- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Voluntary Governments?
by elton＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Right ... I had taken this offline, but it looks as though it ain't quite dead yet. Kindly stop reading now if you wish this subject would go away. Consolidating two messages from Jim Dixon: >Jason's use of the term 'tax' in a special sense is no more an abuse >of the language than the attempt to change the conventional meaning >of the word 'government'. and >You can't simply take over the ownership of words in the English >language. 'Government' is indeed the name used for an entity that >exercises authority or enforces laws. Of course we can -- it happens all the time. However, this time I haven't usurped the meaning of anything. Force -- the threat or actual use of violence -- is the essence of government. You just said so yourself: "enforces laws". Here's the closest applicable dictionary definition of "government", taken from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language: "1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration." This is amplified by looking at "govern" in the same dictionary: "1. to rule by right of authority, as a sovereign does." "Rule", or "political ... control" are only ever exercised through force. People keep using that word, "enforce", without looking carefully at it. >From the same dictionary: "to put or keep in force; compel obedience to." "Enforcement", regardless of the dry dictionary definition, is the essence of government. Without the power to enforce arbitrary rules, there can be no government. There are several methods of achieving compliance with a set of rules: social pressure (shunning, as some religious sects do); withholding of goods or services (the degree that Jason spoke about being denied); and topical application of violence ("enforcement"). Of these, the first two are related, and are commonly practiced by social units that don't recognize the right to use force on one another. The last named is the only one that results in physical damage to the person being "ruled", and is also the only one that can physically prevent that person from engaging in the proscribed behavior. The others can make life bloody unpleasant, but they won't terminate it. One other thing: >I grew up in a small town of 5,000. It had a city government. The >county government was in the same town. No one denies that California >has a government, I think. And then there was the US government. And >we had city police, the sheriff's office, the Highway Patrol, and the >FBI paid an occasional visit. Uh ... you _do_ understand that that's a specious argument, yes? What do you suppose the outcome would be if your home town were to legalize marijuana, and then attempted to prevent the DEA from enforcing the overriding federal law? Yes, we have a distributed government, with each layer operating under the authority of the next layer up; but each layer can only add restrictions, never remove them, and each enforces its restrictions by the same method as the layers above it: main force. Further, each attempts to prevent other agencies from enforcing sets of rules counter to the ones they themselves enforce. That's what makes them true "governments", rather than some other social institution. Here, someone will surely object that by this definition, the Mafia can be considered a government. Well, if they can successfully kick the existing thugs off of some plot of ground, and then defend it against all comers, then yes: that's exactly what they'll be. How else do you suppose that governments become established? -- Elton

2 1

Message for 0x7CF5048D
by Random Factor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sorry to inflict this on everyone. i've redirected followup elsewhere. randy -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6 hIwCDYaeGXz1BI0BBACzJWMo49PMXrCnV5SLci/MqoUmldyAPY3WCyhOC/PYB++X Bpb+zOqs3kTJpaT0f9hwpiLHpB96lPkxjFHAP9k+lgekjGpMcICB/6xBjp8S1D0q L7wmiwZ933HUEorPrPOIlVJ/7Ufv8Y1uJbTZR7CTDoYlU4IP3Y/IE8/tWoIghKYA AAQw9t6doZJceiZVYBkY3TwgH1pTZdfvDTTssyucqkp6A09ClKpEgzzfKZnAXYZ8 c/QXd8thWqcLBERx4aPXfcW09w8knO6DUZgkk3pFHmdGshp3/gcTaO/ko8ecbI7V OnzPn5hjONWRYGuYB9praK5Fe/j//UVjTlaY3Tb5QY1lK+GSLFU7ktiuMXqagQYK 72mN8wpCZZlh1eGThu89UwsGjfiqFzvpmJTWa9+U1VtX+DNXlOYkcC5K5gqmDb97 XuDNakLX79O4wjeBJVx5xOglqEHS+wnt09EwG+IuwLxgPPVKpnm0qhAJNyt8Syhj XLiAaqlShOQIaXNp/qWKGrrIMcDvzBBI/2LlXHJZ/h5Ykl/c4/+FeqYOx26uMbCk SiI4LRsvwFE9cR/jlgPyzGRVsLB6WagUN8uhLXkxQKwMNlDSU5ZFOQSOZ2HuYwZc EgDQwtSXEgFBNgCKGhogQ2SyEj0GnH2bDLPxiGgM1svL1VzwogvgV6mS0wLed56V qT8pXdCSzY7LJCvVJ2kmnsqMl5y9E1wmqujeBQdIhr/SqJ2W4PXTgHiyYxKUvOWK 6SJdxMxCWdO8Vhr9oqpERSn0RuC2wsroNiposGaIvtzha5P975QmNZJDzupcCtmQ T8bXvK9loVfuKxtxgH2rc8IFjHPWhqrIkvUaq6mOUajIiY+DKzT1X6+Pus7RKnl+ EMdavCLY8tynKzkiHobPK5eUSo9XrwYMfaMCibAS+2DXFD83CDK7AoUfRnLA73ID xHb6TRw3ocHfKRyk8n+mwj6VEGN4RQIy1rgAtildynQCJC3H7qW6CAJQ/kfojBLf Cu+Au8GiPyGR8u3m2tgZgI4sqibOn5Xd5q5Ju4OiTYWZiXuQFjHiDUfTCQLojjf0 F8x33jl+c3jjyNM+L4xBs8mqXOFyvGaeQY1IyrAMYddVWHXU/NwJk/S73UBCXAaz i3r16GH7QsQ2GQiNvjqitkZOnP7rRgn2DExXnN2WrMbQID8kCV5WU8kGlKkdhPUK KxrpL6dJ49gPVOSxvRwWXujXaWvpKGtwBQ9sk6fVvhqilmA3TtSJ0u+vpPIWzSJ7 idML1PW5UG+E4j5lJpvZAwUEB9DRs54b1zlZ2kThDlic4R9N5akHvih8dimT/iFK qXxHt7nsExCW5kX0HFJVxj+4iEw77w7W9evo+M7JJW9ZWcNxk8P1SoYpD8I57b0c OUv+znOMbYcZqex2UuO0BworlIf+hEjS1spgUU8YlWvJaqRt7vQ0iXkGvebhYmTT BPM8AiPrJpQzoBEwBdDZ6ytWkbBTjb9UpDH/KFHPB+T1hRzB1DYuwI6nodIwh4aW zsWBahfhVtxZwRAHoC+ii70wedl28nwz+mAdBFvNl4Lh9WjYtE8x9pue2iCmWTuY X5Ts8zreyBD9a87/NbPcqucuhQ== =R4uo -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

1 0

RE: U & Pu "poisoning of the environment"
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Well, I wouldn't want to snort the stuff daily, but its toxicity >has been overrated in the popular press. > >Epidemiologic studies of workers [even wartime workers with impressive >body burdens/ exposures] in a number of uranium bomb-making centers have >found ~ no health effects. > >I haven't heard much about Pu-workers. Well, there you go - that's your answer. :-| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to *love* Big Brother.

1 0

Re: Anonymous questionnaires
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You wrote to my question regarding anonymous questionnaires: >I don't know if the researchers are willing to change their methodology just >for you, but it's easy to meet all the requirements you listed: Put your >questionnaire answers in a blank envelope and seal it. Enclose the blank >envelope in another envelope. The outer envelope has your name and various >other information, i.e., everything needed to create the audit trail. When >it arrives, the researchers (whom you must trust) open the outer envelope, >remove the blank inner envelope, and toss it irretrievably into a pile with >all the other blank inner envelopes. There would be no record of which >questionnaire went with which respondent, but there would be a clear record >of who's responded and who hasn't. This system would not provide > 1. Correlate my answers to the answers of my partner. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

2 1

Actually using strong crypto on a routine basis.
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by jkreznar(a)ininx.com (John E. Kreznar) on Wed, 24 Aug 4:30 AM >Stick to your guns, Rick. Even cypherpunks founders >can become corrupted. No. Tim says: Don't do what I do, do what I say. Do your homework. Clean your room. You embarass me. Get a job. Get a haircut. Get a life. Don't talk back. When I was your age . . . Listen to me . . . Shut the fuck up. I'm sorry, I love you. Every parent of rambunctious kids talks like this. Sigh. John

2 1

Open invitation to attend...
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, RoboFest 6 will be held in Austin, TX this fall (the exact date is not final at this time) and I have been advised that my request for TWS to participate has been granted. I would like to extend an invitation to any C-punks out there who will be in the area at that time (exact date will be posted when I get it) are invited to attend. It should be possible to have at least a couple of opportunities for giving speeches or demos if so desired. If this sounds like something you are interested in doing please let me know between now and Jan 1. Hope to see some of you here... Plunk! Ravage (Info)Highway To Hell

1 0

Re: Windows Front End PGP 2.6
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Does anybody know where I can find a windows front end that works with PGP >> 2.6? Any feedback on this would be appreciated! >> >> ????Windows front end: PGP WinFront from Ross Barclay???? > >Anyone know where this is? Haven't been able to find it... :( >-- You can probably archie on PWF, and it should show up. Personally, I'm kinda partial to WinPGP 2.6 - nice front end, easy to use, all that stuff. Shareware, I even registered it :-) Dave Merriman

1 0

Re: Anonymous questionnaires
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You wrote to my question about anonymous questionnarires: > Correlation is easy; assign people consecutive numbers or >somesuch. If both participants are anonymous, no problem. Could you >bring by the questionnaire by hand, in exchange for cash? No, they are too far away. >If not, how >about a money order and a PO box? > They would still need my name. > The audit part of this is the tough part. Would the HHS care >to agree to a broadcast means of verification? Would participants 44, >71 and 94 please come into the re-testing center to verify their >participation? There could be a zero knowledge proof of some type to >demonstrate that you are really patient 94. > Can someone suggest a way to accomplish all this? TIA, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP public key by finger

2 1

Zimmermann/NSA debate postponed
by Philip Zimmermann 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The debate between Philip Zimmermann and Clinton Brooks from NSA has been postponed. The debate organizers, the World Affairs Council decided today (Tuesday) that there were not enough attendees preregistered to proceed with the debate at this time. The debate had been scheduled for Thursday, 25 August, in Thousand Oaks, California. A major conference organized by the World Affairs Council, scheduled for 27 October, will have the debate included in the conference. When those plans firm up, there will be detailed announcements with more lead time. I'm sorry if this change in plans inconveniences anyone who planned to attend the debate, but I had nothing to do with their decision. --Philip Zimmermann

18 33

Actually berating on a routine basis.
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) on Wed, 24 Aug 1:14 PM >This latest round of insults from you cretins is having >the benefit of cutting down the messages I read. No insult intended. Meant to compliment your hectoring and cajolery and levity. Berating folks now and then makes interesting reading; keep it up. John

1 0