December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Assassination Politics (was Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats)
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is >> another matter. > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to >murder. Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic assassination? >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > >Who decides what "innocent" was? Certainly not the government. >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto >gives him the right to murder them. You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS as examples. But, he clearly stated that: "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse of others." >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political >> landscape. > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to >do so. > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed >attempts to prop up the scheme. If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of innocent people."? You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any >therefore no country would ever host it. Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could >> place a bet on their imminent death... > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of what is possible. >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine >with absolutely no safeguards. Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards against that. However, AP is different. AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater than that of some random individual. >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being >> killed. > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. H.L.Machen perceptively ts, merely suspected infringment. This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by >infringing his rights, without trial. Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. at's no surprise. It would be surprising for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect themselves from the state. >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right >> to kill me to protect himself? > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. You didn't answer his question. >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. >> >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their >lungs we can return to sanity. Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sgain, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous"? -=- A concerned citizen

1 0

AP / Mr. W. Remailer speaks out.
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. WinSock Remailer shot holes in Tim May's highly questionable claim-- "I support anonymous remailers for various purposes, but debate is rarely enhanced in such cases." --by producing an insightful post which actually quotes Jim Bell's own words, instead of blathering on endlessly about his or her own skewed interpretation of Bell's AP system, by writing: > On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >Timothy C. May wrote: > >> > >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is > >> another matter. > > > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. > >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being > >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. > > Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you > might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. > > >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a > >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more > >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government > >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have > >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. > > Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the > benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely > dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. > > >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or > >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim > >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was > >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. > >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell > >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his > >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to > >murder. > > Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government > not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. > Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic > assassination? > > >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an > >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP > >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent > >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to > >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > > > >Who decides what "innocent" was? > > Certainly not the government. > > >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, > >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > > > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should > >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the > >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto > >gives him the right to murder them. > > You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - > http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt > > He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS > as examples. But, he clearly stated that: > > "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of > "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will > die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every > demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim > that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any > form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any > such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize > this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim > Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've > described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is > the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it > simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. > > As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations > accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively > list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the > violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, > there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up > and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated > anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will > be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a > "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I > can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse > of others." > > >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is > >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political > >> landscape. > > > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. > >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to > >do so. > > > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital > >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be > >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed > >attempts to prop up the scheme. > > If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: > "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of > innocent people."? > > You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to > enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with > dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. > > >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, > >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result > >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would > >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be > >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist > >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any > >therefore no country would ever host it. > > Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed > to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete > anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers > may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, > all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through > email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. > > >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an > >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the > >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim > >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could > >> place a bet on their imminent death... > > > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. > > This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of > what is possible. > > >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, > >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine > >with absolutely no safeguards. > > Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out > anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards > against that. However, AP is different. > > AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts > by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials > who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater > than that of some random individual. > > >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have > >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being > >> killed. > > > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully > >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > > > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have > >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of > >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is > >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan > >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough > >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. > > H.L.Machen perceptively ts, merely suspected infringment. > > This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may > have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll > grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will > have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people > being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. > > >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. > >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by > >infringing his rights, without trial. > > Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, > or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. > > >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. > > Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps > you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. > Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely > ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. > > at's no surprise. It would be surprising > for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect > themselves from the state. > > >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in > >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right > >> to kill me to protect himself? > > > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. > > You didn't answer his question. > > >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, > >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in > >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, > >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. > >> > >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > > > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc > >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their > >lungs we can return to sanity. > > Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sgain, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme > is entirely preposterous"? > > -=- A concerned citizen So, please, let the potheads on the list (the silent majority) refrain from dismissing Bell's ideas due to his alleged use of the 'wrong' illegal drug. And let the drunkards (Toto) and former drunkards (you know who you are) refrain from embarrasing themselves by supporting every lunatic who has also destroyed the better part of their brain cells. I, on the other hand, am a licensed physician, and my use of narcotics is for legal medicinal purposes only. Dr. Roberts

1 0

Assassination Politics (corrected repost)
by nobody＠hidden.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Explanation: I am reposting this because my original post seems to have been inadvertantly(?) mutilated after the fact. On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is >> another matter. > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to >murder. Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic assassination? >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > >Who decides what "innocent" was? Certainly not the government. >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto >gives him the right to murder them. You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS as examples. But, he clearly stated that: "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse of others." >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political >> landscape. > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to >do so. > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed >attempts to prop up the scheme. If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of innocent people."? You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any >therefore no country would ever host it. Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could >> place a bet on their imminent death... > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of what is possible. >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine >with absolutely no safeguards. Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards against that. However, AP is different. AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater than that of some random individual. >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being >> killed. > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. H.L.Machen perceptively noted, "It is a common fallacy of our time that a moron run through a university and decorated with a PHD will thereby cease to be a moron." So save your credentials for the tabloids. >> Question: Would you say the assassination of a statist who had badly >> violated the NAP (eg. A district attorney involved in prosecutions >> for drug dealing) was a crime? > >Absolutely for the simple reason that mob rule, lynch law is always >criminal. If there is no due process there is no justice. Ah, I see that you are in agreement with some of the framers of our great constitution in rejecting Direct Democracy, in favor of one or another flavor of elitism (Representative Democracy, lets say). Not that it's necessarily so bad, mind you, but at least you're showing your true colors. >Under AP rules the state has a perfect right to execute Bell. Bell >clearly intends the murder of government personel, therefore under >AP rules the government has the "right" to protect itself with AP >if it choses. If it decides on a less arbitrary sanction then >under AP principles that is a concession it is not required to make. The state has no rights. It is not a living individual. Only humans, and arguably animals, have rights. >AP eliminates process and with it proof. There are no steps proposed >by which an AP initiator should deterine whether his rights have indeed >been infringed. You're right. It is not the American Way of justice. However, that way is not itself above suspicion. The reliability of witnesses is suspect, even when they are sincere in trying to recall events. The judges are not above corruption, especially as they are in positions of power and power corrupts. Finally, the jury is not without its biases, even when its not also paid off, as can be seen from the controversial results of well publicised cases involving Rodney King and O.J.Simpson. >Therefore an instigator is not acting upon actual >infringement of rights, merely suspected infringment. This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by >infringing his rights, without trial. Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. >> WRONG... The LEAs were the initiators of force and violators of the >> NAP, Jim Bell, were he to kill a member of the IRS, would not be >> commiting any crime, rather defending himself from a violation of his >> rights. > >He would empirically be guilty of a crime. The courts would consider >it murder and sentence him accordingly. Obviously, Paul is speaking of crime from Jim Bell's "ethical theory" perspective. Phil discounts the existence of that perspective, and answers from a "real world" perspective, completely missing Paul's point. >You may not consider him ethically to be guitly of something wrong. >I would disagree in that case. The LEAs have the right to initiate force >in accordance with the directions of a court order. They are pre-emtively >protecting their personal right to defend themselves and on behalf of >society pre-emptively protecting it. The state is self-perpetuating. Threats to the well being of members of it are taken seriously, that's no surprise. It would be surprising for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect themselves from the state. >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right >> to kill me to protect himself? > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. You didn't answer his question. >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. >> >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their >lungs we can return to sanity. Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sane to the Christians. The Holocaust to the Nazis. Communism to the Russians. And now, a police state to the Americans. >I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in >court if asked. You're such a good patriot. >I don't believe that people are fit judges of their own cause as Bell >and you do. More elitism! Well, we're all lucky we have you, the agents at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and the IRS to protect us. Perhaps you'll do us all a favor and judge yourself superfluous and even harmful to "the people's cause" and put a contract on yourselves in an AP organization, when they come to be. I thought not. All we'll see are attempts are self perpetuation. >> Otherwise you have no more to worry about than you do now, AP simply >> allows people perfect (as near as possible) anonymity, You can have >> someone assasinated now without betting pools.... > >I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of >innocent people. Again, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous"? -=- A concerned citizen

1 0

Re: Tim May badmouths anonymity.
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: Pill time TruthMonger. > TruthMonger is a multi-user Net persona, meant to be used > for that very reason. T r u t h M o n g e r N e t p e r s o n a # 2 3

1 0

"Beat The IRS & PAY-NO-MORE"
by BizMaster＠USA.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I apologize if this is unwanted E-mail. To be removed from this LIST please HIT (REPLY), type REMOVE in the (SUBJECT AREA) and HIT (SEND). Thank you. ****************************** PLEASE IGNORE THIS MESSAGE IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE THE USA ------------------------------------------------------ BEAT-THE-IRS & PAY-NO-MORE -------------------------- Our PACKAGE, (Beat The IRS & PAY-NO-MORE) will teach you EXACTLY how to EASILY: STOP FEDERAL Income Tax Withholding, STOP April filing of 1040 Form, & STOP THE IRS EXTORTION PERMANENTLY ------------------------------------------------------- The IRS Federal Income System is based on VOLUNTARY COMPLIENCE.... We will teach you how to legally VOLUNTEER OUT OF THE SYSTEM! -------------------------------------------------------- - Your Success is ABSOLUTELY Unconditionally GUARANTEED! Our methods work every time for everybody. They are 100% legal, honest and ethical. We will pay anybody $1,000 if they can prove our method is ILLEGAL, DISHONEST or UNETHICAL!!! Our method has worked for every person who has ever bought this package without exception. NOBODY HAS EVER FAILED OR ASKED FOR A REFUND!!! - Our PACKAGE includes a LIFETIME, FREE, SIMPLE, Sizzling, RED Hot 50% PAY OUT Dealership, PLUS ALL the marketing material master copies you will ever need. YOUR PAYCHECKS WILL BE 10% TO 20% BIGGER EVERY WEEK, within 2 weeks of filing the proper forms and affidavit. WHY NOT GIVE YOURSELF A RAISE THIS YEAR BY EXERCISING AND ENJOYING MORE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. SET YOURSELF FREE! ------------------------------------------------------------- Your package includes unlimited FREE phone consultations, a copy of the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, forms, affidavits, and much, much more! TO ORDER BY MAIL: Send this entire ad and a $35 Money Order to: LINKCO --Dept. #1, POB 66781 -- Phoenix, AZ 85082 To order by phone and Fax Check call our office at (602)267-9688 between the hours of 1 and 11pm Mountain Standard Time. You may also call just to ask questions. Thanks for reading this message! Dealer #00001 - (Unconditional Money Back Guarantee) - - Copyright 1996 Linkco -

1 0

Surveillance
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court spoke yesterday at the ABA's National Security Law gathering. (On C-SPAN). Points of interest: Why the court is not involved in domestic surveillance with the rise of terrorism and militancy in the US: It was considered during the implementation of the recent Anti-Terrorism Act but a decision was made to leave that task to District Courts. Why the court has denied only a dozen out of 8,000 requests for surveillance: All are excellently prepared and the judges advise on the few applications that are not to make them approvable. He went on to say that numbers do not tell the real story, that there are a variety of ways orders are issued and continued to keep an investigation viable and as it evolves. He cited the differences in renewals between orders covering individuals and those covering organizations: the first must be renewed every 90 days, the latter every year. Moreover, there may be changes during an investigation, say, by targeting an individual within an org, with difference regs, or combining individuals into a group, with also different regs. So the numbers of orders do not actually reflect how things work. However, the Court makes and annual report to Congress. Judge Lamberth joked that he hoped the Court's decisions were "constitutional," and after the laughter, apologized and said he should not have said that. He said that positions on the court are avidly sought, that the work was the most "fun" he had ever had, that it was very exciting to be part of the select group that deals with the highest secrets of the land. He commented on how "Article 3" provisions to protect national security and related secrets conflict with the FOIA, by saying first things first. ----- A related note on Greg's fruitless FOIA requests to various agencies about cpunks: active investigations are protected from FOIA requests, indeed, it is not uncommon to keep an investigation "active" to keep the secrets, to redefine the targets, to redefine as the Courts helpfully advise. Be sure to laugh at the constitutional joke, it's fun to be an insider playing with vital national life and death decisions and amusing the audience on TV.

1 0

WebWorld 26-27
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

GC: Alert addition to da home page.
by Daniel Miskell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greets, everyone! To keep this message short, I'm just going to beg and plead you all to go surf my page. More specifically, I'm begging you to surf the alert section of my page, I just put it up today, and I think that it's something everyone needs to see. My page is at: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/4795 Wether or not you like me, or even know me, I think you ALL should read this, and pass it on to your friends. --- Daniel. --- The following signature attachment has been reviewed and edited by the United States Government, as per the standards set forth by the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996. The following text is the remaining signature, deemed holesome and acceptable for consumption by the general public:

1 0

Truth Monger
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am not a ''multi-user Net persona''! I am Cypherpunks incarnate! I am Bright! I am Beautiful! Listen to me! I am the Truth! I Monger! Truth Monger

1 0

Ruritania Discovers Motor Transport
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ruritania Discovers Motor Transport ----------------------------------- Once upon a time in the land of Ruritania (known for its transparent trees, but that's not today's story) the population were discovering motor transport. All kinds of good things became possible then, including faster and safer deliveries, new kinds of business carried out over distances (and with that opportunies for foreign trade) there was a lot of interest in the subject from far-sighted people. But the government of Ruritania concentrated on the problems they imagined plaguing the acceptance of this technology. (The government was a democratic one, that is to say a loosely-related band of popularity-seekers.) There were cries of how the added speed and load capacity of these newfangled cars would assist crime. A few wise men pointed out that though cars probably would be used in some crimes, the advantages were still clear. For one thing criminals might still be in the minority, while the people standing to gain would be practically everybody. Also the cars would prevent much crime. For example, people would be harder to attack than when walking home from the the supermarket carrying 6 heavy bags of food. They'd load up with other people nearby and be home sooner and more safely. The government agreed there were advantages, and certainly didn't wish to appear backward or oppressive, by prohibiting mere members of the public from driving. So a plan was made to permit driving, but with restrictions to suit the government's wishes. There was to be a police officer in every petrol station to record who went where, when and what they were doing. Only that didn't suit the public spending figures (nor probably the chief constables) so instead distribution of petrol was banned. Except, of course, for the petrol vendors who enrolled in the new branch of the Police force - the Traffic Tracking Police (or TTP). Members of this force had a bunch of qualifications; mainly to do with ensuring that they could be counted on to report on any traffic they'd observed - within an hour - to the great guardians of the common good. Surely nobody could fail to trust the government or any related body ? Weren't these the very people who had defended our health at the risk of their own reputations by stating that beef was certainly safe before any of the research was in ? [1] Or guided us to a right decision in a promised referendum (on our association with nearby countries) by not holding it. This petrol distribution network announced by the government (though not strictly a government body) was trumpeted as progress and encouragement, bringing the benefits of the technology to the public, business, and anywhere else benefits belong in a democracy. Sceptics viewed it as a costly restriction. People disinclined to join the TTP, or indeed who failed the in the recruitment process, were prohibited from supplying petrol (even free of charge). Criminals, so it was said, would be tracked as they bought petrol because they would not be able to run a black market in the petrol they needed for their crimes. This looked decidedly doubtful. The use of the petrol was also ignored - fixed security lighting by petrol lamps (hiding nothing, but rather the opposite) was also restricted by the new progressive legislation. Nor was that all. Not content with banning the provision of petrol, the ban also covered offering it. The wording of the act was so vague, causing concerned citizens to wonder whether answering the telephone would be viewed as supplying petrol (after all, it could save somebody a journey). And what about the scope for crime by people with access (legitimate or not) to the records of the TTP ? The legislation had a few things to say about that, but wouldn't it be safer not to have the records ? (Like the Ruritanian government had done with records of polluted sites - look no pollution!) So it was that Ruritania remained in the 1940's well into the 21st century. [1] See 'Health & Safety at Work' April 1997 for a grim view of this. ISSN: 0141 8246 HSW(a)tolley.co.uk -- ########################################################## # Antonomasia # # ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # ##########################################################

1 0