- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: More news from Somalia
by James A.. Donald 02 Oct '00

02 Oct '00

-- Many of you may have seen news items about another attempt to form a government in Somalia. Many of you may have seen a news item that the president entered Mogadishu, the former capital of former Somalia, surrounded by a large military force, and was warmly welcomed. Well it seems that most of that force was not fighters loyal to the president, but fighters loyal to various factions and conflicting and incompatible special interests to which the president had made all sorts of promises. It is not clear to what extent the forces were there to protect him and ensure he was obeyed, and to what extent they were there to make sure he delivered on his diverse promises to diverse interest groups. The president entered Mogadishu without a shot fired. He also left it without a shot fired, though a few prominent Somalis have announced a policy of killing him on sight. As far as anyone can tell the president spent one day in Somalia, and is now back to leading a government-in-exile. This does not mean that the attempt to form a government has failed, but it has not yet succeeded. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Id0ZhxXLfjOd/3uSMCJcK/BNoXTdziRYHThMFxA2 4wULaLgFycpPD/YzYSa7uh+mmlCX8vLBlgr7qs7cO

1 0

CDR: rose icon meaning?
by Anonymous 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Could someone explain or provide a reference for what the rose icon signifies? -Anon Tim writes: > [...] > > Gilding the lily...or the "Cypherpunks rose," appropriately.

3 3

CDR: Natural rights (was Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty)
by Gil Hamilton 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Sampo Syreeni writes: >Actually I s ub scribe to neither view. I see rights as something that do >not >naturally exist, but are purely a societal product, subject to change >through redefinition. Whether this happens because the government effects >it >or if the people start to view something as an inherent right is, to me, >immaterial. At heart, the notion of a right is a moral one; it is closely tied to the moral concepts of good and evil. These concepts are known and understood universally among members of our species. Some view them as attributes of their religious belief, but even those who aren't religious and don't think in terms of "sin" recognize the concepts. The idea of right versus wrong is clearly both natural and universal to humankind. While individuals' beliefs as to exactly which "natural rights" exist may differ, all people (save some tiny few sociopaths who must be considered "abnormal") agree on some of them. For example, if you did a poll, you'd find that pretty near 100% of people believe at some level that they have a right to protect their own lives and the lives of their family members. The limits or boundaries of that right would of course be the subject of considerable dispute. A frequent critique of libertarianism (and anarcho-capitalism) is that it advocates a law-of-the-jungle, winner-take-all society: that the strong, the wealthy and the powerful prosper while the weak, the poor and the powerless are doomed to suffering, exploitation and oppression. However, it is this idea that natural rights do not exist, that any right you have is something that can simply be taken away by "society" (in practice of course that means the government), that is the real law-of-the-jungle situation. It is saying, in effect: you have no rights except those "we" (variously defined as society or government, but it always boils down to the Men With Guns from the government) allow you. "And don't complain too loudly or we might have to take those away too" (for the chiiiiiildren, perhaps). I and most others on this list utterly reject that crap. As James Donald's .sig used to say (and maybe still does): "We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are." You can't take away my right to defend myself by simply "redefining" it. And anyone who tries to do so has marked himself as one worth careful watching, or even perhaps, as Tim so often suggests, killing. - GH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

3 2

CDR: no fedbucks means freedom
by A. Melon 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

"Because the school accepts no government aid and prohibits its students from doing the same, it has the right to discriminate on the basis of religion." from a story http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/national/ap170.htm about a college for home-schoolers. Re: why govt subsidized arenas have to be neutral wrt who you kiss, a recent thread here. Along those lines, two more recent refs: one where a govt school cuts off the Scouts, another where a county doesnt and gets sued. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/xnyap/20000927/lo/brf_boy_scout_ban_1.html District Ends Boy Scout Affiliation NEW YORK (AP) - A Manhattan school board has banned its 42 schools from sponsoring Boy Scout troops because the 90-year-old national organization excludes gays. The board of Community School District Two passed the resolution at a meeting Tuesday night, becoming the first district in the city to enact such a ban. http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/20000927/t000091530.html Scouts Lease on Base Extended ACLU, gays claim rent-free access to Newport Beach site is a government subsidy for a discriminatory group. By DAVID REYES, Times Staff Writer Over objections from the gay and lesbian community and the threat of an ACLU lawsuit, Orange County supervisors Tuesday unanimously approved a 30-year extension of the Boy Scouts lease on a Newport Beach sea base under county authority. "This is good news for everybody in Orange County," said David Janes, a sea base volunteer and retired Navy rear admiral, after the boards vote. About 35 Scouts, their parents and Scout leaders attended the meeting in a show of support for the rent-free extension of the base lease, beginning in 2006. The Scouts have operated the base for 63 years and recently raised $4.5 million to renovate the popular facility. Opponents of the lease renewal argued that the county should not "subsidize" a group that discriminates against people because of sexual orientation. "It is clear that the Boy Scouts do not have the right to receive any government subsidies, sponsorship or special privileges, such as sweetheart deals on rent of government lands and buildings," said Martha Matthews, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU recently sued San Diego in federal court over a lease of public parkland to the Scouts for $1 a year. In response to a question Tuesday by Supervisor Todd Spitzer about whether the ACLU intends to sue Orange County, Matthews said, "Its likely that we would." Another great quote: The only thing different is you dont have to dumb down the vocabulary when youre teaching home-schooled kids, said Farris, a Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in 1993 and founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

3 2

CDR: "soft" handwriting
by George＠Orwellian.Org 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Tonight's 60" had curmudgeon Andy Rooney and some handwriting experts. They went over a Bush campaign letter that had blue cursive writing of Dubya. (mass reproduced). The experts agreed: it was computer generated from a number of samples of Bush's handwritings. Anyone familiar with this software? Dubya must be one busy Leghorn Foghorn.

1 0

CDR: Register Your Domain Name For Free With Hosting
by kim 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

1 0

RE: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty
by James A.. Donald 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

-- At 12:30 PM 9/28/2000 +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > > > Oh but it is quite possible to put people in similar trouble if > > > we grant that the right to property is absolute - if somebody > > > owns on a sufficiently wide scale the basic commodities one > > > needs to survive in the modern world (like fresh water, farming > > > land, employment opportunities), others are born right in the > > > middle of the proverbial desert. James A. Donald: > > But in a free market this never happens. It only happens when the > > government intervenes. Thus, for example, we only see > > homelessness where there is rent control, we only see hunger where > > there is rationing and collectivized farming, and so on and so > > forth. At 11:27 AM 9/29/2000 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > I assume (hope!) that you are merely being sarcastic. I am simply reporting what any fool can see. Where do we see mass starvation? today we see it in North Korea, where the government has charge of food production and distribution, and a little earlier we saw it in Ethiopia where the same system applied. All the big famines were created by governments. Similarly, where do we see homelessness? Most of it is in San Francisco, half jokingly known as the people's republic as San Francisco, because of its drastic governmental management of housing. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG t5O4eL2x0M6k7ndK2ThplFXEUsakal5yFhuyqT6b 446e1qEYP/CB8TwFUBQP4NPbSlL+pdOJj4HbaMaPi

3 2

CDR: More Columbine fall-out
by Steven Furlong 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Schools must give police blueprints ALBANY - Schools will be required to submit copies of their building plans to local police and fire departments under legislation recently signed into law by Gov. George Pataki. The legislation, proposed by Assemblyman Ronald Canestrari, D-Cohoes, was inspired by last year's shootings at Columbine High School. Canestrari said police at the scene in Colorado did not have floor plans for the school building, which slowed their response to the tragedy. When he introduced the bill last year, Canestrari said a spot check of school districts in the Capital Region showed that some already share building plans with local public safety officials. But others did not, and there was no such mandate in state law, he said. Canestrari's "School Emergency Preparedness Act," sponsored in the Senate by Vincent Leibell, R-Patterson, is to take effect in March 2001. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong(a)acmenet.net

8 7

CDR: Re: police IR searches to Supremes
by Richard Fiero 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Sampo A Syreeni writes: > . . . > >Well, I think that as long as a conventional photograph is taken from a >public place, it does not constitute a punishable breach of privacy. What's >so very different about doing the same thing with IR? > >Sampo Syreeni <decoy(a)iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > One could argue that all electromagnetic radiation is in the public domain and receivable. However it is illegal to have equipment capable of receiving cell phone conversations because the rights of the telephone company and the rights of the conversants could be violated. IR equipment is capable of seeing far more from outside a house than just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly invasive, in my opinion.

7 9

CDR: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty
by Gil Hamilton 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Sampo Syreeni writes: >On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote: > >This certainly gives one good reason not to piss off one's neighbors, eh? > >And if your neighbours are simply malignant? Since when did people need a >reason to harm each other? Then, too bad. They haven't *done* anything to you. > >This is of course the whole point of shunning. It is a way of getting > >people to behave in ways that are approved of by their community. > >Yep. That would be my point. This sounds deceptively like holding someone >at >a gunpoint. It has little to do with liberty. It has everything to do with liberty. The kind of society you envision is nightmarish: where everyone is required by law to act in certain defined ways (not merely to refrain from acts which harm others). > >>becomes precisely as 'violent' as physical violence. Even if psychology > >>isn't the hardest of sciences, it does suggest that isolation does > >>significantly more than simply 'bug' people. > > > >Complete bullshit. In other words, "Violence is whatever I say it is." > >Well, just debunk it. The point was, really, that even while I do have >great >reservations about treating shunning and physical violence as equivalent, I >do not accept the notion of specific liberties being absolute, either. Indeed, you seem to be quite comfortable with police-state tactics so long as the particular set of rules being enforced are those that you approve of. > >>I doubt that. Besides, that someone can be offended all s/he wants, s/he > >>just shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it. (Except, of course, >what > >>the freedoms of expression/thought/association/whatever guarantee.) > > > >So, people should be allowed the freedom of expression, thought and > >association, yet they are prohibited from shunning? You simply can't > >have it both ways. > >Nor do I intend to. The point about shunning is simply about laying out >some >of the well known problems of thorough libertarianism. I do not think such >a >wide application of basic freedoms is automatically the best alternative. It seems that you're really not at all interested in freedom of any kind. Indeed, you share much with the so-called "liberal" elements of US society. Lots of lip service to compassion for other people, equality and brotherhood, all enforced at the point of a gun. > >Either one is free to not associate with someone or they are not (in >which > >case, their "freedom of expression and association" are nothing but lip > >service). > >There is no essential reason why those freedoms couldn't be defined in some >more limited form. It's not like these concepts are black and white. Go to a dictionary and look up the several meanings of "freedom". Then come back and tell me which one of those squares with your notion of people being forced to do things they don't wish to do. > >>I don't see it quite like that. In order to have meaningful freedoms one > >>needs to have the possibility of enjoying them. > > > >Even if it requires *forcing other people* to do things they don't want > >to do. > >Perhaps. Just as we force people not to do some things, like engage in >physical violence. If we give people full control over all aspects of their >association and on any conduct on their property, as you would probably >like, you will most likely end up with the same restrictions (or even >more), >only this time enforced by way of lynch mobs. A complete non sequitur. Indeed diametrically opposed to anything I have said. A lynch mob, almost by definition, is an imposition of brute force against others. (It must have been a tortured mental path indeed that led from the exercising of one's rights to association and enjoyment of one's own property to lynch mobs. Someday maybe you'll take the rest of us along for the ride, eh?) >Look at it this way: if for some reason the survival of each and every >human >being is conditioned on some part of the population doing thing x, wouldn't >you say it is fair to demand that x be done even if the individuals would >not want to? It's not a huge leap from this to limiting such 'inalienable' >rights as the right to property. I reject the premise as ridiculous and contrived. But in a word, no, I wouldn't say it is fair. (Nor am I interested in striving for "fairness", about which more below.) > >People must behave exactly as you define "playing nice". Otherwise, you > >think they must be forced to "play nice". Clearly, you're right and > >everyone else is wrong and everyone else must be forced to do things your > >way. > >Not really. I have no essential trouble giving certain parts of my freedoms >away if that gains me the actual possibility of applying the remaining >parts. And yes, this is the point where you cue in the talk about expanding >governments, Big Brothers and whatnot. It's quite apparent you have no trouble giving up your freedoms. Worse, you have no trouble giving up mine too. > >"Oh, but if they'll just 'play nice' then everyone is free to do as > >they please!" > >Free as in having certain freedoms, which in this case have been more >narrowly tailored. Besides, I've not quite committed to actually advocating >such a model, yet. I'm just asking questions. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more, nor less." said Humpty Dumpty. However, for the rest of us, "freedom" has a certain meaning which you are not "free" to redefine. In Sampo's Orwellian world, "freedom" apparently means something else. > >Except somehow merely refusing to associate with someone is categorized > >by you as physical violence. And apparently as a shop-owner I cannot > >exercise rights over *my own property* if what I choose to do is > >inconvenient for someone else. > >If we, for some reason, have an (in)action, some damage and a strong proof >of causality, it is difficult to justify differential treatment based on >whether the damage comes from action or inaction. Absent a clearly established obligation or responsibility to perform some action, it is quite easy to justify differential treatment. And our legal system at least has always done so. > And as for *your own >property*, it simply isn't given that 1) all things can/should be privately >owned (scarce resources, like the radio spectrum, are a classical >example) or 2) owning certain things or using them in certain ways >shouldn't >perhaps come with extra obligations (like using RF communication with extra >responsibilities to minimize interference). I don't consider the radio spectrum to be particularly scarce, nor do I support the necessity for it to be government-controlled. Nonetheless, such a shared resource is not at all the subject that was being discussed. > >The shop owner must be *forced* to tolerate behavior he doesn't approve > >of? What happened to his right to his own property? Must he also > >allow people to have sex in his shop? Or masturbate? Or curse? Or > >insult his customers? Or slander the shopkeeper? Or sing loudly? > >Some of the above, perhaps. If people are indeed dependent on shopping for >their survival, I do think their right to live sort of preempts the shop >owner's property rights. In other words, the shop owner *has* no rights. Only responsibilities. And if he behaves well, Sampo's world will let him keep some of the benefits of his property and his labor. (Not too much though! He might start to think he has a right to it!) > >Which set of things must he be forced to accept? And if he throws > >someone out for engaging in one of these behaviors, which things will > >cause the Men With Guns to come and arrest *him* for "violating their > >right of expression"? > >Those are particulars of the social contract in effect in the corresponding >society. They need not be universal. "Er, I really don't like to get too specific." > >Since food and the like are necessities of life, isn't anyone free to > >come in and just take whatever they like from the shop? After all, > >"What if you do not have the means? You just die?" No, clearly the > >shopkeeper would be "doing violence" to me if he tried to prevent me > >from taking what I need to live. > >That is an extremely good question. In fact a central one to liberal >theory. >I most certainly do not have an answer. Your answer is already quite clear. > >Life is unfair. Get over it. Those that depend on others for their > >well-being or continued survival would do well to be more polite to > >them. > >So, essentially, if somebody can oppress others, why not? Especially if >there's profit or fun to it? Again this has little to do with liberty as I >understand the concept. "Oppress"? Where did that come from? Again, your words are slippery and seem to mean whatever you want them to mean from moment to moment. I don't consider my failure to do as you wish I would "oppression". > >If you live at home with Mommy and Daddy, then you'd better > >behave as they specify. Likewise, if you must rely on commerce with > >others for your survival, you'd better think twice about offending them. > >But even when you're *real* nice to them, they still have the incentive to >exploit you. If you go this way, all the nice talk about liberties and >freedom don't matter squat. First "oppress", now "exploit". You've been reading your Marx again, haven't you? Again, my failure to satisfy your every whim does not constitute "exploitation". > Could you explain how this differs from >fascism? Fascism? I don't see the relationship. Indeed, it is your notion that people must be forced to act in certain ways by an all-powerful government, not mine. > >In Sampo's world, it's okay to force someone to provide service to > >those who insult them or offend them. I wonder whatever happened to > >*their* liberties. > >They got limited. That is what happens when you live in a society. Whoever >said life is fair? Certainly not I. Liberty is another word you could stand to look up. Liberty does not equal equality. Nor is equality a goal I would espouse for the kind of society I believe in, since that inevitably means taking from those who have more and giving to those who have less (without regard to whether they "deserve" it or not). - GH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

4 8