Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)
On Wednesday, November 21, 2001, at 12:09 PM, Eugene Leitl wrote:
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:58:28 -0600 From: gep2@terabites.com Subject: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. To: dallasdemocrats@egroups.com, dave@farber.net X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Here's a disturbing story from today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21BOOK.html?todaysheadlines
I sure hope that the government is investigating and following each and every person who buys a copy of this book... I wonder if there's a way to force Tobiason to foot the bill for that security?
This "gep2" character is typical of people who don't understand that the First Amendment does not give any power to government to ban such books...or to "follow each and every person," or to get their identities. Government agents who infringe the Constitution have earned killing. The part of the article where the government official says such books "should be illegal" is especially telling. I hope they try to illegalize such books. It will radicalize more people, and maybe hasten the day when festering holes like Washington, D.C. are annihilated. --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater
From Tim May:
:I hope they try to illegalize such books. It will radicalize more :people, and maybe hasten the day when festering holes like Washington, :D.C. are annihilated. --------------------- But what I anticipate would happen at that point is another Afghanistan, with ten thousand bloomin' territories full of prickly warring tribes and war lords. The first thing which happens after a power vaccuum is created is that another group steps in to "establish law and order", with the acceptance, support, and relief of the majority (coincidentally, right now it feels like the Taliban is growing on these shores). History repeats itself. What would prevent it from doing so again? .. Blanc
Clearly "gep2" does not understand principles of free expression and limited government. A shame. On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:22:54PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
The part of the article where the government official says such books "should be illegal" is especially telling.
But one of the few positive things about the post-Sep. 11 response is that we haven't seen much in the way of serious proposals for prior restraint on publications that would be allowed before that date. That is, naturally, damning with faint praise, and there have been some moves to limit availability of info (http://www.politechbot.com/p-02820.html), but it could have been far worse. -Declan
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 04:37:50PM -0800, Blanc wrote:
But what I anticipate would happen at that point is another Afghanistan, with ten thousand bloomin' territories full of prickly warring tribes and war lords.
Obviously as a DC resident, I hope that Washington is not hit by any biochem/womd attack. But if it were to happen and me and my home were to be destroyed along with the federal bureaucracy,it seems far more likely that state governors would step in to fill much of the "power vaccuum." -Declan
-- On 21 Nov 2001, at 16:37, Blanc wrote:
But what I anticipate would happen at that point is another Afghanistan, with ten thousand bloomin' territories full of prickly warring tribes and war lords.
The first thing which happens after a power vaccuum is created is that another group steps in to "establish law and order", with the acceptance, support, and relief of the majority (coincidentally, right now it feels like the Taliban is growing on these shores).
History repeats itself. What would prevent it from doing so again?
Untrue: The Taliban was not a spontaneous internal phenomemom, not a response to an outcry for law and order. There were repeated, massive, and bloody efforts by foreign powers, primarily Pakistan, to "assist" the aghans in achieving law and order, and the Taliban is only the most recent, and most bloody, of these. Far from reflecting a spontaneous desire for government, law and order, these various wannabe governments found it necessary to devastate and depopulate vast areas that they were unable to govern. The Taliban was only able to achieve "law and order" with massive external support, and an ever increasing number of foreign troops backing it up. The foreigners would first back one group to form a government, and that group would fail catastrophically with enormous bloodshed, then they would back another group, and that group would in turn fail catastrophically with vast bloodshed, huge areas devastated by scorched earth policies where they killed everyone who did not flee, then bulldozed the houses, dynamited the wells, filled in the irrigation ditches, attempting to make any area they could not govern an utterly barren wasteland where nothing would grow and no one would live, and then finally, after two very bloody tries, the foreigners attempting to create a government backed the Taliban on their third try. As we speak, the British and American governments are quarreling because the British want to have another go, a fourth try. Each try has been bloodier, and more devastating, than the last. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cRg7JGoYdXPyChmZe2SAQnElDNwHyGBzITWPWrrs 4kii0RA8WhRGusD3fban6iTFdm3wenZpwBbqGP7IE
From: jamesd :The Taliban was not a spontaneous internal phenomemom, not a :response to an outcry for law and order. There were :repeated, massive, and bloody efforts by foreign powers, :primarily Pakistan, to "assist" the aghans in achieving law :and order, and the Taliban is only the most recent, and most :bloody, of these. : :Far from reflecting a spontaneous desire for government, law :and order, these various wannabe governments found it :necessary to devastate and depopulate vast areas that they :were unable to govern. ---------------------- Well, of course I was speaking metaphorically, drawing a parallel with having a tyrannical, repressive group "governing" a population - regardless of how that group came into their position. And of course, it must be distinguished between what those who fight to be in positions of power imagine for themselves vs what those who will be subjected to that power, imagine when they consider it. And it must be distinguished between what people in the U.S. (or in the 'free world') imagine when they wish for law and order, vs what a religious, fundamentalist group will imagine. As libertarian/anarchistic types are aware, what people want when they call for the establishment, or re-establishment, of 'law and order', is a return to a definite situation where they can calculate the causes & effects of human actions more predictably, with fewer nasty surprises, less uncertainty in the outcome, greater expectations of positive and pleasant interaction with others, and no intrusions into their monotony (joke). This doesn't necessarily mean that they spontaneously want a government, but that they want the activities of life to proceed in a "governed" manner (and they never expect that it will be themselves who will be among the governed - only the bad guys will be caused to suffer it). Having an institution called "government" is the only thing that most can imagine in order to achieve and maintain such a situation. (As we know, the problem with these governing institutions is that, instead of exercising a control over error, all liberty of action is reigned in, to eliminate any kind of disturbance which they are unable to deal with, given their scope of comprehension and competence). .. Blanc
I think the attributions on this are screwy, but it's that way in what I'm quoting, so: On Wednesday, November 21, 2001, at 06:16 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Clearly "gep2" does not understand principles of free expression and limited government. A shame.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:22:54PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
The part of the article where the government official says such books "should be illegal" is especially telling.
But one of the few positive things about the post-Sep. 11 response is that we haven't seen much in the way of serious proposals for prior restraint on publications that would be allowed before that date.
The question is how many of these proposals were already "on the table", or at least in the same room as the table before? There have always been those who believed it was possible to restrict access to information "for our own good". They have always been wrong.
That is, naturally, damning with faint praise, and there have been some moves to limit availability of info (http://www.politechbot.com/p-02820.html), but it could have been far worse.
-Declan
-- "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits."--Chris Klein
participants (5)
-
Blanc -
Declan McCullagh -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Petro -
Tim May