December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. o/ Timmy May <| / >

1 0

Man in the Middle
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Derisve Vibrator K[retin]OfTheMonth had his foreskin ripped off last night by a vacuum cleaner. .-._ {_}^ )o {\________//~` ( ) Derisve Vibrator K[retin]OfTheMonth /||~~~~~||\ |_\\_ \\_\_ "' ""' ""'"'

1 0

Re: None
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth

1 0

Re: None
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 PM 2/1/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is >> trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: >> >> 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. > >But other than two points they already do. The two points being, > >1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. Maybe this will appear to you to be too-subtle a distinction, but I don't share the misimpression of equating what "society" (the citizenry?) accepts and what government-types accept. For instance, as I understand it the public uniformly rejects the concept of wiretaps as a method of law-enforcement, yet they are done anyway. In effect, it would be correct both to say: a. Society will never accept wiretapping. (where "society" is defined as the collection of individuals) as well as saying... b. Wiretapping is a "recognized legal concept now." (because the implication is that "recognized" refers to a tiny subset of society, the thugs who run the "justice system.") Now, it's my own personal opinion that wiretapping is unconstitutional, but is done anyway for the same reason other unconstitutional things are regularly done by government: Despite public disapproval, the public is never actually given the opportunity to make the decision. The fact is, libel lawsuits are apparently a rather rare "tool" that we don't even need. Perhaps a REAL LAWYER <tm> who is aware of the statistics can tell us how often they actually occur. I argue that something that rare is, almost by definition, not really needed. >My solutions to these two issues are: > >1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case > should be pursued. Yes, I'd like to "remove a few lawyers," as well. Not quite the way you would, however. >4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff > the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as > well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. Why not a full "loser pays" system? And I mean NOT ONLY for civil cases, but also criminal cases! Perhaps the government would be a bit less enthusiastic about harassing drug defendants if it was forced to pay for their acquittals after a FIJA loss! Consider, for example, that if the government had to pay after a loss, it would become very difficult for the government to harrass a person like Phil Zimmermann, unlike today where charges can be brought even if it is recognized they won't stick, secure in the knowledge that he'd be out a great deal of money in his defense. How much sweeter would the victory be if all costs were compensated? > >> 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant >> level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, >> until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. > >Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who >represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are >impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its >various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. Do you always produce such opaque commentary? <Sigh> Perhaps you could re-write the above statement in ordinary English. The reality is, the guarantees supposedly provided by the US Constitution are guarantees in name only. The system is thoroughly corrupted and biased. >This >axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have >(ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are >NOT created equal. It's hard to know how you come to this conclusion. If anything, what I'm trying to do is to permanently destroy a system which has allowed a tiny fraction of society to control things for the rest of us for centuries, and longer. If anything, it is the system I'm trying to destroy which has taken the position that, in reality, people are not equal. On the other hand, I'm NOT a proponent for "egalitarianism," or enforced equality, at all! I'm confident that once the system is dismantled that enforces inequality on us, we can live with the result. >> 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of >> corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide >> unnecessary. > >But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. >Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. >Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. It's interesting that I keep seeing the same misinterpretations of the AP system. AP is not simply about killing people. And no, it hasn't been tried before. The occasional assassination is no more like AP than a random shot in the dark is like a well-aimed round. The first may, rarely, do the same thing as the second, but there is no prospect of a likely repetition. _SOME_ people seem to "get" this, why not you? The _absolutely_essential_ element that distinguishes AP is the system that allows people's individual desires to be denominated in terms of money, and accumulated until an anonymous person satisfies that desire and collects the reward. And, moreover, that this system remains in place forever. > There is >nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social >interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will >necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived >by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the >opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the >government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo >forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world >example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). I keep telling you that "AP has never been tried before." > >The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by >the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity >and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance >of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. >By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers >to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their >system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear >that such activities in no way reduced corruption. AP is NOT the same thing as mere assassination. Period. If anything, there are excellent reasons why ordinary assassination can, indeed, increase corruption while the AP system would reduce it. The most obvious difference is this: The motivations are vastly different. Heretofore, assassinations have occurred based on the desires of only a tiny fraction of the population. Often one person, or only a few. In other words, the assassinations which DO occur are NOT the ones that "the rest of us" would choose. The latter type DO NOT occur! >If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher >a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. >Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. It isn't necessary that any system be "democratic." "Democracy" assumes that certain questions need to be answered by VOTE, as opposed to simply allowing individuals to answer those questions for themselves. We don't all get together and vote on what religion we'll all be forced to observe, do we? No. That's because it is accepted that certain areas are off-limits for even a "democratic" system to decide. We don't have a national vote to decide what color to paint ALL of our houses. We don't have a vote to decide what meal to eat next Thursday. Well, in my opinion there are few if any proper functions for a so-called "democratic" system. That's because I believe that most if not all decisions currently made in any "democratic" system shouldn't be made at that level at all! >What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and >secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same >time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also >be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with >immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes >threats and the carrying out thereof. You clearly don't understand it! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:10 PM 2/2/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and >> other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem >> is solved. >> > >How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, >Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the >assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Simple. Even if a lendor dies (whether by murder or some other cause, perhaps undetermined) you (the debtor) presumably will still be obligated to pay back the debt, to his estate if nowhere else. If you WEREN'T responsible for the killing, you should still make the payments. If you do, then you had no reason to kill him in the first place. Even in the hypothetical scenario that the lendor is single, has no family or other likely heirs, it would be in his interest to declare that his estate goes to charity, including debts to it such as yours. After all, we can assume that he doesn't want to get murdered, and the best way of avoiding that fate is to remove whatever incentive might otherwise exist for anyone else to kill him. Making sure that all of his debtors are revealed would make it difficult for any of them to get away with murder. Or, at least, prevent the fact of such a murder from eliminating the need to repay the debt. If the fact of the loan were revealed, perhaps only after the lendor's death, and ALSO the fact that you (alone among his other debtors) refused to pay it back, everyone else in that society might reasonably come to the conclusion (absent proof or a good explanation to the contrary) that you were probably responsible for the death. At the very least, they wouldn't want to deal with you for fear of a similar outcome (non-payment or death), and some of the public would be likely to punish you by donating money to see you dead. They would do this, even if they had no particular link to the dead lendor, precisely because the publicity from such an outcome would deter other people who might be contemplating a similar thing. The logic is essentially the same as the situation where a person would donate small amounts money to see car thieves dead, even if his car hadn't (yet) been stolen: If it is essentially certain that such a penalty will always exist, it will tend to deter future incidents. All car owners have a motivation to maintain that system. >Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys >house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him >murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As he could, you. Remember, if your bad actions were publicized, your reputation would suffer. If he's satisfied that you are guilty, and can prove it to others, you'll be in trouble to have the information published. (On the other hand, if nobody knows it was you who were responsible, you won't suffer, but that's no worse than the status quo.) > As a result, >he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional >money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. A "suit" implies that he needs assistance to get the fact of the obligation enforced. Assuming he has enough proof to win a lawsuit, he has more than enough proof to sour everyone else on dealing with you in the future, and possibly get them to donate to see you dead. Do you risk it? >Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then >our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very >unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > >The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints >at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. I predict that agreements will simply change to avoid (or anticipate) such disappointments, in order to ensure that neither party feels "taken" if things don't work out as planned. Or, if there is an innocent-and-unavoidable breach of the agreement that harms one person, the other will be motivated to make it up to the first. In effect, they'll have to find a mutually-agreeable middle ground. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 PM 2/1/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is >> trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: >> >> 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. > >But other than two points they already do. The two points being, > >1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. Maybe this will appear to you to be too-subtle a distinction, but I don't share the misimpression of equating what "society" (the citizenry?) accepts and what government-types accept. For instance, as I understand it the public uniformly rejects the concept of wiretaps as a method of law-enforcement, yet they are done anyway. In effect, it would be correct both to say: a. Society will never accept wiretapping. (where "society" is defined as the collection of individuals) as well as saying... b. Wiretapping is a "recognized legal concept now." (because the implication is that "recognized" refers to a tiny subset of society, the thugs who run the "justice system.") Now, it's my own personal opinion that wiretapping is unconstitutional, but is done anyway for the same reason other unconstitutional things are regularly done by government: Despite public disapproval, the public is never actually given the opportunity to make the decision. The fact is, libel lawsuits are apparently a rather rare "tool" that we don't even need. Perhaps a REAL LAWYER <tm> who is aware of the statistics can tell us how often they actually occur. I argue that something that rare is, almost by definition, not really needed. >My solutions to these two issues are: > >1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case > should be pursued. Yes, I'd like to "remove a few lawyers," as well. Not quite the way you would, however. >4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff > the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as > well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. Why not a full "loser pays" system? And I mean NOT ONLY for civil cases, but also criminal cases! Perhaps the government would be a bit less enthusiastic about harassing drug defendants if it was forced to pay for their acquittals after a FIJA loss! Consider, for example, that if the government had to pay after a loss, it would become very difficult for the government to harrass a person like Phil Zimmermann, unlike today where charges can be brought even if it is recognized they won't stick, secure in the knowledge that he'd be out a great deal of money in his defense. How much sweeter would the victory be if all costs were compensated? > >> 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant >> level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, >> until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. > >Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who >represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are >impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its >various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. Do you always produce such opaque commentary? <Sigh> Perhaps you could re-write the above statement in ordinary English. The reality is, the guarantees supposedly provided by the US Constitution are guarantees in name only. The system is thoroughly corrupted and biased. >This >axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have >(ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are >NOT created equal. It's hard to know how you come to this conclusion. If anything, what I'm trying to do is to permanently destroy a system which has allowed a tiny fraction of society to control things for the rest of us for centuries, and longer. If anything, it is the system I'm trying to destroy which has taken the position that, in reality, people are not equal. On the other hand, I'm NOT a proponent for "egalitarianism," or enforced equality, at all! I'm confident that once the system is dismantled that enforces inequality on us, we can live with the result. >> 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of >> corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide >> unnecessary. > >But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. >Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. >Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. It's interesting that I keep seeing the same misinterpretations of the AP system. AP is not simply about killing people. And no, it hasn't been tried before. The occasional assassination is no more like AP than a random shot in the dark is like a well-aimed round. The first may, rarely, do the same thing as the second, but there is no prospect of a likely repetition. _SOME_ people seem to "get" this, why not you? The _absolutely_essential_ element that distinguishes AP is the system that allows people's individual desires to be denominated in terms of money, and accumulated until an anonymous person satisfies that desire and collects the reward. And, moreover, that this system remains in place forever. > There is >nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social >interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will >necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived >by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the >opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the >government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo >forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world >example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). I keep telling you that "AP has never been tried before." > >The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by >the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity >and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance >of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. >By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers >to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their >system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear >that such activities in no way reduced corruption. AP is NOT the same thing as mere assassination. Period. If anything, there are excellent reasons why ordinary assassination can, indeed, increase corruption while the AP system would reduce it. The most obvious difference is this: The motivations are vastly different. Heretofore, assassinations have occurred based on the desires of only a tiny fraction of the population. Often one person, or only a few. In other words, the assassinations which DO occur are NOT the ones that "the rest of us" would choose. The latter type DO NOT occur! >If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher >a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. >Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. It isn't necessary that any system be "democratic." "Democracy" assumes that certain questions need to be answered by VOTE, as opposed to simply allowing individuals to answer those questions for themselves. We don't all get together and vote on what religion we'll all be forced to observe, do we? No. That's because it is accepted that certain areas are off-limits for even a "democratic" system to decide. We don't have a national vote to decide what color to paint ALL of our houses. We don't have a vote to decide what meal to eat next Thursday. Well, in my opinion there are few if any proper functions for a so-called "democratic" system. That's because I believe that most if not all decisions currently made in any "democratic" system shouldn't be made at that level at all! >What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and >secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same >time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also >be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with >immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes >threats and the carrying out thereof. You clearly don't understand it! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

PGPmail 4.5 exported
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is a pgpmail45.exe at ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming. The file has an md5 sum of 'ffd56d7647c30152a5c9fe7616a3d9ef'. Could somebody who bought the software check that this is the same file. It is presumably free for use outside of North America, since PGP Inc. can't be expected to accept payment from foreigners... :-)

1 0

moderation sucks
by Howard W Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscribe cypherpunks(a)toad.com

1 0

Re: Shave the Whales
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The arrival of warm weather is heralded by the pig shit getting soft in Dainty L<avabo> Vinegar's mini-cranium and the resulting green slime seeping through his cocaine- and syphilis- damaged nose and onto his keyboard. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Dainty L<avabo> Vinegar

1 0