tmp: The point of the nation's bill of rights was to deal with the fear that the federal governing body would not understand sufficiently the principles in the Constitution, if these were not more precisely spelled out. The philosophically capable founders & writers of the Constitution & nation were able to think in terms of wide principles, but this was not expected so much from those who would follow after them. The intent of trying to codify guarantees was to try to present to their more limited successors the definite, specific crucial elements of the freedom to action which otherwise would be ignored. They were aimed at the government, because it was being created and because it was new & different, and because the people at that time were very familiar with what it meant to be insignificantly considered by a ruling class. They were trying to uphold their dignity as individuals whose manifested existence they thought should not be overlooked or easily mistreated by those to whom so much power had been entrusted. They were looking to a government to both be a tool for upholding and preventing the destruction of the values which they all were aiming for. They were looking to the government because that is all that they had at the time to think about, in terms of a means to achieve their goals. But that was a long time ago, and since then everyone has learned much about what is possible to the individual, as well as what is possible to a 'free' government and to a collective body of any group of people. Many concepts have been clarified, developed, refined. Some people have developed other ideas of how to live which do not require the use of an elected class to guard things which they (the elected) do not themselves actually value or know how to defend. We have many more tools now by which to exist more independently than ever, and some of us are prepared to use the opportunity to advance in that direction. You might have noticed that the 'cypherpunk ideology' has much to do with tools. I can't speak for the others on this list, especially those who set it up, but this is what I think: 'Tis a better thing to use a tool than to use another person. It permits of a different kind of association; it opens pu the possibility of conceiving another person more in terms of friendship and similar interests, compared to what exists in a community where people will gather for comfort against fear, or primarily for the utilitarian benefits the group can provide. There develops a change of proportion in what the 'community' represents to those who consort with each other. Considering how successful the bill of rights has been so far at creating a more perfect government, it is difficult to accept that another set of commandments would accomplish anymore than they ever have. Success does not depend solely upon what has been stated, but upon what has been understood; nay, further, upon the ability to understand the statement; and better yet, upon the ability to act in regard of it. To have to wait for recognition or for permission is too dependent upon the mercy of another. It is better to move forward into efficacy than to wait for the generosity of strangers, especially when it is for your own benefit. Where was the access to the internet before there were private companies? Where was the internet before it was constructed? What if no one had conceived of the idea at this time yet? We would all be effectively censored from cyberspace simply from the absence of a place to go! How does the existence of a government and a codified community relate to the existence of an electronic means to commune? I wouldn't expect that a bunch of, say, poets, just milling around, would result spontaneously in a network made up of wires and cables and hardware and software and . . . . things that make up what comprises the net, just from having the freedom to speak and assemble. Yet once each of these things had been created, and once the idea to use them in this speciallized way had occurred to some bright person, it is expected by many that they suddenly should have the right to use that system, as though they owned these strangers who happened to have a practical idea, and had therefore the right to use the results of their creativity. Codified behavior is useful to people when they are not prepared to make their own decisions about what they will do or in what manner they will carry out those actions to success. It is not useful to those who are venturing out into new territories or who wish to be creative and self-composed. It is not agreeable to those who wish to act from their own authority and take up the responsibility for their actions, because coding does not require thought, it only requires obedience; it doesn't require understanding, it only requires following, accomplishable simply by imitation; it doesn't require conscious & studied agreement, it only requires complicity. Codified behavior assures minimum expectations, but it does necessarily allow for enlarged perspective or insight. I personally would not want to fall into the category of those who need codified behavior in order to meet a minimum standard of normal social interaction. I would not wish to be a part of such a 'community', as I would be operating in a realm far beyond their expectations and ability to deal with. Individuals who go out into the sunless world of cyberspace should realize that it is an abstract atmosphere, where often little more than heat (vs light) is to be expected. How much can you care about digital data, how seriously can you consider it, how much will you allow it to affect you or push you out of shape? It could be more the money, the expense vs the reward, which could be anything to really worry about. Lions and Tigers and Bears! Oh, My! You could do a little cost/benefit analysis of your involvements on the net and calculate that you might be more free by staying off than by staying involved or hanging on. But if you *are* so interested in the subject of codified rights, you should enter into a conversation with Dorothy Denning, as she also pursues the same vision of rights and laws as yourself. She would probably not only agree with you, but perhaps offer additional ideas as well. Blanc