On Sun, 6 Oct 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
I will express my thoughts, my theories, and will develop systems and ideas as I see fit. However, I have no intention of putting my future at risk by taking steps such as "civil disobedience" or "assassination politics" which could very likely result in multimillion dollar fines (hint: such fines would have great meaning for me) or seizure of my assets and jail time.
Your mileage may vary, but this "amateur anarchist" intends to keep on doing what he's doing and is not interested in "crossing the line" to the point where his assets will be seized.
Interesting that if the transition to crypto anarchy includes any phase of conflict between the state and the individual, failing to properly protect those assets may result in their seizure anyhow. If they are attachable now, as you seem to suggest, then they are attachable then. I know that Mr. May has, in past, been a asset protection "naysayer," but this falls into a general, and disturbing, pattern. I'll wager, though I have no data to back it up, that most of the people in this forum who are uncertain about the safety of their assets don't bother to engage in the most basic of asset preservation tactics, namely: geographic diversification. Surprising considering the perfectly legal options which would protect many of them.
--Tim May
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li