On Friday 02 May 2003 04:14 pm, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
I think my analogy is good. I think your error is displayed by your analogy. In your example, both groups are astronomers.
In the current situation on this list, both groups are _not_ cypherpunks, if you accept the definition of cypherpunks as "people who use encryption technology to make statism impossible." If you don't accept that definition, that's fine, but I think my definition is consistent with the history of the list, and my guess is that Tim would agree. And he's the one who asked the question in the first place. I think it's a good question, and I'm curious to hear the answer from one of the folks it's aimed at.
Accepting your definition for a moment, your analogy is still flawed because it assumes one group is rejecting science altogether, where here the two groups simply arrive at different conclusions from the same data. But in fact, I don't completely agree with your definition. A Cypherpunk is one who is interested in the technology and use of encryption, and the social and political effects thereof. One definition assumes a conclusion, one definition defines a group in search of a conclusion. And really, my question would remain valid in either case. IF this list is to be the home of any sort of useful discussion, then the discussion must include both sides of the issue. Otherwise you don't have discussion, you have dogma.
You left statists out of your list, unless you were including them when you said "cranks" and "gun control nuts". The original question was about statists.
Statists and communists both would be included in politician, Republican, Green, Democrat, Libertarian, crank (though not only statists and politicians fit there) and gun control nut. Just pick the flavor that matches the label.
Some interesting people have left. Other interesting people have joined and are contributing.
And being railed at as statists and communists. Oh, some interesting people have joined on the other side, as well - but again, what value in one-sided discussion? -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org