January 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

Book review: A Lodging of Wayfaring Men
by Nostradumbass＠SAFe-mail.net 06 Jan '04

06 Jan '04

[The book is now available in electronic form (.pdf) for download from long time cypherpunk and Havenco founder Sean Hastings' web site: http://www.seanhastings.com/alowm.pdf Donations/patronage of $10 to the author, in e-gold or DMT, are requested in the book's forward.] A Lodging of Wayfaring Men By Anonymous Paperback 449 pages Available from http://www.laissezfairebooks.com for $17.95. Phone order line: 800-326-0996 BOOK REVIEW by Thomas Dorman This is a brief, favorable review of a novel published anonymously. Our civilization is bereft of heroes. Ayn Rand pointed out that contemporary heroes in western civilization are actors and gladiators. In times gone by we had statesmen, philosophers, warriors, inventors, scientists, engineers and doctors. Where have the heroes gone? The news, television and educational media have passed them by, have erased them from the consciousness of our civilization. The Renaissance period brought forth the ascendancy of the mind; the intellect of man; the rational mind. The philosopher kings (Plato's term) have regrouped, and, through dumbing down, diversion, and the feeding of all of humanities' addictions have (almost) brought the herd back to the serfdom "it deserves." The novel I am reviewing brings the hero back. The philosopher, the physician/inventor, imbued with selfishness and the love of humanity combined. In Ayn Rand's novels, the heroes were only selfish. "Altruism is the weakness of the downtrodden". This novelist has taken us a step further. Through promoting the welfare of all, each of us and our families grow into fulfilling the fullness of our potential. It is based all on the free market. These concepts close the circle of the philosophy of laissez faire. The novel leads us through a clever plot where the principles of freedom and individuality lead to a free market, one not controlled by governments or by tax men. The narrative is gripping. The reader cannot lay the book down. The book culminates in a number of essays filling in gaps in the philosophy of western civilization. An enigma remains. Why is the book authored anonymously? I received the book camouflaged in a brown envelope, mailed from Switzerland. Looking at its production, it was clearly the product of a short printing run. A letter in the envelope reads: "Hello, The author of this book prepared a short list of people that might be best able to appreciate it, and instructed us to see that complimentary copies were provided. Your name was included on the list. This is not a request for endorsements. We thank you if you wish to recommend the book to Should you desire more copies, they are currently available from Laissez-Faire Books. http://laissezfairebooks.com Thank you, The Publishers" I almost forgot the title: A Lodging of Wayfaring Men. A bit odd, don't you think? About halfway through the book we find a quotation from the Prophet Jeremiah, chapter nine. He laments the woebegone ways of his people. They have lost their moorings; they no longer obey their lord. I, for myself, have often noticed that much of the objectivism of Ayn Rand is rooted, perhaps unconsciously, in the Hebrew tradition. This has not been subject to analysis, and the virulent antireligiousness of her writing is one flaw (the other is not recognizing that most people are not rational). This particular novel leads us, in the end, to an exciting scene where the protagonist is interviewed by the Bilderbergers (the true rulers of the world). I will not tell you the outcome; you need to read the book for yourselves. Everyone who thinks he has a rational mind needs to read this novel. Western civilization needs to be rescued, and for this we need leadership; we need a philosophy. The seeds! of it are right here in this novel. I am going to say it again: You need to read this novel. Oh, yes. I forgot to comment on why, at least why I believe, the author chose to remains anonymous. The purpose of this novel is to instill independent responsibility and thinking in each of the readers. If the author were to give her or his name, we would be creating another guru cult. You see, the essence of our civilization is independence; intellectual independence of each member of the middle class. How can you be independent if you follow a guru? Readers of my writing will know how fearful I am of the future of our civilization. Just in the last month, our privacy in medical records is lost. Our privacy in our personal communications and affairs are lost to the Homeland Security Act, and we are threatened in our homes and towns with violence and terrorism from fanatics from out with our borders, and fanatics within government. Who will save us? We have to take responsibility individually, all of us. We need to turn the tide and rescue our civilization. Now is the time.! This is a call to arms; moral arms. Read the book. Thomas Dorman, MD November 29th 2002 --------------------------------------------------- For those who haven't read this book, "Farber" is one of the characters, and these essays were published in several newspapers around the world. I find it interesting that in the book it was mentioned that the NY Times wouldn't print it, while the NY Post not only did, but criticized the Times for not doing so. Anyway, these essays describe some of the plot that goes on in the book, but not in a way to spoil it if one were to read it. I believe these essays could be useful for all of us in our pursuit of sovereignty, and inspiring perhaps as well. Enjoy. SP Farberbs First Essay It began with Arab traders and the merchants of Venice. They really didn't know what they were building or how it would work. They merely struggled for the betterment of themselves and their families. It began to break out when the deep superstition of the Middle Ages cracked open under the strain of new philosophies and religious ideas. It found room to grow wherever new and wild vistas were found. It found fresh growth with each discovery of far-off new lands. It found a home everywhere the old order was broken up and fresh starts were being made. It took a firm root in America and flourished there for over a hundred years. Never again, where history is recorded, will there be any question as to whether or not it works. b It,b is the great discovery of the modern era: the positive-sum game. It is the liberation of human energy to do its appropriate job. It is the operation of creation, using the only counter-entropic force this world has: free human energy. You can see it work everywhere from the research lab, to the front office, to the construction site. It is what drives the entrepreneur to develop and produce a new product or service, and it is what gives the construction worker pride when his skill overcomes a difficult problem, making way for his blueprints to become a functional structure. Why is the construction worker proud, and why does the entrepreneur exult? Because they have done the one thing that all humans have the impulse to do b to create something good that would not have been otherwise. Human energy is the great creative force in the world. Without it, things tend to entropy (As the second law of thermodynamics states, b Closed systems tend to entropy.b) Without active and creative human energy, everything goes back to an animal level of existence. This human energy does not function by obedience and compulsion b it cannot, no matter how many rulers wish it were otherwise. Look at the command economies of the dead socialist world. Within several decades their occupants were reduced to an animal existence. Look at the millennia when constrained people lived at the pleasure of their Kings, seeking permission from their rulers to live and work. They continually starved and died. It is only when a few freelance merchants began living according to their own minds and breaking away from the permissions of their rulers that things began to change. When human energy is free to move, creativity goes wild; as do motivation, happiness, and the accumulation of wealth. When it is restrained, the descent to animal existence takes over again. The discovery of this fact is what differentiates us from the Middle Ages, and not much else. Do you think the people who lived in those dark times were inherently less intelligent than we are? They were not! You and I are their direct descendants, not many generations removed. We are essentially the same. The term positive-sum game signifies that this system creates more than the sum of its parts. The only real magic b human energy b creates more than it started with. Take some raw materials that of themselves are of little worth, and when you add human creativity you can create vehicles, computers and spaceships. The materials themselves have been around since the creation of the earth; if they could have turned into something great of themselves they would have done it long ago. But they cannot b it is only when humans manipulate them according to their own ideas that they gain any value. Thus, five dollars worth of materials becomes a product worth thousands of dollars. Those who do not play the positive-sum game instinctively fall back into being motivated by envy. Ultimately, they find reasons to feel that b there are only so many pieces of the pie.b This is the seed of destruction. The next thing they say is b If you have a bigger piece of the pie, then someone else has to have less.b That is a zero-sum game b the idea that nothing is really created, just moved from one hand to another. Not only is it false, but it is also the credo of every envious looter who speaks of bfairnessb and bequal distribution of wealth,b but who secretly hopes to get a share of wealth held by others. The real controversy of our time is this: Is human energy allowed to work in the world, or will it be tied down? The miserable experiment of communism has taught the worldbs rulers that the positive-sum game is necessary. So, their plan now is not to allow human energy to work, but to siphon off as much wealth as possible without killing it altogether. We productive people are carrying the governments of the world upon our backs. Are they worth half of our efforts b half of our lives? They take half of our earnings away from us continually by a vast web of taxes, fees and regulations b for what benefit? b To help the poor,b they say, and clamorously infer that if you disagree you are a heartless and dangerous person, and further that all will despise you. But if our money is forcibly taken from us, is not the state robbing us? Any dictionary will tell you that it is so, but it is considered poor form to say so b even to consider it. And are the poor better off? Certainly some of our money goes to the poor (although most is eaten up in the bureaucracy). This feeds their bellies insufficiently, while at the same time locking them into a life of dependence that wages an unending war upon their souls. Is that a good thing? Are the poor better off for this robbing of producers and living in a state of dependency? Or, does this produce one injustice the more and one moral lesson the less? Many of you will gasp, and reel in shock that I would challenge the respectability and honor of your tradition, and you fear to let yourselves consider my case. You have come up against someone who does not share in your conspiracy of compliance. You must either turn away from these subjects, or face the prospect of becoming a radical, and of people saying bad things about you. Are you angry? If so, it is not because I am wrong. If that were the case, you would simply walk away. You are angry because I am ill-mannered enough to bring up subjects that you wish to avoid. My ideas bother you. When they come up, you divert your mind to pat phrases like, b That is the price we pay for our society. You dodge reason, and shunt your thoughts away in order to keep your mental comfort level. You do not face these ideas head-on because you are afraid of them b you are afraid that you might have to agree with them. And then you would have to face the choice either to be a hero or to be a coward. I stood one evening in IBM Plaza in Chicago, looking over the riverfront skyline as the sun sank in the southwest, and realized that the towering monuments to human effort in front of me were the results of the positive-sum game run at only half-speed. Chicago was wild and open from the 1830s through the 1890s. Then, slowly, the curbs and limits were imposed by do-gooder government and collectivist types. These inevitably slowed the workings of a city that had been, as one writer said, bGeared for giants.b But the restraints were not enough to stop the positive-sum game b only enough to slow it down. The Chicago skyline I watched was the result of the positive-sum game being played at half-speed, yet its results were awesome. I thought about what might have been if it were allowed to operate unfettered. And then I thought of the greatest example of the positive-sum game in my lifetime b Hong Kong. It went from rice fields to the grandest city of the east in one generation b an explosion of unrestrained human energy. What things we have been deprived of! What glorious accomplishments aborted and stillborn! And now our recent explosion of technology has become the target of bureaucrats worldwide. Where will we go from here? Will the positive-sum game once again be strangled, or will it migrate to new and open lands? But! Moving to a new land will be a problem, wonbt it? There is no land on this planet that has not been claimed by some gang of rulers. So, until cheap space flight is achieved, there is only one new country to be found b cyberspace. So escape there we shall. And there we will b and must, for our own sake and the sake of our descendants b establish the positive-sum game without restriction. Toward that end, we have built a private free market. We used our own money to do it, and webve broken no laws that we are aware of, save laws that outlaw privacy. Now, the rulers are trying to stop us. Why? We want to run an experiment, and see if freedom really is better than servitude. Why wonbt they let us try? Are they interested in the betterment of mankind, or are they really interested in their monopoly powers? All we want is to be left alone and to try freedom. Why is that threatening? And why do they wish to imprison us? James Farber Farberbs Second Essay History books tell the stories of Rulers. Some are Kings; some, Emperors; some, Presidents or Prime Ministers; and some, potentates of more exotic name. A few of them were more or less benevolent, and others were tyrants. Most were in-between. But they all held one thing in common b they maintained a monopoly on the use of force in their territories. They maintained their right to use coercion, and to prevent all others from doing so. Stripped of romantic rhetoric and patriotic emotion, the essence of rulership is the ability to maintain a monopoly of force. Argue if you like, but you will be arguing with the dictionary. Every reform of government and rulership to date has kept the central mechanism of coercion in place. Did some governmental reforms lead to improvements? Certainly. They made things considerably less bad. But they left centralized coercion in place. And for every bgoodb leader that has come along, such as a Washington or a Churchill, we've had several times as many Stalins or Maos. I have friends who study such things, and they assure me that roughly two percent of all people are would-be dictators; if they had the opportunity to oppress the world, they would. Another twelve percent or so are would-be facilitators; that is, when one of the two-percenters comes to power, they are glad to fill a slot and vigorously exercise power over others. Like it or not, these people are out there, and they are drawn to the levers of power. And once every so often, they have their turns. When they do, innocent people die in large numbers. Over one hundred million died this way in the past century. Try to comprehend thatb&one hundred times one thousand, times one thousand people. Boys, girls, men, women, teenagers, short, tall, strong, weak, dark-skinned and light-skinned. All of them dead because twisted people were able to take hold of centralized force. If you have wondered why some of us are so determined to keep governments out of cyberspace, please understand that this is why. We've had enough of centralized force. Webre removing the whole mechanism. We think it was a mistake from the beginning. We don't want to be anything for the two percent to grab. If you want coercive rulership, keep it; we won't try to take it away from you. But we have chosen to opt out. Don't try to reign us back in. We won't try to make you live our way, and you don't try to make us live your way. We are not your property. Our arrangement has no central mechanism of coercion, and it has been working quite well for a couple of years now. We like it. This arrangement has, however, surprised us in several ways. One of the things we discovered was that once you remove the mechanisms of coercion, you remove something else b politics. Politics is the art and science of managing centralized coercion. This is the reason political debates are so infuriating: the final decision leads to unopposable force. Once the political process is completed, you have the choice either to obey, or to be punished. Coercion is the sine qua non of politics; the thing, without which, politics would not be politics. Indeed, if you remove coercion, politics becomes something else b economics. Things work by economic means here. If you don't like the way a market operates, just move to a different one. Or, if no one does it the way you think is right, start your own. There are no protected services here, nothing mandatory. You may opt out of anything you don't like, or offer any service you like. We couldn't stop you if you wanted to start a communist collective. The only limitation would be that you could not force anyone to join or remain part of your collective; we have no mechanism for that. The entire system is built around the idea that persuading people to trade with you is moral, and that forcing them is not. We think our ideas are right, but we will not impose them on you. You can hold whatever ideas you like, just don't impose them on us. All this being said, what really concerns your rulers, and what is driving them to demonize us, is that people are leaving their systems and joining ours. Your children are joining the free digital economy in huge numbers. No, the young people are not joining us for historical and philosophical reasons; those things are mostly for us older people. Young people, as always, are looking for adventure and opportunity. In your regulated world, very few people ever get much real adventure or overwhelming success. They read about such things in novels and celebrity tabloids, they see them in movies, but very few of them will actually experience such things. Our world, on the other hand, has adventure and opportunity in wholesale quantities. Your children may have to work hard to get it, but a big life is waiting for them if they wish to earn it. In our realm, intelligence, daring, and perseverance are rewarded far more directly than in your regulated world. Here, you can be a complete unknown, with no connections and no wealth b but, if you can learn to provide excellent ideas or services, you can get rich. No one here knows or cares about the color of your skin, or your sex, or who you sleep with, or anything of the sort. If you can produce, youbre a player. Want to go from rags to riches? Pick a valuable skill in our world, throw yourself into it with all of your might, excel at it, and start selling it. Time and effort are all you need. You don't need friends in the right placesb&only value to offer. And therebs more: The truth is that the best rewards come to those who are first at something new. Jobs and Wozniak were the first to produce a good personal computer, but other people would have done the same thing within a year or two. They got to do all the cool stuff only because they were first. You can say the same thing for every other discovery or invention. Human knowledge is built piece-upon-piece, and new discoveries follow, more or less, in that sequence. If you want to do the really fun things, you have to get to the front of the line. The stream of human knowledge is now firmly rooted in our world. The frontier of Alvin Tofflerbs third wave is in cyberspace, and thatbs where the front of the line can be found. Now, let me tell you about the future of the third wave: The central ideal of your old world is coercive authority. This is embodied not only in rulership, but in schools, in families, in religions, and in most every area of life. We were all born into a world that told us, b Do what you are told, or we'll hurt you.b Our parents told us that, our teachers imposed it on us, our gods are envisioned this way, and certainly the rulers of the earth operate this way. From birth to death, continually, it confronts you all. Having lived with these ideas for a hundred generations, humanity is used to this, and can survive it moderately well. But it is far from ideal. From birth on you are trained to sit, to obey or else, to worry that you might do something wrong without realizing. It puts you in a sort of perpetual cringe, unconsciously cowering in expectation of the next blow. Being used to it is no reason to think that it isn't damaging. We have eliminated this. It has not root here, no mechanism. This is having an effect on the world already, although it certainly has a long way to go. But it is here, and it is not fading away. It may be a generation or two before we begin to see how the coercion-free mind works. Longer before it becomes dominant. Nonetheless, the seedlings have been planted, and they are thriving. We certainly didn't start this. Its roots trace back to every free thinker, to every rebel for truth; to the true heroes, who, in a thousand different areas of life, had the courage to be right, even in the face of opposition. We are simply carrying on their work at the moment when it threatens to reach critical mass. If we were simply one more reform movement, we would seek to conquer your system and run it our way. That, however, is not what we are. We do not accept coercion as moral. We do not wish to coerce anyone, and we will not submit to being coerced. We do not want to run your system. If all of this seems threatening to you, I'm sorry. I know how that can feel. We are not your enemies b we are your friends, and we are your future. We will not harm you. We do not want to take your governments away from you. We do not want to control your governments. We are not asking you to change your lives. We are only withdrawing from your game. Go your own way in peace. We wish you well. We still love you, we still care about you, we'll still spend time with you, and in the right situation we would defend you. But we will not remain part of your coercive systems. We are pleased to share this planet with you, but we do not wish to share your social structures. We want to do a new thing b a better thing. If you wish the best for your children, encourage them to step into the new world b a world where they can own their own lives, and enjoy the fruits of their own labor. A perfect world? No, But a much better world than one with centralized coercion and obedience to authority as its main pillars. We do wish you well. James Farber

1 0

Snake oil?
by Freematt357＠aol.com 06 Jan '04

06 Jan '04

http://www.topsecretcrypto.com/ Snake oil? Regards, Matt-

2 1

progress
by James A. Donald 06 Jan '04

06 Jan '04

-- This small step forward is ultimately a result of https. The more advanced technologies that have been a focus of discussion of this list have yet to have real effect, but I see the infrastructure that would create demand for such technologies coming into being. On 5 Jan 2004 at 11:57, sales(a)cheapscrips.com wrote: > We are an overseas pharmacy that is presently accepting > e-gold as our exclusive means of payment. Our prices are > substantially lower than ridiculously-high U.S. prices. In > addition: > > *We currently feature 125 drugs on our site and have access > to several thousand more. *We do not require a prescription > of any kind. *Our shipping is just $7 to anywhere in North or > South America; $9 elsewhere. > > Our homepage is located at www.cheapscrips.com > > Come check us out! by the way, many of their drugs are radically cheaper. Assuming they are legitimate, they would be getting it from some country that does not pay too much attention to patents, registered trademarks, and the like. Regulatory arbitrage, and a privately issued currency. It is well short of the high expectations we held years ago, but it is progress nonetheless. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6CxZlFVsvfCscLNvWTSJpnFyTKmr81PGhoMjo4Lq 47V6MDRLrS73Hik5meE9gm9iEi39WNmrDWIklUe6q

3 8

Read General X on the USENET - alt.politics.org.cia ...
by Mark Saarelainen 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

Can the last remaining KGB mind win the world ... ? Need a new email address that people can remember Check out the new EudoraMail at http://www.eudoramail.com

1 0

BitTorrent users chuckling over Pew peer-to-peer report
by Nostradumbass＠SAFe-mail.net 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

>By John Paczkowski ><http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/763…> >The suits over at the Recording Industry Association of America are likely a bit more smug than usual today thanks to a report that suggests the number of people swapping music files online has declined dramatically since the lobbying group began suing people who illegally trade copyrighted music online. According to a report released Sunday by the Pew Internet & American Life Project and comScore Media Metrix, the number of individuals illegally downloading music from the Internet plummeted from 35 million to 18 million between late May and mid-December. "Nothing has ever fallen off the cliff the way that downloading has," Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet project, told Newsday. "Obviously the lawsuits were a watershed, and they dramatically changed some online behavior." But just how did they change it? Pew researchers would have us believe that fewer people are downloading music illegally. But they sampled only four peer-to-peer applications - Kazaa, WinMX, BearSh! are and Grokster -- each of them known to be heavily monitored by the RIAA. What of BitTorrent? Or eDonkey and eMule? Or Carracho? Isn't it possible that more of the trafficking is just moving off the radar? And where are users learing about 'off the radar' sites? Perhaps http://bitzi.com/ is one.

1 0

Sources and Sinks
by Tim May 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

The jabber about how poor people are actually paying for the successful is beyond belief. All sorts of arguments are being made about how poor people somehow pay for the infrastructure the wealthy exploit. And the chestnut about how tax breaks aid the wealth disproportionately is once again brought out. (Yeah, if Alice was paying $50K in taxes and the taxes are cut to $40K she "benefits more" than Bob the Wino who got no tax benefits because he paid no taxes. Which misses the point about Alice's high taxes in the first place.) This is why the "Tax Freedom Day" approach is more useful. Tax freedom day is of course the day when the average American or Brit or whatever has stopped working for the government and has the rest of his income for himself. For most years, this is estimated to around May-June. That is, for almost half of a year a typical taxpayer is working for the government. Not a perfect measure, as it averages together folks of various tax brackets, including the many in America who pay nothing (but it doesn't assign a negative number to those who receive "net net" money from the government). And it fails to take into account the double taxation which a business owner faces: roughly a 50% tax on his profits, then when the profits are disbursed to the owners of the corporation, another 35-45% tax bite. For a business owner, he is effectively working for the government for the first 70% of every year. Which means only October-December is he working for his own interests. Jabber about how poor people are actually receiving fewer tax benefits than rich people misses the point of who's working for whom. Alice, an engineer or pharmacist or perhaps a small business owner, works between 40% and 70% of her time to pay money into government. Bob, a crack addict collecting "disability" or welfare or other government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society. ("Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!") Alice is a source, Bob is a sink. Talk about how Alice gets benefits ignores the fact that she's working for the government for a big chunk of her life. Bob is not. Alice is a slave for the government, and "society," so that Bob can lounge in his mobile home watching ESPN and collecting a monthly check. (I'd like to know why all of the folks here in California who are getting "benefits" and "services" are not at my door on Saturday morning to help me with my yard work. I'd like to know why finding reliable yard workers has become nearly impossible in the past couple of decades. "Will work for food" signs are a fucking joke...try hiring one of those layabouts to actually do some work for food and watch the sneers, or watch them threatening to fake a work injury if a shakedown fee is not given to them. These people should be put in lime pits.) When you hear John Young and Tyler Durden nattering about the "persons of privilege" are reaping the rewards of a benificent government, think about Alice and Bob and ask yourself who'se doing the real work. Ask who're the sources and who're the sinks. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...and I've got a game to watch on satellite...and where's my check?" --Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill

4 5

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism
by Major Variola (ret) 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

At 12:58 PM 1/5/04 -0600, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >With that evidence in hand, the employer calls them up and tells them >to be at work the next day -- or be fired. If I were the employer, I >wouldn't even give them that second chance. Motivation might be loss of training or worry over lawsuit? The state of CA was running adverts last year reminding the volk that its a felony to fake disability for worker's comp. My wife's a shrink, she has had occasion to evaluate people for mental distress (for worker's comp) caused by work. Sometimes they piggyback pre-existing problems onto their claims, sometimes people or conditions at work would screw with anyone's head. Sometimes they regard her (the examining shrink) as an adversary, sometimes a friend. I imagine same goes for visceral physicians too -though pain is as easy to fake as anguish. The technical term for faking it is 'malingering'. Some of the questions in standard written exams try to detect this, as well as the opposite, concealment. (There are times when you want to conceal a condition that you are aware of.)

1 0

CNN "expert" confuses stenography with steganography
by Major Variola (ret.) 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

Just heard a CNN "expert" confuse stenography with steganography. And he still thinks Jihad, Inc websites use the latter. Doofus.

1 0

copy protected "CD" lawsuit
by Major Variola (ret.) 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

LONDON -- A European consumer watchdog body is suing the world's largest music companies for selling copy-protected compact discs that won't play on car stereos and computers, the Belgium-based organization said on Monday. The group, known in Dutch as Test-Aankoop and in French as Test-Achats, said it has received more than 200 complaints from consumers who objected to a technology that prevents consumers from making a back-up version on a blank disc and limits playback on certain devices. http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61791,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6 .... Note that we suggested a lawsuit based on fraud rather than denial of traditional use, some time ago. Actually, the case for denial of traditional use is lame, in our opinion. (Surely a vendor can sell whatever they want. Only its fraud to use the CD logo, since the disks don't play on to-spec players. Similar to software: you should be able to lock it in any way you can, but you can't say "runs on WinBlah" if it only runs on a subset.) Should be interesting.

1 0

Vengeance Libertarianism
by Tim May 05 Jan '04

05 Jan '04

On Dec 30, 2003, at 10:01 PM, jal(a)jal.org wrote: >> (This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer >> James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of >> Chomsky.) > > I will say that I was a a former marxist. This is not to bow at the > feet > of some better method, nor to trivialize the past. > > My awakening, as it were, actually happened here, for better or worse. > Tim, Hal, Lucky, Uni and to some extent Detweiler all helped > form my view. More than a few others. This was back in '93, mostly. At > least, the founding, for me was then. I know some things happened later > (I saw Uni present his Coke Presentation in 2002 for the first time), > and I became concerned with business, or at least companies that wanted > cash, and to be a business later. > I never went through a Marxist phase, never even came close. This despite entering college in 1970, this despite going to a school where the dominant paradigm was leftist (UC Santa Barbara). I occasionally wonder what my perspective might be had I ever held leftist, collectivist thoughts. Oh well, I'll never know. Thirty years ago I _was_ more charitable about the various groups which claim to have been aggrieved, and I dutifully referred to negroes as "blacks," argued earnestly with doubting leftists about the importance of the profit motive, cited semi-leftists who had reasonable things to say about capitalism and liberty and the Constitution. But over the years, as I have seen a huge chunk of money taken from me at gunpoint and given to welfare skanks, inner city negro mutants, gay activist buttfucker San Francisco queer groups, foreign nations with dictators like Hussein (both of them), Mubarek, Amin, Meir, Rabin, and a hundred others, and as education has declined while the pigeons demand more handouts...I have become what I call a "vengeance libertarian." While certain theoreticians of 30 years argued for silly ideas about how how it is "immoral" to land on another's balcony while falling from a building, because the property rights had not been negotiated, and thus argued that even self-defense is fraught with moral problems, another camp of us were developing the idea that vengeance is good, that crypto anarchy will not only let some of us "withdraw from the system," a la Galt's Gulch, but also it will let us execute justice on those who stole from us. For every negro welfare momma who took money for the past number of years, tell her to pay it all back, with compounded interest, or face time in a labor camp to repay what she stole. And if she cannot, or will not, which is ovewhelmingly likely, harvest her organs (if any takers can be found) and send the leftovers up the smokestacks. Ditto for the queers who have collected "public health" funds to pay for their sodomy. (I have no issue with their choices of partners, except that the diseases they contract via their habits, and their inability to work, is their problem, not mine. And not any corporations, except by the choice of that corporation.) Vengeance libertarianism is the rational kind. It will result in 20-40 million of the leeches, the bums, the minority grifters, the so-called aggrieved, the winos, the addicts, all being sent up the chimneys. Hitler had only minor reasons to go after the Jews (many of them had manipulated the economy to favor Jews while also preaching a "no defense" loser strategy to their untermenschen), we have much more reason to go after the tens of millions of underpeople who have been using their thugs in government to steal from us. We have much more justification today to liquidate the parsites than Hitler ever had. As for government, I estimate that 99% of those in Congress and government agencies in the past 40 years have earned killing. Of current Congressvarmints, only two seem to be not guilty. Of low-level employees, a bunch are just willing dweebs, and may be able to work off their debts in a labor camp for a decade or two. But probably the cleaner solution is just to do a thermonuclear cauterization of the region surrounding Washington and start fresh from there with a very limited government that honors the Constitution instead of catering to negroes and queers and welfare addicts. Crypto anarchy will make delivering justice to tens of millions a reality. The world will learn a lesson when we burn off these criminals. --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater

9 10