i think if you ask yourself what could actually give other people the right to tell you what to wear, you'll see the problem with the state in a nutshell: it is entirely without moral justification. it has no defensible theoretical underpinnings. its overwhelming existence is perfectly proportioned to the lack of any actual reasons justifying that existence. is it because certain outfits violate a social contract? i'm not going to bother killing that again. is it because we are social creatures and the state embodies our collective, organic values? well then you'll be happy to dispense with the coercion, which is a lurid self-refutation of your theory. i'd urge all french men and women who own scarves or bandanas - even naked authoresses -  to cover their faces today, to express their shame as well as their civil disobedience.

Comments

[IOZ]

Scramble the jets!

[Lisa Simeone]

OT, but important -- am hoping people will sign this petition, call/email the White House, and support Manning in the TIME poll as well:

http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/manning_visits?source=em040811&subsource=test4

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2058044_2060338_2060205,00.html?xid=tweetshare

[crispy]

i'm definitely down for airstrikes on paris, ioz.

[Contemplationist]

Its a proxy fight over Muslim presence in France. Since agitating against that would be "discrminatory,""bigoted," etc, the relatively safe symbols of the presence then are targeted. The same phenomenon presented itself in Switzerland where the voters by a referendum voted to ban the construction of minarets.