"people who use encryption technology to make statism impossible" I just think that's too grandiose a statement. In my particular case, "People who use encryption technology to make interference in my personal communications impossible", where interference is defined as eavesdropping, jamming, "man-in-the-middle" and so on. In other words, an infinitely hard titanium pipe between me and who/whatever is on the other side. As for the state, well, it may come or go as a result of secure communications. I suspect it will find a way to stick around. But if heavy crypto proliferates it will force it to change, at the very least. But the state is secondary. If they get out of my way (or if by technology I push them out of the way) for the important stuff, fine. But then again, the implications of further terrorist attacks (and the reasons) may be relevant here, but one must tread very carefully on any public board..... -TD "I used to be in favor of gun control prior to the Patriot Act." -Tyler Durden

From: Matt Beland <matt@rearviewmirror.org> To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: Re: Why are there so many statists and communists here on this list now? Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 16:50:08 -0700

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

_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail