plus indifférente de la main d'un homme, et j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre." and it's attributed to Cardinal de Richelieu. It probably has changed in many ways from quotation to quotation, but that is verbatim as I found it in that old book.

zxcdw 13y ago

This is a huge problem with a surveillance state. Everyone has something which you can use against them. This means that if you piss off wrong people you're going to jail. Otherwise not. Possible implications to politic balance are astounding.

temp453463343 13y ago
"This means that if you piss off wrong people you're going to jail." Except that's not the reality. The reality is that if Obama really really hates someone and wants to make their life miserable, the most he can do it make it hard for him to fly (ie. the no-fly list). The government is constrained in what it can do, surveillance and omniscience doesn't change that.
- ctz 13y ago
  The government is constrained in what it can do I'm wondering if you consider the existence of Guantanamo, rendition, etc. to be within or outside these constraints.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I also wish he would finish the sentence by filling in the blank: "The government is constrained in what it can do by _______." As soon as you realize that "government" is the only thing filling the blank, you should realize how silly (and scary) the whole scenario is.
    - hga 13y ago
      Ah, but you can also fill in the blank with "the well armed populace". Maybe not anyone you know, but at least half of the nation, 300+ million guns and more every day. Heck, 2/3rds of the nation lives in shall issue concealed carry regimes, with well over 8 million licenses granted. This puts constraints on a would be out of control government. Let us hope we don't have to file a claim on this insurance policy.
      - zxcdw 13y ago
        Please remember that these concepts apply outside US too, where gun ownership and constitution defending the citizens aren't as available. This is one of the reasons why the "but we have guns to take 'em down if needed" is not very applicable argument when talking about these issues. The other being that the means to achieve influence and share of power should be political, and not rely on violence.
      - baddox 13y ago
        Well, sure, there's always the armed populace, but that is inherently illegal rebellion against the government, and it would be violently resisted by the government. (And, for the record, almost everyone I know owns guns, and that percentage was even higher before I moved to San Francisco.) But even though founding fathers wrote about the inevitability and even duty to violently resist an oppressive government, that's certainly not built into the government's rules for itself (the Constitution). Nowhere in the law does it say that these laws only need to be followed if you believe them to not be oppressive, or that you are free to overthrow the government if you find it oppressive.