September 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDR: Re: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty
by James A.. Donald 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

-- At 12:30 PM 9/28/2000 +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > Oh but it is quite possible to put people in similar trouble if we > grant that the right to property is absolute - if somebody owns on a > sufficiently wide scale the basic commodities one needs to survive > in the modern world (like fresh water, farming land, employment > opportunities), others are born right in the middle of the > proverbial desert. But in a free market this never happens. It only happens when the government intervenes. Thus, for example, we only see homelessness where there is rent control, we only see hunger where there is rationing and collectivized farming, and so on and so forth. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG s73HbjvWMbd1tg8MFWdOzaptZGbTirAUo/J9znB0 45z21k4dGM6JzKt+2ys4v8idD/5gUsgceJUMrInV+

1 0

Re: CDR: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty
by Duncan Frissell 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

At 10:43 AM 9/27/00 -0400, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: >I think it is a workable argument that it is better to have such social >rules encoded in law instead of having people come up with them at will and >imposing them on others through shunning, lynching or whatever. In theory at >least you will then know in advance whether something you have done will be >'illegal'. Besides, current law in most countries holds precisely that sort >of stuff. Probably the best Finnish example is conscript duty. (No, I'm not >saying that isn't nightmarish.) The Federal register is a US government pub that goes out every business day. Circa 1200 pages a day of published rules, regs, and other garbage. Just for the federal government not the states. No court decisions or administrative rulings in it. Just reading it to find out your orders from your rulers would take all day and would be very incomplete. But you (Americans) are bound to obey all of them on pain of fine or imprisonment. Social conventions are complex but not that complex and we are hard wired to figure those out. We're not hard wired to read thousands of pages a day of bureaucratese and figure out what it means. DCF ---- Have you read your ruler's orders today? Better start reading they're gaining on you: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html

1 0

CDR: free speech children michigan law
by A. Melon 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

Michigans Anti-Cussing Law Called Into Question Critics Challenge Statutes Constitutionality Sept. 26, 2000 By Richard Zitrin PONTIAC, Mich. (APBnews.com) -- A cussing construction worker may not be charged with violating the states controversial anti-swearing law because of questions about the laws constitutionality, a county prosecutor said today. Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney David Gorcyca is awaiting a sheriffs report before deciding what charge, if any, to file against the construction worker who allegedly swore at and made a sexually suggestive gesture to a woman at a gas station on Sept. 14. The woman asked the man, who apparently was upset that a piece of construction equipment had broken down on the road in front of the gas station, to stop swearing because there was a woman with a small child in a car at one of the gas pumps, sheriffs Capt. Mike McCabe said. 103-year-old law The construction worker allegedly swore at the woman and told her he could do whatever he wanted to do because this is America, he said. The man then grabbed his crotch and made a sexually suggestive gesture, McCabe said. The woman called the sheriffs department, which is expected to present its report to the prosecutor Wednesday. Gorcyca said prosecutors are waiting to review the sheriffs report to decide what they may charge the man with, although they likely will not charge him with using indecent language while the state Court of Appeals is considering a challenge to the laws constitutionality. Michigans 103-year-old anti-cussing law has drawn national attention because of the case of the cussing canoeist, Timothy Boomer, who was convicted last year of swearing in front of children after he fell out of a boat in Arenac County. Boomer was fined $75 and ordered to work four days in a child-care program, but he has appealed the conviction on free speech grounds and the case is before the state Court of Appeals. Uncertainty over statute The uncertainty over the anti-cussing laws future means Oakland County prosecutors instead may charge the construction worker with disorderly conduct, Gorcyca said. "The Court of Appeals might determine that the statute runs afoul of the Constitution and they might overturn the statute and set aside his conviction," Gorcyca told APBnews.com today. "So were kind of on tenuous grounds, even if we wanted to pursue that charge." McCabe said Boomers case is not similar to that of the allegedly cussing construction worker. "Its a little different than the cussing canoeist, who didnt know anybody was nearby," he said. "This guy did what he did cognizant of his surroundings." Law carries 90-day jail term A 20-year-old man in Clare County in central Michigan also is challenging the anti-cussing law. Steven Clevenger was accused of using indecent language in February after he was fired as assistant girls volleyball coach at a high school, Clare County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Jamie Raymond said. Clevengers trial has been put on hold while the canoeists case is before the Court of Appeals. Both men are represented by William Street of Saginaw, Raymond said. Neither Street nor officials of the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union could be reached for comment today. Raymond said indecent language, which is punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $100 fine, often is filed in Clare and surrounding counties. "Many people have been charged and convicted," she said. "Its not as common as drunk-driving cases, but its used from time to time in our county...Usually, people plead guilty, get a fine, thats it. But this is the first time to the best of my knowledge that the laws been challenged as unconstitutional."

7 11

CDR: Re: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty
by James A.. Donald 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

-- On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Riad S. Wahby wrote: > > Not at all. The distinction is in the same vein as the > > distinction between talking about something and actually doing it. At 12:15 PM 9/28/2000 +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > I.e. you both evaluate actions as such, I tend to evaluate them > based on their consequences. Then, as other people have pointed out, you should evaluate yourself as a mass murderer. > I see that as an axiom which need not hold. OTOH, no point in > debating axioms... I have a theory that when people claim to adhere to moral axioms that manifestly they do not hold, they are up to something. At best, they are psychopaths, who lack moral intuition. At worst, they have done something or are about to do something, and are blowing smoke to cover their past actions or contemplated actions. > If everybody around you decides your shop is now a shared resource, > it will be, by your definition. Since I view rights as highly > relative, you cannot even call this thievery. Like I said, psychopathy or evil. Is thievery. And in the past governmental theft of this kind has been accompanied by governmental murder about as often as private theft has been accompanied by private murder. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG azW5sqKyo2o4UImzIMwo0ftmf+HfnD8UzGRV8k+w 4O39UA5jNpTaa+M548Bq+iRNSiQrifrBls2fZ5DsJ

1 0

Re: CDR: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty
by Duncan Frissell 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

At 10:43 AM 9/27/00 -0400, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: "The Federal register is a US government pub that goes out every business day. Circa 1200 pages a day" Correction -- make that 1350 pages a *week*. Still a lot of reading and up 40% since Ronnie left office. I usually manage to check before I post. Sorry. DCF ---- Have you read your ruler's orders today? Better start reading they're gaining on you: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html

1 0

CDR: Biochem convention violates privacy rights, study says
by Declan McCullagh 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

----- Forwarded message from Patricia Mohr <pmohr(a)cato.org> -----

3 2

CDR: DoD biochem panel today in DC
by Declan McCullagh 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

one in a series... TERRORIST ATTACKS Defense Department (DOD), Office of the Secretary of Defense (F.R. Page 53988) Meeting of the Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, to run September 28-29. Location: Executive Conference Center, Library of Virginia, 800 East Broad St., Richmond, VA. 8:30 a.m. Contact: 703-413-1100 extension 5282

1 0

CDR: EDGE: ONE HALF A MANIFESTO
by Jim Choate 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier/lanier_index.html -- We shall not cease from exploration, And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time. T.S. Elliot Tivoli Certification Group, OSCT James Choate jchoate(a)tivoli.com Senior Engineer 512-436-1062

1 0

CDR: Sydney 2000
by apoio＠giganetstore.com 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

As Nossas Gigamedalhas <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=3580> <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=3581> <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=6317> <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=6373> Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site www.giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com> , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços. <http://www.giganetstore.com/retirar_mail.asp> <http://www.giganetstore.com/retirar_mail.asp>

1 0

CDR: Re: <nettime> Rebirth of Guilds
by David Honig 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

At 08:19 PM 9/23/00 -0400, Jim Choate wrote: > >On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, David Honig wrote: > >> Having a child gives you no extra rights to control others' behavior. > >No? > >It gives the parent the right to tell other parties to leave the child >alone. It also means the parent has the responsibility of protecting that >child from harm, as the parent sees it. So if someone gives their kid a buck and drops them off at a video arcade, who has initiated action? The parent, not the arcade. >As a business in a economic system, you have a responsibility to provide >products and services that the customer wants, not what you want. Not only >is the party a bad citizen, they're a bad economic partner as well. No, you can sell what you want, but you won't sell much if its not what's wanted. That's called a market. "Bad" as judged by you, Tipper Gore, etc., matters less than that quantity intended by the phrase "a rat's ass". You have an obligation to stay out of voluntary transactions, like the offering and buying of content.

3 3