"So perhaps when Mr. Ashcroft erodes civil rights, you can make a valid claim that it introduces only a very slight risk of a police state, or is only the start of a trend. How much risk is enough? If events only presented a 1% chance of taking the path to a police state, would you want to tolerate it?" Hell, for me it doesn't even get that far. I'm not willing to take a DROP of police state risk in order to enable our State's bloodlust. If we hadn't been systematically f*cking over the Moslems for the last 50 years, this might be an academic argument worth debating. -TD
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> To: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net Subject: [IP] Your people are growing increasingly worried about a 'police state.' For such an educated audience, (fwd from dave@farber.net) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 08:48:16 +0200
----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave@farber.net> -----
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 18:21:43 -0400 To: Ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Subject: [IP] Your people are growing increasingly worried about a 'police state.' For such an educated audience, X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Reply-To: dave@farber.net
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brad Templeton <btm@templetons.com> Date: August 5, 2004 5:47:16 PM EDT To: dave@farber.net Cc: NMunro@nationaljournal.com Subject: Re: [IP] Your people are growing increasingly worried about a 'police state.' For such an educated audience,
Subj: Your people are growing increasingly worried about a 'police state.' For such an educated audience, they seem to lack any sense of proportion, a sense of history or an > awareness of human nature.
Indeed, as you cite, there are many police states and history is littered with ones that have risen and fallen as well.
Each time a police state rose, there were those who cried that a police state was coming and were called paranoid. There were those who actively assisted the police state in coming, seeking the security it promised. There were those who assisted the police state in coming, not wanting one, but feeling those who called out the warnings were paranoid. There were those who said and did nothing.
Free states are the abberation in the history of mankind. Police states (for the level of technology of the day) the norm.
So perhaps when Mr. Ashcroft erodes civil rights, you can make a valid claim that it introduces only a very slight risk of a police state, or is only the start of a trend.
How much risk is enough? If events only presented a 1% chance of taking the path to a police state, would you want to tolerate it?
Would you find it acceptable to teeter on the edge of a police state, because you were still on the free side of the line?
Often, in the defence of free speech, we find ourselves defending people expressing ideas we loathe. Nazis, pedophiles and other scum. We do it not because we welcome a world full of their messages, but because we know that if the Holocaust deniers can publish, we are _really, really_ sure that we can publish. It's not paranoia.
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net << attach3 >>
_________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx