>Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states. A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for

>Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states. A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples. A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." The rule of law is generally good for humanity. Defending it is fine. But you need to remember that the law is a messy human undertaking that is subject to change, not an unassailable universal truth. People can break the law, and still be in the right. What people like Swartz and the folks at Sci-Hub are doing is making the judgement call that free access to scientific information provides a benefit to humanity that outweighs the cost of breaking the laws keeping the information restricted. Scientists-the people generating the content in question-tend to agree. There is no doubt that the publishers will have the lawyers on their side, but I've always thought that to be the weakest of endorsements. >There, where the state ceaseth—there only commenceth the man who is not superfluous: there commenceth the song of the necessary ones, the single and irreplaceable melody. http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/11 http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/11