On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Mark Hedges wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:
like White Aryan Resistance and Hamas and so on can thrive and link up
I see, well, whatever. Kinda makes me think maybe I'm wrong and should vote for cryptofascists. However, I won't, because I don't want the government looking over my shoulder. I think there are plenty of ways for people whose agenda is a good, peaceful world to organize against groups like WAR and CIA and Hamas and the rest, without having to legislate. I don't understand how you can judge which violent, fascist, oppressive group is the correct one to support. Did you know there are other groups who are not violent, fascist, or oppressive? Did you know that occasionally, violent, oppressive fascists have changed their minds?
...
I don't think the national security folk have "a good, peaceful world" in mind for anyone. They have in mind a world in which a small, exclusive group of people can use, take from and manipulate the masses. All of these groups do.
The history of violent revolution, even in the name of the people, is filled with the leaders of the revolution assuming the same damn imbalanced positions of power which were there before. They might call it a President instead of a King, or maybe Prime Minister or Premier. The
...
They all seem to fit into the same category --- Hamas, Infada, the secular Algerian "Ninjas", the Federal urban assault task forces, DEA thugs who raid the homes of innocent people, etc. They're all fighting, and it seems like people pick up any side of an issue just so they can fight. Why?
Let me agree and go further. I believe in liberty (which encompasses the issues around cryptography) because I believe in human dignity. But that also forces me to believe in the right to life - Jefferson listed it before liberty in the declaration, and if you don't have any other reason to agree, just note that dead people don't have any use for liberty. People are deprived of property before liberty, and liberty before life in any system that I would consider just. But then I think about what is liberty and justice and good and evil instead of demonizing whoever is doing something I don't happen to like at the moment. I don't defend any of those evils that would be made easier by the presence of crypto, nor those who would destroy liberty to save it, on either side of the debate. You don't destroy something you consider precious. I condemn anyone who takes innocent life - be it the FBI at Waco or McVeigh at OKC. It is the act that is evil, and the intent or negligence of the actor that makes it so, not which political side the actor is on. If crypto is banned in the US, there will still be some country where it is legal - you might not like the economy or the climate, but you would still have crypto and various other liberties. The generations preceeding our founders moved here because they didn't have liberty in their homeland. The life was harder, but they considered some specific freedoms more important than the attraction of business in cities. Even our Declaration of Independence doesn't call for the assasination of anyone in Parliment or King George (and there were terrorist plots in english history to do exactly this), but merely separation - in one sense merely restoring the separation which was the reason their ancestors came to the new world. There was another revolution shortly after ours, in France. But was France better after the revolution during the reign of terror or during the reign of Louis?
A Savoyard who lived through the French Revolution, Joseph de Maistre, writes: "And you, mad philosophes . . . apostles of tolerance and humanity; you . . . who extol the progress of intelligence and reason: Leave your tombs. Walk among the many corpses . . . Your writings are in the pockets of the tyrants . . . In the name of virtue the most horrible thievery is committed; in the name of humanity two million men perish; in the name of liberty a thousand Bastilles are built . . . They left you only a moment, Diderot, to sign the order for mass drownings." I have been disturbed about the increasing tone of violence of the various posts. Didn't like what happened at Waco? Then lets be the very terrorists of the four cypher horsemen and kill even more children. Don't like voluntary ratings? Then suggest posting kiddie porn and labeling it as G rated. Maybe China will nuke most of California - it may be an accident at their new port. Or one of the cults will release a biological agent. Or even a severe earthquake. Should I shed a tear then? Even the French philosophers taught tolerance and humanity and would have abhored the results. Since even the intent is now bloodlust, first for Reno and Freeh, then for everyone in the vacinity of Washington DC, then for anyone who ever worked for the Feds... then for the liberals who supported civil but not economic rights, and then the conservatives who supported economic but not civil rights. Don't work on better ciphers, see if you can design a faster guillotine. And where does it stop? When all the cities are burning? When the people who don't understand technology or how you have their liberty in mind get guns and kill anyone they see? When everything breaks down and you are starving or dying of a disease you need technology to treat? When all the plants making the chips and fiber used for the internet are destroyed? How many incinerated corpses will you need at your hands and those of your diciples before you are satisfied that liberty is finally restored? And then will you worry about restoring other fundamental rights such as life? And if you care nothing for life, why should you expect anyone to respect liberty? Starting a revolution might not be easy, but controlling it is harder and ending it can be impossible. And our economy and technology depends on integration and cooperation to a much higher degree than at any other time. I may be able to be an individual on the internet, but I cannot build a computer starting with sand, copper and steel. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---