On Jan 03, 1996 22:25:26, 'liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray)' wrote:
<snip>
-- Any political analysis that fits on a bumper sticker is wrong.
My bumper sticker says, "Politicians and diapers need to be changed -- often for the same reason." Politicians keep on proving this analysis RIGHT, much as I *wish* it were wrong. JMR Regards, Jim Ray http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray "Hooters GUYS? Washington -- GET A GRIP!"
I am not sure if I understand the political argument that J. Ray believes is so "RIGHT" that he wishes to post it to the cypherpunks list. I infer that the answer he is implying is that they are both "full of shit." I have no problem with humorous bumper stickers. I frequently use parodies of bubble-brained "progressivism" as my .sig files (e.g. "Visualize whirled peas" or "Give pizza chants" but I do not confuse them with detailed social, political, mathematical, philosophical, or especially economic analysis. J.Ray may wish to comment on the anality of politicians; that is an opinion over which I have no desire to comment. But to seriously maintain that one needs to replace an elected official based on the presumed state of his bowels, to post this info publically, and to insist that the analysis is "RIGHT" is rather an example of what I meant. One might define cypherpunks in three areas: a) they write code, *code* and CODE; b) they are concerned about anonymity; c) they are concerned about privacy. The code they write is based on algorythms. They are short, terse, and elegant. The code that the algorythmicly-oriented cypherpunks have written is wonderful and a major contribution to human freedom. They write far better code than I have ever written or will ever be likely to write. And you can put elegant mathematical equations on bumper stickers. They can fit and they are true. The best example might be "E = MC^2". Unfortunately, the other two issues are not subject to the same type of solutions as is encryption code. The time one spends working on the elegant algorythms is time not spent on broader issues of political science, sociology, economics, history, etc. Unfortunately, many do not realize this and so treat complex social issues as if they can be decided with the same type of elegant algorthym as the code. They can not. The English language does not have the compact elegance of C++. Nor is the range of human problems and interrelationships anywhere near as narrow as that of the average instruction set of a CPU. So attempts at solving complex social problems in the same way are *always* wrong, as witness J.Ray's original post to the group. I do not mean to suggest that every algo-oriented individual must, of necessity, miss the larger social issues. Einstein, for example, came up with a mean critique of E. Mach, but only because Uncle AL put a lot of post-1905 time studying complex aspects of philosophy. His critique, by the by, did not fit on a bumber sticker. -- tallpaul -- Gun control means being able to hit your target!