I didn't miss any point. I simply rebutted a one-sided statement. I'm a 'democratist' I believe the ONLY way a society will ever survive is to develop a sense of 'acceptance' and 'tolerance' for alternate views. I also, in contrast to crypto-anarchist and libertarians, don't believe 'money' or 'wealth' has a damn thing to do with that. It's an interesting observation about many cypherpunks that they want open technology in every venue EXCEPT legal and medical. Directly contrary to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' and most especially contrary to 'equal protection under the law' or the basic goal of civilization and law - self-defence. Too many people want to use it to coerce, Libertarians being no exception. If that, in your or Declans view, makes me a 'non-cypherpunk' then the failing is not mine but rather yours. On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Declan and Jim both seemed to have missed the point about Cypherpunks. I've attended physical meetings, off and on, since meeting #2 or #3 in the Bay Area.
I'm not uncomfortable being called--or calling myself--a libertarian, but one of the first things that the meetings revealed was that we had attendees from all corners of the political arena. And as a result, we soon saw that nothing would ever get discussed--much less done--if we focused on our political DIFFERENCES instead of our community of interest.
____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------