No need to send to :Anonymous <nobody@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> But since you did

Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com

saying ...

If I understand you correctly, it is OK for a government to institute violence against the residents of the land it claims dominion over, but it is not acceptable for the inhabitants of that piece of land to respond in self defence.

I will say this: No, government initiation of violence (such as in Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.) is not OK, and AsPol initiation of violence is not either. This can lead into a long argument about just _when_ violence is initiated, where opinion is more important than fact, but IMO: Randy Weaver was not initiating violence. David Keresh was not initiating violence. Pot growers and smokers are not initiating violence. But Mr. Bell, if he follows through on his scheme, *will* be initiating violence. His scheme, while it can sound tempting (especially every April 15th!) has no guarantee that it will _only_ be used against the Lon Horiuchis of our government, in fact, it may be said it is not guaranteed to not be used against Mr. Bell himself, as many have joked. There are two roads to take in life, convincing and coercing others. I think that the former is still possible, Mr. Bell and many others disagree. I worry that abuse of the very young and weak (for now) anonymity system for the purpose of initiating, rather than exposing, violence will lead to more government violence than we already have. Perhaps I am wrong and there is no hope; but if so, that means another revolution. Revolutions are very romantic sounding, to those who have not been in a war. I urge everyone to read "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel for a look at what our last revolution got us (hint: it was *not* less government). I believe the book is available from Laissez Faire books. It is quite good, and refreshingly truthful when compared to the gobbledygook that most history teachers try to force down students' throats.