Seth Finkelstein, reluctant cypherpunk?
It's important for cypherpunks to understand why Seth Finkelstein has (apparently) recently subscribed to the list. Seth is essentially an anti-cypherpunk, someone who violently disagrees with free-market points of view and has spent (a conservative estimate) hundreds of hours arguing against them. Seth's claim to fame is that he popularized the "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid" saying, popular among a small clutch of Net-leftists. An article he wrote: http://www.spectacle.org/897/finkel.html Obviously there are going to be some points of agreement. Seth is a liberal and a programmer who is going to like strong crypto, free speech (only the types the ACLU approves of, naturally), and so on. But on cases involving free trade, commercial speech, critiques of government regulation, Seth is an aggressive anti-cypherpunk and proud of it. (This is not to say that all cypherpunks are libertarians, of course. The DC cpunx are mostly Finkelsteinian leftists, as far as I can tell. But the problem is that modern leftism runs up against cypherpunkly thinking -- to the extent there is such a consensus -- pretty quickly.) -Declan
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
It's important for cypherpunks to understand why Seth Finkelstein has (apparently) recently subscribed to the list. Seth is essentially an anti-cypherpunk, someone who violently disagrees with free-market points of view and has spent (a conservative estimate) hundreds of hours arguing against them.
Being against 'free market' bullshit doesn't make one an 'anti-cypherpunk', it does make them a 'discriminating cypherpunk'. It does however mean they at least recognize that the 'Libertarian' view of 'god money rules' is bereft of any philosphical import and ethically about as dead as it's possible to be. Fuck David Friedman and his 'business has only one purpose: make money' and anyone who follows his brain-dead dronings.
Seth's claim to fame is that he popularized the "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid" saying, popular among a small clutch of Net-leftists. An article he
Actually you have to start out being stupid to fall for libertarian anything. Freedom for ALL, not just the monied. Libertarians are just another group wanting to coerce you to their ends - make lots of money for them. And if you don't have any, well that's just too damn bad. The Libertarian credo of 'money makes the world go round' is accurate only if you choose to make it so. Tell 'em "No thanks". ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
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. What is that community of interest? It is the fight for privacy, against those who would deny it to us, primarily through technological (as opposed to political) means. As long as we all kept our eyes on that prize, we had no problem getting along. When we got diverted into other areas of politics/philosophy we ended up accomplishing nothing. So, do the participants of this list wish to actually get something done with regard to securing privacy, or shall we just spin our wheels in internecine warfare? S a n d y
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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim most certainly did miss my point. I said, in essence, that we are doing the anti-privacy crowd's a service when we argue among ourselves. Jim's still arguing left vs. right vs. libertarian vs. whatever. Get with the program, Jim. S a n d y
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Choate [mailto:ravage@ssz.com] Sent: 03 April, 2001 20:45 To: Sandy Sandfort Cc: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: RE: Seth Finkelstein, reluctant cypherpunk?
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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jim most certainly did miss my point. I said, in essence, that we are doing the anti-privacy crowd's a service when we argue among ourselves. Jim's still arguing left vs. right vs. libertarian vs. whatever. Get with the program, Jim.
No Sandy, it's still you and your anarchist/libertarian/heirarchist cohorts who miss the point. It isn't our arguing that gives them anything. What they're afraid of is we'll find a way to live together and still have our individual views fully protected. What frightens all of you is you'll find out you haven't found 'the way', that in fact there is no such beast. Utopia doesn't exist and can't. You want to know what they fear the most (and anarchist, libertarians, and all manipulative philosophies)? That the populate in general will find a way to resolve the disparities and problems by simple understanding and toleration. Toleration doesn't mean an end to arguments. Why? Because democracy isn't built on 'cooperation', it's built on confrontation. It's built on drawing a line in the sand and knocking the living shit out of anyone, anyone, who steps over it. And knowing that when it comes to a time for accounting those fellow citizens will support your choice. Why? Because the initiation of force (ie stepping over the line) is NEVER JUSTIFIED FOR ANY REASON. EVER. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. There is one, and only one 'truth' about human society. The buck stops with the individual citizen. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim said, Well it wasn't important, because it didn't have anything to do with the core topic of Cypherpunks. Get with the program, Jim. S a n d y
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
That the populate in general will find a way to resolve the disparities and problems by simple understanding and toleration.
Has anyone ever done a study - a worthwhile, entertaining, informative, cautionary study - of rhetoric employed by revolutionaries? The "simple understanding and toleration" here makes me think of other solutions which have been put forth as "simple"; other principles of "brotherly love" or perhaps "universal peace" which I associate with radical and reform texts from the late 1800s and early 1900s (though, alas, without examples to draw on right now - I want to say Sinclair's _The Jungle_ and Emma Goldman's essays) Also the great rhetorical question "WHAT IS TO BE DONE?" comes to mind - the punch line after a description of the sorry state of the world, often accompanied implicitly or explicitly with a helpful list of answers. Great projects set in motion, called to action by this question, hell-bent on applying the "simple" principles set forth, presumably validated, previously. We (who?) know how those projects turned out, don't we? The point is -- I'm not sure that using this kind of rhetoric is helpful to anyone any more. Independent of what the argument at hand is. thanks, -David
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, dmolnar wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
That the populate in general will find a way to resolve the disparities and problems by simple understanding and toleration.
Has anyone ever done a study - a worthwhile, entertaining, informative, cautionary study - of rhetoric employed by revolutionaries? The "simple
'Revolutionary'? Wanting this country to follow the tenets and philosophy of Democracy as strictly layed down in the Declaration of Independent and the Constitution makes me a 'revolutionary'? Well, at least thank you for honestly admitting my points and view are valid and legitimate. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- At 08:31 PM 4/3/2001 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
I said, in essence, that we are doing the anti-privacy crowd's a service when we argue among ourselves.
Seth is one of ourselves? I do not think so. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5oLH/3PGbvMmZBBZ+BGvZnj+BWTlIvYxmNlnZ13o 4eOQQrVobWRVz2sUxwV/TcYKtRFgbhg8GJuQQUXb2
At 8:03 PM -0700 4/3/01, 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.
Indeed, and this was apparent at the earliest meeting. I make no effort to hide my political views, especially in my writings, but at physical meetings there is very little political debate. (Sometimes it cannot be resisted, as when a well-meaning-but-confused liberal lefty called for a Cypherpunks-endorsed "master root key" (or whatever the top-down key hierarchies are pushing). I just _had_ to leap up and explain why we don't need no steenking heirarchical key bindings and why the distributed, anarchic, peer-to-peer model is so much more compelling.) Because people are freer to make their politics obvious in writings, as opposed to a limited amount of time forum like a physical meeting, the _list_ is in many ways more political than the physical meetings are.
What is that community of interest? It is the fight for privacy, against those who would deny it to us, primarily through technological (as opposed to political) means. As long as we all kept our eyes on that prize, we had no problem getting along. When we got diverted into other areas of politics/philosophy we ended up accomplishing nothing.
So, do the participants of this list wish to actually get something done with regard to securing privacy, or shall we just spin our wheels in internecine warfare?
I don't see this internecine warfare. I see a few mild comments. I see a newcomer, Seth Finkelstein, harshly criticizing Declan and others. Easy to ignore someone who was even't here the day before yesterday. In fact, much got accomplished over the past nine years. Many on the list moved into positions at various crypto, software, and digital signature companies. This is the curse of success, or the curse of being on a cresting wave: many are called away. The most obvious lacking bit is a workable 2-way-untraceable digital cash system. Magic Money was a start. Ian Goldberg and Doug Barnes had good ideas on implementing a kind of Pretty Good Digital Cash, but both were heavily tied-up over the past several years in commercial ventures, of course. The list is not what it once was, for various reasons. So be it. Part of the natural cycle of things. We can hope that the key ideas have already been well-publicized. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote:
leap up and explain why we don't need no steenking heirarchical key bindings and why the distributed, anarchic, peer-to-peer model is so much more compelling.)
Almost right, change that 'anarchic' to 'democratic' and you'll have much more consistent philosophy. One based on something other than predation and manipulation. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May wrote:
I see a newcomer, Seth Finkelstein, harshly criticizing Declan and others. Easy to ignore someone who wasn't even here the day before yesterday.
Point of information: "nonconsentingly delurked" is more accurate than "newcomer". There's a few messages by me years ago in the archives, e.g. http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.95.12.13-95.12.19/msg00289.html http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.96.01.25-96.01.31/msg00432.html http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.96.02.22-96.02.28/msg00225.html http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.97.05.01-97.05.07/msg00107.html But I never was much into this list, and around 1997 I got extremely tired of endless Libertarianism mailing-list debates anywhere. I'm still happy to have you ignore me. And I did spend far more time on the issue than I should have. Declan's past conduct has played a significant role in my own thoughts about legal risk from free-speech activism. Ao my strong feelings led to me write more than perhaps was best. __ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@mit.edu http://sethf.com
At 05:45 AM 04/04/2001 -0400, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Tim May wrote:
I see a newcomer, Seth Finkelstein, harshly criticizing Declan and others. Easy to ignore someone who wasn't even here the day before yesterday.
Point of information: "nonconsentingly delurked" is more accurate than "newcomer".
Seth is a long-term contributor to the Cyberia-L list, which a reasonable number of Cypherpunks also read or at least occasionally post to, including Declan and JYA. He's been a major contributor with The Censorware Project (which I gather is a trying to restart after a previous death-by-infighting that followed a few years of good work) and is strongly in the anti-censorware camp as opposed to the censorware-will-save-us-by-deflecting-worse-forms-of-censorship camp. He does computer consulting (not sure what type), and is one of the technologist/activist types on Cyberia-L rather than one of the lawyers. And yes, as some people have commented, he does flame against Libertarianism, among other things, but he's also a strong supporter of free speech.
-- At 01:31 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
Seth is a long-term contributor to the Cyberia-L list, which a reasonable number of Cypherpunks also read or at least occasionally post to, including Declan and JYA. He's been a major contributor with The Censorware Project
There is good and evil censorware, and many in the censorware project were more concerned with good censorware than evil. The censorware project was a typical pinko project, directed at private choice, instead of state power. Most US censorware, in particular the censorware that I write, can be uninstalled in five clicks of a mouse. Just click on start, settings, control panel, add/remove programs. I would not be part of any project that was otherwise.
And yes, as some people have commented, he does flame against Libertarianism, among other things, but he's also a strong supporter of free speech.
Pinkos are fond of imposing odd meanings on "free speech", sometimes interpreting it as a right for certain views to be heard, rather than a right of people to speak to those that choose to hear. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Y6hc5NxxJIhwLnlnh9Cgq9drxX65BMxFS3X3TrYw 42IxaD34Yl57223Vm4Iauu7X7kQ9ToRgdo59JEhte ----------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Â Â Â Â Â James A. Donald
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
There is good and evil censorware, and many in the censorware project were more concerned with good censorware than evil.
The censorware project was a typical pinko project, directed at private choice, instead of state power.
I don't know what you've been smoking James, but I see the Censorware Project http://censorware.net/ combating state interventionism, especially fighting hard for our first amendment freedom against CIPA. And I'd highly suggest you read their FAQ before stupidly calling them "pinkos". http://censorware.net/faq/ "1.2 - Why do people want censorware installed on public computers? Mostly, because their religious leaders told them so. Actually, there are initiatives to censor both from the far right ("The Bible says sex is evil") and the far left ("We must censor this to protect you"). Both are rather silly. There's never been a single case of information leaping off the screen and beating someone to death or hitting them with a car. Hundreds of people die daily in car accidents, none die as a result of viewing playboy.com. When will the U.S. get its priorities straight?" Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
-- At 01:31 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
Seth [has] been a major contributor with The Censorware Project
Many on the censorware project display the same attitude to civil rights as the infamous Dean Brodhead, who refused five orthodox jewish students permission to live off campus in a dispute over coed bathrooms. He piously proclaimed "Yale has its own rules and requirements, which we insist on because they embody our values and beliefs." Yale has no core curriculum, but coed bathrooms embody its values and beliefs. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 3SiYQeR58NY4pf0KpEHtseFkuuBJkTR+91HtK215 4cz3USpR7tufXYpVxZE30v5LHXlLrE3lcwEVSrqdf ----------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Â Â Â Â Â James A. Donald
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 08:03:22PM -0700, 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.
It's a fair point, and I don't think I missed it. In any case, I don't mean to spark an undue amount of internecine warfare, so I'll shut up now. -Declan
Declan is a gentleman and a scholar. Now if only we could get...others to demonstrate the same sort of wisdom. :-D S a n d y
-----Original Message----- From: declan@cluebot.com [mailto:declan@cluebot.com]On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh Sent: 03 April, 2001 21:06 To: Sandy Sandfort Cc: Jim Choate; cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: Re: CDR: RE: Seth Finkelstein, reluctant cypherpunk?
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 08:03:22PM -0700, 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.
It's a fair point, and I don't think I missed it. In any case, I don't mean to spark an undue amount of internecine warfare, so I'll shut up now.
-Declan
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Declan is a gentleman and a scholar. Now if only we could get...others to demonstrate the same sort of wisdom. :-D
Translation from spin doctor bullshit into regular english: I like Declan because he agrees with me. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:03 PM 04/03/2001 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
So, do the participants of this list wish to actually get something done with regard to securing privacy, or shall we just spin our wheels in internecine warfare?
Well, we *could* act like good Libertarian party member and go for the internecine warfare (:-) As Kissinger once said, the reason academic politics is so vicious is because the stakes are so low, and that often applies to philosophically oriented parties, where it's calm rational Libertarians or loony Constitutionists or Trotskyites.... Jim Choate's characterization of Seth's opposition to Libertarianism isn't particularly precise or accurate, but Seth and Jim both do strongly disagree with various aspects of _L_ibertarian philosophy, _l_ibertarian philosophy and economics, and their adherents. Certainly if Libertarians can find reasons to passionately disagree with other libertarians and act like obsessive bull-headed kooks, non-Libertarians can do so as well :-) And if you're not sufficiently satisfied going after the level-headed mainstream academics like David Friedman, we'll be happy to find somebody out on the lunatic fringe to keep you occupied tweaking your favorite pet issues....
Declan writes:
It's important for cypherpunks to understand why Seth Finkelstein has (apparently) recently subscribed to the list. Seth is essentially an anti-cypherpunk, someone who violently disagrees with free-market points of view and has spent (a conservative estimate) hundreds of hours arguing against them.
Thanks, Declan. I think we've all figured that out by now. "Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate function of police is to protect them from their slaves." --Lots of People Most people get sucked into Libertarianism because it sounds like the word "liberty." After learning more about it, and meeting real Libertarians, they go "Icky-Poo" and run swiftly in the opposite direction. Libertarians don't mind this, because most of them also feel the exact same way about other Libertarians. Libertarian "philosophy" provides no mechanism whatsoever for arguing that there can't, for instance, be a death penalty. Or that "child abuse" should be defined by anything other than what the majority of non-children think it is ok to do to kids. I doubt you'll see any Libertarians protesting either when Sally Mann and Jock Sturges are hauled off to the Sex Offender Re-Education Camp either. In fact, Libertarians are real good at letting everyone have whatever rights they can personally defend, without anyone else lifting a finger. Foo on Libertarians. I have no use for them. Can you imagine what Libertarian foreign policy would look like, or a Libertarian space program? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Eric Cordian <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote:
Can you imagine what Libertarian foreign policy would look like, or a Libertarian space program?
Yes, I can; though I'll only answer the second one: The government of XXX doesn't have a space program. If citizens of XXX want to explore space, that's up to them. -- -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Declan McCullagh wrote:
It's important for cypherpunks to understand why Seth Finkelstein has (apparently) recently subscribed to the list.
As I predicted, quote: "And you're a Libertarian and I'm not, too!" Sigh. If you'd bothered to *read* my messages before writing the above, you'd know that there is no secret and no mystery: John Young forwarded private e-mail of mine to the list, and requested that I make any other comments about the case not private, but public. Under the circumstances, I didn't take offense from his concern, and was willing to do as he wished. After all, I'm not the one in jail. Or even a person testifying to put someone in jail. It's not a big deal. I occasionally read articles on list, from the web through http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks. I've been following the Jim Bell case off and on, and more closely since you were subpoenaed. Amusing anecdote: At the start of CFP 2001, I was telling someone not to trust you, that you "use" people, and they should avoid you at all costs. I said: "Declan writes stories encouraging people to be sued, and then he writes about the lawsuit". I could see they were dubious of my account. After the subpoena, I said with a grin: "Remember what I told you? *BINGO*". Anyway, again, once John Young threw me into the flaming-pit, I figured that as long I was de-lurked, I might as well ask a question which for reasons of my own, has been on my mind much over the past months. I didn't/don't understand why people who apparently feel themselves at risk of serious Federal criminal prosecution, tolerate someone who in the end sings like a canary every time he's called to be a prosecution witness. Note it's not about what I think you should have done, or how I'd judge it morally. I don't go around talking about a police state and overthrow of governments (even via cryptoanarchy). I don't think I might be next on the defendant list in these sorts of situations. Look, in countries where there really is a police state, where there is real live revolution in the air, doing what you just did is the sort of thing which runs the peril of being found one day in a parking lot with a burning tire around your neck and wearing a sign reading "I am a collaborator". I should hasten to add that I would oppose and denounce finding you in a parking lot with a burning tire around your neck and wearing a sign reading "I am a collaborator". It's bad for free speech :-). But the fact is, that's what can happen. Observe, I've given you the hardest time about your actions (at least that's apparent). And the irony of that, is this case (_per se_) isn't even a reason I think so poorly of you. No-one else even seems to hold a grudge (well, maybe Jim Bell does, but that's it). You come out of it smelling like roses. I'm trying to comprehend how you do it. This doesn't have a thing to do with Libertarianism or Liberalism or "anti-cypherpunk". __ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@mit.edu http://sethf.com P.S: The best URL for that essay is now http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php P.P.S.: Repeat, kindly stay *far*, *far*, away from me in a situation where I have a significant chance of becoming a defendant. I hope you understand.
At 04:22 AM 4/4/2001 -0400, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
I occasionally read articles on list, from the web through http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks. I've been following the Jim Bell case off and on, and more closely since you were subpoenaed. Amusing anecdote: At the start of CFP 2001, I was telling someone not to trust you, that you "use" people, and they should avoid you at all costs. I said: "Declan writes stories encouraging people to be sued, and then he writes about the lawsuit". I could see they were dubious of my account. After the subpoena, I said with a grin: "Remember what I told you? *BINGO*".
Is there any indication that the things that Jim said to Declan weren't meant for publication? Your outrage would seem reasonable if Jim and Declan were friends, and Declan had published things told to him apparently in confidence - but he's a reporter, and that's why Jim talked to him. Jim likes publicity and attention. Jim wanted to see his name and his ideas and his allegations about the federal government in Wired, or on the Wired website. Jim got what he wanted. I doubt he's angry. Have you asked him yourself?
I didn't/don't understand why people who apparently feel themselves at risk of serious Federal criminal prosecution, tolerate someone who in the end sings like a canary every time he's called to be a prosecution witness.
Because he's got a big sign on his hat saying "CANARY", and because people who talk to him (or post their ideas publicly) are looking for widespread attention. Cypherpunks isn't about "tolerating" people, it's a collection of mailing lists which some people use to discuss politics, technology, and privacy. Just as it's not possible to exclude you, the feds, or any of the annoying Jims, it's not possible to exclude Declan even if that seemed like a good idea. But that would be counterproductive - cypherpunks isn't a list for hatching great conspiracies, where secrecy is important or expected. It is a list for identifying and sharpening good ideas, and a variety of participants is helpful towards that goal. People who expect privacy vis-a-vis grand jury or trial subpoenas need to learn to speak only to people or in environments which are privileged against subpoena and monitoring. Or, don't expect privacy, and don't say anything which would be damaging if it were repeated in court. It's not nearly good enough to avoid people who consider themselves likely to be defendants in criminal cases - anybody can end up as a witness, or as a party to a civil case. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@well.com "Organized crime is the price we pay for organization." -- Raymond Chandler
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Greg Broiles wrote:
Cypherpunks isn't about "tolerating" people, it's a collection of mailing
Sure it is, free speech, privacy, etc. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
There's the backhanded attack Seth was talking about earlier. Declan: this was *pure* ad hominem. J.A. Terranson "The Censorhappy Sysadmin" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 19:29:35 -0700 From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Reply-To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: CDR: Seth Finkelstein, reluctant cypherpunk?
It's important for cypherpunks to understand why Seth Finkelstein has (apparently) recently subscribed to the list. Seth is essentially an anti-cypherpunk, someone who violently disagrees with free-market points of view and has spent (a conservative estimate) hundreds of hours arguing against them.
Seth's claim to fame is that he popularized the "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid" saying, popular among a small clutch of Net-leftists. An article he wrote: http://www.spectacle.org/897/finkel.html
Obviously there are going to be some points of agreement. Seth is a liberal and a programmer who is going to like strong crypto, free speech (only the types the ACLU approves of, naturally), and so on. But on cases involving free trade, commercial speech, critiques of government regulation, Seth is an aggressive anti-cypherpunk and proud of it.
(This is not to say that all cypherpunks are libertarians, of course. The DC cpunx are mostly Finkelsteinian leftists, as far as I can tell. But the problem is that modern leftism runs up against cypherpunkly thinking -- to the extent there is such a consensus -- pretty quickly.)
-Declan
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Obviously there are going to be some points of agreement. Seth is a liberal and a programmer who is going to like strong crypto, free speech (only the types the ACLU approves of, naturally), and so on. But on cases involving free trade, commercial speech, critiques of government regulation, Seth is an aggressive anti-cypherpunk and proud of it.
Huh? That's like being for an atmosphere but against gravity. If there is strong crypto, then everybody, including traders, government critics, etc, is going to do whatever the hell they want to do with information. Being in favor of something but against its consequences is a state of fundamental conflict, and people who hold such conflicted views are generally ignorable without loss of information in the long run. So if that's the case, why should we even care what he thinks? He's wrong, that's all. Bear
participants (15)
-
Bill Stewart -
Declan McCullagh -
dmolnar -
Eric Cordian -
Greg Broiles -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Marshall Clow -
Matthew Gaylor -
Ray Dillinger -
Sandy Sandfort -
Seth Finkelstein -
Tim May