December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Toast NYC, Waste World, Let Me Help
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> I'd love for this to happen! I wish someone would condense the instructions >>> for making nukes in one's garage into 4-6 lines suitable for .sigs. > >>New York will probably get it first, Doctor. > >You say this as if it would be a bad thing. :) A Teller idea, pulverize everything east of Broadway (I'm west), the Atlantic Community, landmass Asia, Pacific Rim and isles, all the way round to putrid New Jersey, but, hey, precision shape the shot so my house of cards, now thirty years in the making and almost done, gets finally finished. There's a $25 booby prize involved and its my sole Friedman-free market pension, having never fed the FDR pinko kitty, having never invested wisely, having never got more than a sack to piss blood in, getting what the American people promised in the We Want You, Be All You Can Be. Yeah, warlords, you're right, what a sucker-punch that Constitution shit is, no protection at all when you're biting bullets for American honor. Tim's right, every bullshit warrior's right, it's time to get over that, clean the cobwebs, unpawn my rusty rifles and attack the Bronx VA pigsty, pop a dozen or two useless torsos not worth wasting taxes on, sweep down Broadway to Wall Street, shooting, shoot the shit out of whatever rasps my nuts, shoot, shoot, save the fucked up taxpayers pennies to invest in junk IPOs and electronic toys. Yeah, get back to being a hot-blood with guts to do the right thing. Yes sir, this is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for work, this is for fun. No more fun, no more doubt about what's right and wrong, fuck that. Nurse Rachet, unhook my bag, get my peg, call me a cab, lend me ten, back to glory, one last time.

1 0

Re: lack of evolutionary pressures (was Re: An end to "court (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 13:48:41 -0700 > From: Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> > Subject: Re: lack of evolutionary pressures (was Re: An end to "court > (fwd) > So we are all in agreement: when I mentioned Norplant briefly being a > precondition for receiving welfare benefits, I was talking about a example > that I recall to have occurred in a single state. [I can't remember the > state. Anyone?] It appears you agree that States are allowed by the US > Constitution to impose such requirements, subject to the state's own > constitutions. No, I would say that I at least am not in agreement. The US Constitution doesn't allow the states anything, it DOES delineate the duties of the federal government. The federal government does not own the states any more than it owns the citizens. In other words, the states don't need the federal governments permission to carry on their day to day activities within their boundaries. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The problem I see with your thinking is one of heirarchy which is not what the Constitution is about, it is about how to carry on the business of running a democratic government that involves equals with clearly dilineated duties for the systems and rights whose expression is outside the domain of the systems that are the peoples exclusivly. Governments don't have rights they have duties which they are charged with carrying out according to their charter. People need to understand the original intent was for the state and federal governments to be on equal footing when it comes to checks & balances. The biggest disservice we do is thinking the 3 parts of the federal government are all that is involved in the checks & balances. The states should always have the opportunity to tell the feds, thanks but no thanks, within the bounds of the state and federal constitutions. Democracy as embodied in our Constitution is about the relationships between equals. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 97 20:10:12 -0400 > Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd) > Well yes and no. Just because you are willing to give you liberty away > does not mean that you have the right to give my liberty away. Which is why we implimented a representative democracy in the first place. > That's why > the Bill of Rights pre-empts any legislation done by Congress or the > States. It does? You are without a doubt reading a different Constitution and Bill of Rights than the one that I have. If you are making allusion to the 14th, it only extends to privileges and immunities. ARTICLE XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2 to Section 5 deleted So you equate your right to religion as a immunity or a privilige? Me I take it as a right, something outside the legal purvue of the federal government. An immunity or privilige is something that can be taken away by the body granting it. Since the Constitution is a mandate from the people it follows clearly that the only body that can change that mandate is the people. If the state I live in has a constitution that allows it that is between me and my state and none of you or your states or the federal governments business. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: In Defense of Pat Robertson and the "700 Club"
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lynne L. Harrison wrote: > At 02:08 AM 8/23/97 -0700, you wrote: > >If Pat Robertson called for the death by stoning of UFO believers, it was > >almost certainly rhetorical hyperbole, like Rush Limbaugh's suggestions of > >what ought to be done to lesbians. > > The Anti-UFO movement has replaced (or is along side of) the > anti-evolutionary movement. It is Robertson's and his ilk's belief that > UFO's are anti-Christian, i.e., Satan's plot to disprove biblical teachings > - specifically, if there is life on other worlds, then the Bible is > incorrect in that man was created in God's image since Vulcans, Klingons, > and whom/whatever would also have to be added as being created in God's image. My Bible not only has references to the Vulcans and Klingons, but it is also signed with Jesus's PGP key, which is verified with Kent Crispin's PGP signature (dated Dec. 17, 2041). Sincerely, Pigs Fly

1 0

Re: Inside the Cypherpunks Cult (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Inside the Cypherpunks Cult (fwd) > From: Firebeard <stend+cypherpunks(a)sten.tivoli.com> > Date: 23 Aug 1997 19:23:07 -0500 > It is? It seems to me that military force is military force, > regardless of what uniforms it's dressed in. It isn't the uniform, its the paycheck and who gives the orders that determines the difference. Militia's get their money and their orders from the states and are loaned to the federal government. The relevant sections from the Constitution: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; [Note that there is NO proviso for paying for the militia's] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [This seems to imply that it is not the Army who is charged with protecting the soil of America from foreign invaders] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the authority of training and Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [Hey, I just realized that the above section forces the federal government to provide militia's with weapons, 'arming'] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Your chances of being shot in Texas, like the kid in the valley, are much lower with the NJNG than the US Army, mainly because there ain't no way they are going to get into this state without a fight with the TxNG. I seriously doubt that the kid would be dead today if he had encountered Texas residents on boarder patrol. > But they were not explicitly denied it, either. Yes, they are. Read the 10th. Unless explicity given a duty the federal government is prohibited from expanding their powers. > Agreed. Has anyone ever attempted to sue the US Army as being > unconstitutional, given the prohibition of a standing army? The prohibition is not on a standing army but rather on monetary and contractual committments that extend past the Constitutionaly imposed 2 year limit. There is *NO* explicit prohibition on a standing army, simply that their activities can't be funded for more than 2 years at a time. As far as I have been able to determine nobody has ever brought such a case. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Pat is NOT a Cypherpunk
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: > If Pat Robertson called for the death by stoning of UFO > believers, it was almost certainly rhetorical hyperbole, > like Rush Limbaugh's suggestions of what ought to be done to > lesbians. Oh piffle. Pat believes in a Heaven filled with God, angels, demons, and various other nonsensical beings, and an earth where we have all been sent to be punished after the Fall. Pat is threatened by a Universe with stars and galaxies in place of Heavenly Hosts, and responds by suggesting the killing of Heretics. This is a lot different than Rush or Howard Stern doing a few jokes about Lesbians. Pat is afraid of Government Approved Crypto because he thinks it is the Mark of the Beast, which will be stamped on his forehead to prevent him from buying or selling without the approval of the anti-Christ, who will rule earth after Pat and his friends have risen into the air with the rest of the true believers. Pat's reasons for coicidentally supporting a few of our agenda items are so far removed from our reasons for supporting them, that any suggestion he is our friend borders on the absurd. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch(a)zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}

2 1

Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:13:09 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits > There's a landmine here, of course. Namely, the issue of whether states may > impose restrictions which are "unconstitutional." To some states rights > folks, as I assume Jim Choate may be, the answer is often "of course." To > some libertarians, the answer is often "of course not." A good example to > consider is "free speech." The First Amendment talks about Congress shall > make no law...does this mean California may ban certain books, restrict > certain religions, or impose censorship on the press? If permitted by the California Constituion absolutely. It's called freedom of expression, a weird sort of extension to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. If the citizens don't like it they can elect another representative to change the law next time around. The right to liberty implies the right to give it away. For a democracy to work the group of people making the laws must be relatively small, otherwise we see the sorts of abuses we currently have because we have lost respect for others (ie another state) to decide their fate indipendant of our own. I am not an advocate of federal or state rights, and most definitely NOT any sort of Libertarian. I am a strict Constitutionalist and believe that if the federal government wants to take on a new job not explicity assigned in the Constitition they MUST pass an amendment per the method detailed in the Constitution. Prior to the 14th (which only forces privileges and immunities, and I utterly reject any claim that a right is a privilege) this was exactly the case. The founding fathers wanted to see a multiplicity of states with a variety of laws some limited some actions and others not. The idea behind this is that if a state passes laws that are too restrictive it is possible to reverse the insult in a reasonable time and if it proves impossible to change it (say because of massive public support) then they can move to a state where such activity is allowed, thus robbing the state of the taxes and other benefits it derives from such residents. The idea is that if the states are given a level of equality with the federal government there will be a moderating effect on tryanny at all levels. > (Most folks would say "Of course not." But on what basis can individual > states and municipalities override the Second Amendment?) Read the 10th. The 2nd. does NOT limit a states right to regulate such activity. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

State-ism vs. FederalismRe: lack of evolutionary pressures (was Re: An end to "court (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > From: Firebeard <stend+cypherpunks(a)sten.tivoli.com> > > Then what do the words "are reserved to the States > > respectively" mean? To me, it's explicitly stating that the States > > have powers that the feds do (or should) not. > They mean it isn't something the federal government has any interest or say > in constitutionaly. It does not imply that those powers are granted at the > behest of the feds but rather clearly fall outside of their jurisdiction. I agree. The States should have the right to declare the word "freedom" an obscenity. The federal government should not. The States should have the right to legalize rape. The federal government should not. The States should have the right to require the citizens to commit suicide at the age of 40. The federal government should not. I'm glad that I could clear this up for everyone. No need to thank me. The Statist

1 0

Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 97 20:44:10 -0400 > Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd) > Well you are complicating the issue by assuming that we are in two > different states. No, I am making no such assumption the Constitution however does. Quite clearly I might add. > If you and I are citizens of the same State you do not > have the right to deny me my rights protected under the Constitution of > the United States of America regardless wether you are in the majority > view or not. Which is completely irrelevant since the federal government has no authority over intra-state disagreements that do not involve some resource that lies outside the state of residence of the parties involved... I quote from the Constitution again...<sigh, doesn't anyone actualy read the whole damn thing?> Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; -- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; -- to Controversies between two or more States; -- between a State and Citizens of another State; -- between Citizens of different States; -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; -- and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ARTICLE XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2 through 5 deleted <again>. Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what the 14th brings to the table that was not already covered in the original document? We didn't need the 14th and still don't. It was, and still is, a political ploy to get people to willingly (through ignorance) comply with a bunch of schills. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 97 22:00:44 -0400 > Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits > Well i think that you also have to take into account the political setting > of the times. A bunch of people who had just lived through a tryannical foreign rule as well as a revolutionary war to break that rule. To better understand their view I will attach the Declaration of Indipendance which is after all the document that justifies the Constitution (apparently people don't read it either). The Declaration says why while the Constitution says how... > The Framers of the Constitution were representatives of the > States all of which had 1st Amendment protections in their State > Constitutions. Their concerns were not with the States but with a Federal > Government overriding rights already protected by the States. If accepted as fact this provides even less reason for the 14th. As it clearly does not prevent federal rights over-riding state rights. ARTICLE XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| [Note: this document puts to rest forever the question of how our government gets its authority and exactly who answers to who and in the first two paragraphs even.] In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. A D E C L A R A T I O N By the REPRESENTATIVES of the U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A, In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled. When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of Abuses and Ursurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasion on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise, the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat o5Ubstance. He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us: For protection them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidity scarcely paralled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy (of) the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Suppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. WE, THEREFORE, The Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliance, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

2 1