At 04:36 AM 9/25/00 -0400, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
So how do you feel, for instance, about bullying in the form of cooperative isolation of someone by his/her peers? Certainly everybody has the /right/ not to speak to someone...
Freedom of association includes freedom not to associate.
Only that sort of thing harms people more than an occasional, physical punch, something which few liberty-advocating people would say is tolerable.
Exclusion harms you only if it bugs you ---you have to want to be a homosexual atheist boyscout for their exclusion to matter. Non-consensual violence always harms.
I think liberty should carry a pricetag of tolerance.
No, liberty is absolute, and probably not being exercised if *someone* isn't offended. Your suggestion to "play nice" is quaint but irrelevent when talking about sovereign adults. Tolerance means tolerating intolerant groups. The latter-day euros (germans and french esp.) don't get it. When you burn nazi literature you have become them.
On 25-Sep-2000 David Honig enlightened me with: [...]
I think liberty should carry a pricetag of tolerance.
No, liberty is absolute, and probably not being exercised if *someone* isn't offended. Your suggestion to "play nice" is quaint but irrelevent when talking about sovereign adults.
Tolerance means tolerating intolerant groups. The latter-day euros (germans and french esp.) don't get it. When you burn nazi literature you have become them.
You got an interesting point there. Being a "latter-day euro" (from a country which has been accused of having a fascist government by most of Europe, but that's another story) I don't really get it that if I were a Jew (homosexual, guy with a non-german name, ... pick your favorite) I'd have to tolerate a group of loonies who don't grant me the right to live. Sure I can't force you to like me or be nice to me, but I think there are certain very basic rules, each of us has to obey, which make living in a society possible. Let's face it: Society isn't self-regulating and as soon as an ideology, philosophy or whatever severely restricts the way of life of a group it's not worth being tolerated, IMNSHO. The very least I expect from a fellow human being is that (s)he acknowledges my right to exist. Personally I think, burning their literature is going a step too far, but being a European, I understand why they (esp. the French) are so afraid of Nazism. But the Anti-Nazi Hysteria is the wrong way to go. Konrad ________________________________________________________________ .~. Konrad Podloucky GnuPG/PGP-key available by request /V\ "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has // \\ already earned my contempt. He has been given a large /( )\ brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would ^^-^^ fully suffice." -- A. Einstein
At 11:55 PM +0200 9/25/00, Konrad Podloucky wrote:
You got an interesting point there. Being a "latter-day euro" (from a country which has been accused of having a fascist government by most of Europe, but that's another story) I don't really get it that if I were a Jew (homosexual, guy with a non-german name, ... pick your favorite) I'd have to tolerate a group of loonies who don't grant me the right to live. Sure I can't force you to like me or be nice to me, but I think there are certain very basic rules, each of us has to obey, which make living in a society possible. Let's face it: Society isn't self-regulating and as soon as an ideology, philosophy or whatever severely restricts the way of life of a group it's not worth being tolerated, IMNSHO. The very least I expect from a fellow human being is that (s)he acknowledges my right to exist. Personally I think, burning their literature is going a step too far, but being a European, I understand why they (esp. the French) are so afraid of Nazism. But the Anti-Nazi Hysteria is the wrong way to go.
First, a point of clarification in your language. Your phrase " I'd have to tolerate a group of loonies who don't grant me the right to live. " suggests
that in countries with free speech (nominally, the U.S.) that there is some acceptance of crimes of physical violence. Not so. Saying that Jews should be liquidated is generally legal. There are no laws in the U.S. banning books or articles saying this, nor laws banning Nazi literature, Nazi regalia, etc. (There are attempts by certain Zionist-funded groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to bankrupt groups like Aryan Nation on trumped-up grounds of "incitement" and "complicity." Sadly, the liberal simp-wimp commies in America are leading our nation in the direction Germany and Austria have gone. Leading some of us to wonder just who really did win the Second World War.) On to the main issue, that of "free speech" and why it matters. There's much that can be said here...entire books on the issue of what "free speech" means, and why it is A Good Thing. Obviously, "free speech" means no laws abridging the expression of opinions, however unpopular or heinous. Free speech does NOT mean "free actions," importantly. In a society with free speech, it is perfectly permissable--in the sense of being legal--to advocate liquidation of the Jews, to propose enslavement of blacks, whatever. It is NOT generally permissable to _implement_ these ideas, naturally. And therein lies the difference. I cannot do justice to the arguments for why the free speech outlook is preferable to one in which Bad Thoughts are not legally expressable. One avenue of thought is that such basics, e.g., as embodied in the U.S. Bill of Rights, are "Schelling points" for stable societies. Sort of a "I'll agree to not interfere with your words and what you read and whom you associate with if you agree not to do the same with me; but you'd better not try to coerce me into your worldview or initiate force against me or I'll respond with massive force." (This is not the most elegant expression of this point of view, but perhaps you get the idea.) This "Schelling point" approach is what "open societies" have largely settle upon over the centuries. "Live and let live." Or, as I like to think of it, a kind of Neo-Calvinist approach: if my neighbor wants to goof off and watch porn all day and go to Klan and Nazi rallies every weekend, that is his choice and it is actually _immoral_ for me to interfere in his choices to fuck up his life." As for Germany, Austria, and all of the other countries which claim to be liberal democracies, open societies, but which have various laws banning Nazi literature, imprisoning people for expressing their view that the Holocaust was exaggerated, and so on, their policies are both _wrong_ and _counterproductive_. Nothing has made Nazism more interesting to young persons, mostly young men, than the hint of illegality. "If they don't want me to know about this, there must be something to it." Plus, the usual flaunting of disrespect for authority. Would such anti-Nazi laws have stopped Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s? Maybe. Maybe it just would have been called something else, to "game around" whatever the specific language of the laws might have been. And, of course, the German and Austrian governments of the time changed the laws as they saw fit. Of course, the crypto relevance of all of this is that strong crypto is already making it possible to distribute Nazi and neo-Nazi material in these countries without any possibility that the governments can halt the flow. This will make such laws moot, which is a good thing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Hey Tim, really interesting post, but... On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, you wrote:
At 11:55 PM +0200 9/25/00, Konrad Podloucky wrote: ---snip--- As for Germany, Austria, and all of the other countries which claim to be liberal democracies, open societies, but which have various laws banning Nazi literature, imprisoning people for expressing their view that the Holocaust was exaggerated, and so on, their policies are both _wrong_ and _counterproductive_.
Nothing has made Nazism more interesting to young persons, mostly young men, than the hint of illegality. "If they don't want me to know about this, there must be something to it." Plus, the usual flaunting of disrespect for authority.
The hint of illegality? Well, of course this is a reason, but the question remains that if all people had legal access to nationalsocialist propaganda such as "Mein Kampf", would the fact that that mainpart of our society disrespect right-wing radicals not lead to the same attraction? IŽm not sure. Disrespect of authority? Sounds funny for Nazis! :-) But I know what you mean. But certainly, this is not the reason that young men join the national-socialist cause. ItŽs about a feeling of superority, about finding an adventerous group of people that I fit in. And about finding a simple answer to the question why I donŽt have a job, money(, or a brain).
Would such anti-Nazi laws have stopped Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s? Maybe. Maybe it just would have been called something else, to "game around" whatever the specific language of the laws might have been.
And, of course, the German and Austrian governments of the time changed the laws as they saw fit.
Of course, the crypto relevance of all of this is that strong crypto is already making it possible to distribute Nazi and neo-Nazi material in these countries without any possibility that the governments can halt the flow.
This will make such laws moot, which is a good thing.
Agreed. Olav Stetter, Germany P.S.: Please donŽt mind my English. I know what you think about it when I read it myself. :-)
Olav wrote:
Nothing has made Nazism more interesting to young persons, mostly young men, than the hint of illegality. "If they don't want me to know about this, there must be something to it." Plus, the usual flaunting of disrespect for authority.
The hint of illegality? Well, of course this is a reason, but the question remains that if all people had legal access to nationalsocialist propaganda such as "Mein Kampf",
Only 300 Km from Germany, in England, we never had any trouble with "legal access to nationalsocialist propaganda such as "Mein Kampf"". It was available to me as a child, in my local (government-funded) library & I managed to locate two copies within 10 minutes in the library of this University. My Dad (an anti-Nazi left-winger) had a copy. IIRC it was the version published in English by the anti-Nazi left-wing publishing company, Gollancz (and yes, I think the founder was a Jew) on the principle that people would be less likely to become Nazis if they could actually read the stuff. It seemed to work. I don't think he ever paid any royalties though. I don't think we've all becopme Nazis yet.
But certainly, this is not the reason that young men join the national-socialist cause. It4s about a feeling of superority,
Superiority? Inferiority rather Why would people who thought themselves superior need to submit themselves to a leader? Ken
could actually read the stuff. It seemed to work. I don't think he ever paid any royalties though. I don't think we've all becopme Nazis yet.
Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 12:01 PM 9/26/00 -0400, Olav wrote:
The hint of illegality? Well, of course this is a reason, but the question remains that if all people had legal access to nationalsocialist propaganda such as "Mein Kampf", would the fact that that mainpart of our
Actually MK *is* available online to everyone, I think from hitler.com (I was curious when Germany messed with some hitler.de domain...) I don't know if this infringes copyright, but that would be the only law that matters here ;-)
And, of course, the German and Austrian governments of the time changed the laws as they saw fit.
A lesson their conquerors have since learned well..
Of course, the crypto relevance of all of this is that strong crypto is already making it possible to distribute Nazi and neo-Nazi material in these countries without any possibility that the governments can halt the flow.
Wow, congrats, you actually tied the thread to the topic! DH
David Honig wrote:
The hint of illegality? Well, of course this is a reason, but the question remains that if all people had legal access to nationalsocialist propaganda such as "Mein Kampf", would the fact that that mainpart of our
Actually MK *is* available online to everyone, I think from hitler.com (I was curious when Germany messed with some hitler.de domain...) I don't know if this infringes copyright, but that would be the only law that matters here ;-)
actually, it does. this is one of the cases where copyright is being used to suppress information. the state of bavaria holds the copyright on "mein kampf" and afaik has not authorized ANY printing of it ever since hitler died.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Tim May wrote:
Obviously, "free speech" means no laws abridging the expression of opinions, however unpopular or heinous. Free speech does NOT mean "free actions," importantly. In a society with free speech, it is perfectly permissable--in the sense of being legal--to advocate liquidation of the Jews, to propose enslavement of blacks, whatever. It is NOT generally permissable to _implement_ these ideas, naturally. And therein lies the difference.
There is a deeper point that needs to be made you're glossing right over. It has to do with that term 'free' or 'freedom' you keep throwing around. Your application does not do justice to the meaning of the term. The reality is that 'freedom' means (even in crypto-anarchy circles) the right (note that word Timmy) to engage in whatever behaviour one chooses so long as it is consensual and doesn't abridge anothers right to expression. Trying to 'shun' somebody for their non-invasive behaviour (e.g. two dykes kissing in a ball park) is the peak of anti-freedom. If a person really respects freedom it is more than 'freedom for me but not for thee'. The kissing of the girls was nobodies business, in or out of the park in a FREE society. Tim, you're a bigot and a hypocrite. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> wrote:
Trying to 'shun' somebody for their non-invasive behaviour (e.g. two dykes kissing in a ball park) is the peak of anti-freedom. If a person really respects freedom it is more than 'freedom for me but not for thee'.
There's a difference, though. There cannot be any law saying that two dykes can't kiss in a ball park, but neither can there be a law saying that a private organization has to accept it in their place of business. The ball park may seem a borderline case, but clearly the baseball association and that particular ball park are both private organizations; thus they have the right to do as they please. This is not to say that doing so is strictly politic, but that's for them to worry about.
The kissing of the girls was nobodies business, in or out of the park in a FREE society.
Right, but neither is it the government's business what the ball park or the baseball association does with the dykes in its park. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
There's a difference, though. There cannot be any law saying that two dykes can't kiss in a ball park, but neither can there be a law saying that a private organization has to accept it in their place of business.
There is NO difference. The fact that it's a business is irrelevant. It's basic inter-personal respect. I don't know about a law, if the basic society doesn't understand the philosophy then the 'law' certainly won't fix that problem. Bottem line, within the context of 'freedom' (for the dykes or business alike) unless it can be shown that the act will directly interfere with that place of business then the business has no say in it. In other words, the personal likes and dislikes of the owner are NOT expresible through the actions of the business. Simply running a business does NOT increase ones ability to manage others actions. Simply wanting to buy an item does not require that I surrender one iota of my personal liberty. The act by the business of refusing to service me as a customer because I don't have the lifestyle they like IS most certainly an infringement of the civil liberties of the customers and they should be able to take action accordingly against the business for trying to constrain their liberty. Your freedom means you NEVER have a say in my freedom. Only my (or your) abuse of that freedom. Demonstrate that the two dykes infringed the right of the owner to try to make a profit. Then, and only then, will you have a case to infringe their right to express their beliefs. Would it have mattered if it was a guy and his girlfriend? If so, why? Why is a man and a woman kissing not infringing or damaging but two women/men is? It's irrational (which is reason enough to question the business operations - their supposed to be rational) and it's coercive. As usual, more 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. Typical anarcho-capital-crypto-libertarian bullshit. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 23:12 -0500 9/27/00, Jim Choate wrote:
The act by the business of refusing to service me as a customer because I don't have the lifestyle they like IS most certainly an infringement of the civil liberties of the customers and they should be able to take action accordingly against the business for trying to constrain their liberty.
In this framework where does your right to refuse entry to your private residence come from?
Demonstrate that the two dykes infringed the right of the owner to try to make a profit. Then, and only then, will you have a case to infringe their right to express their beliefs.
Would it have mattered if it was a guy and his girlfriend? If so, why? Why is a man and a woman kissing not infringing or damaging but two women/men is?
In my mind this is all about property rights. He (the business owner) doesn't have a right to make a property, he has the right to say what persons can and cannot do on his property. If they refuse to comply he has the right to ask them to leave and possibly resort to force to remove them. If money has been involved in the exchange (ie, the lesbians bought a ticket) they have a right to demand compensation IF their actions were not explicitly banned. The owners reasons do not have to be moral, reasonable, intelligent, or even rationale. It's his property. -- Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827 _______________________________________________________________________________ "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas
Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> wrote:
Bottem line, within the context of 'freedom' (for the dykes or business alike) unless it can be shown that the act will directly interfere with that place of business then the business has no say in it. In other words, the personal likes and dislikes of the owner are NOT expresible through the actions of the business.
Except if the action is taking place on the property of the business, it is the owner's perogative to ask the people involved to leave. Property rights are just as important to the ballpark owner as personally expressive rights are to the lesbians at the baseball game.
Simply running a business does NOT increase ones ability to manage others actions. Simply wanting to buy an item does not require that I surrender one iota of my personal liberty.
Except inasmuch as you are now one someone else's property and must obey commands from them to leave.
Demonstrate that the two dykes infringed the right of the owner to try to make a profit. Then, and only then, will you have a case to infringe their right to express their beliefs.
Wrong. I don't have to justify throwing you off of land that I own. When I buy a ticket to a ballgame it is subject to the owner letting me in the ballpark. I understand that when I buy the ticket, I take a risk in doing so; the owner can decide he doesn't want me on his property and throw me out. The fact that I bought a ticket doesn't assure me that I'll be allowed to stay in the ballpark, it only assures me that I won't be turned away at the door. The owner can still decide to throw me out at any time.
Would it have mattered if it was a guy and his girlfriend? If so, why? Why is a man and a woman kissing not infringing or damaging but two women/men is?
Because in the owner's eyes this won't be acceptable to the majority of the fans at the game. I personally say let them do whatever they want, but if there's some tightass bible banger sitting next to the two lesbians who decides that such a display is unacceptable and stops taking his three kids to the game, the owner has a problem.
As usual, more 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. Typical anarcho-capital-crypto-libertarian bullshit.
It seems to me that you're the one taking rights away, or perhaps you genuinely don't believe that property rights are valid. In that case, we have no common ground from which to even begin to discuss constructively. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105
"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:
Except if the action is taking place on the property of the business, it is the owner's perogative to ask the people involved to leave. Property rights are just as important to the ballpark owner as personally expressive rights are to the lesbians at the baseball game.
I agree to all but the following:
When I buy a ticket to a ballgame it is subject to the owner letting me in the ballpark. I understand that when I buy the ticket, I take a risk in doing so; the owner can decide he doesn't want me on his property and throw me out. The fact that I bought a ticket doesn't assure me that I'll be allowed to stay in the ballpark, it only assures me that I won't be turned away at the door. The owner can still decide to throw me out at any time.
when I buy a ticket, I buy "access" to the game. nobody pays for tickets just to be on the field. so if the owner throws me out I believe that he should refund all or part of the ticket price, because he is not delivering what I payed for (a live sports performance).
Tom Vogt <tom@ricardo.de> wrote:
when I buy a ticket, I buy "access" to the game. nobody pays for tickets just to be on the field. so if the owner throws me out I believe that he should refund all or part of the ticket price, because he is not delivering what I payed for (a live sports performance).
The only catch is that the fine print on the ticket tells you that by using the ticket you are entering into an agreement whereby you can be ejected from the game without refund. This gets into contract law, but ignoring this fine point, we basically agree. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105
"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:
The only catch is that the fine print on the ticket tells you that by using the ticket you are entering into an agreement whereby you can be ejected from the game without refund. This gets into contract law, but ignoring this fine point, we basically agree.
I've got to claim ignorance here, since I didn't know about this fine print. I don't go to these games.
At 05:55 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Konrad Podloucky wrote:
You got an interesting point there. Being a "latter-day euro" (from a country which has been accused of having a fascist government by most of Europe, but that's another story) I don't really get it that if I were a Jew (homosexual, guy with a non-german name, ... pick your favorite) I'd have to tolerate a group of loonies who don't grant me the right to live.
They talk big. Talk is free. If they actually become violent in deed ---smash the individuals who acted. But words are just noise. When you say 'accused of fascism' you mean accused of nationalist-rascism, no? Fascism really means state-control of everything, and its only because of National Socialism of the 30-40s' quirks that they are linked in many minds. The US, has been in the 20th century quite fascist in its control of all property and too sensitive (infringing on rights with social engineering) to race.
Sure I can't force you to like me or be nice to me, but I think there are certain very basic rules, each of us has to obey, which make living in a society possible.
In the US, those rules include tolerance for ideas (that if carried out would be infringements of others rights to be left alone). Of course there are social rules. Within the boundaries of no-nonconsensual-harm (ie, others' right to be left alone), you're free to do whatever, no matter how distasteful to others. Let's face it: Society
isn't self-regulating and as soon as an ideology, philosophy or whatever severely restricts the way of life of a group it's not worth being tolerated, IMNSHO. The very least I expect from a fellow human being is that (s)he acknowledges my right to exist.
Acknowledges your right to exist meaning what? That they not run you over at a crosswalk, sure. That they must invite you to give a speech at their private club? No. And why would you care if some scum acknowledges you or not? As long as they leave you alone, they can rant all they like.
Personally I think, burning their literature is going a step too far, but being a European, I understand why they (esp. the French) are so afraid of Nazism. But the Anti-Nazi Hysteria is the wrong way to go.
We explicitly cannot outlaw political parties here, although in the 50s that was lost in our own form of hysteria at the time. (Communist Party (tm) was officially Bad and Threatening) As far as realpsychology goes, active harassment of fringe groups is only going to make them more attractive. dh
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, David Honig wrote:
So how do you feel, for instance, about bullying in the form of cooperative isolation of someone by his/her peers? Certainly everybody has the /right/ not to speak to someone...
Freedom of association includes freedom not to associate.
I know, I know. It's too bad all these nice ideas of liberty and freedom always seem to bump into contradictions when people actually go and apply them to their full extent.
Only that sort of thing harms people more than an occasional, physical punch, something which few liberty-advocating people would say is tolerable.
Exclusion harms you only if it bugs you ---you have to want to be a homosexual atheist boyscout for their exclusion to matter. Non-consensual violence always harms.
I do not agree. I think shunning harms you regardless, if it is organized well enough. Say, you do something which causes your whole town to shun you. Where do you suppose you get food, shelter, whatever from there on? You'd say 'just leave', here, right? What if you do not have the means? You just die? I also think I'm not totally wrong if I claim that even when the physical necessities of life have been taken care of, social contact *can* be essential to the survival of people raised up to be/genetically predisposed to being social or dependent, as modern people tend to be, on the surrounding society for survival. If this holds, shunning someone then becomes precisely as 'violent' as physical violence. Even if psychology isn't the hardest of sciences, it does suggest that isolation does significantly more than simply 'bug' people.
I think liberty should carry a pricetag of tolerance.
No, liberty is absolute, and probably not being exercised if *someone* isn't offended.
I doubt that. Besides, that someone can be offended all s/he wants, s/he just shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it. (Except, of course, what the freedoms of expression/thought/association/whatever guarantee.)
Your suggestion to "play nice" is quaint but irrelevent when talking about sovereign adults.
I don't see it quite like that. In order to have meaningful freedoms one needs to have the possibility of enjoying them. When someone claiming their rights in so doing limits the rights of others, I tend to resolve the conflict by limiting the rights themselves. In this case, demanding that people indeed 'play nice'. This is precisely why freedom of thought and expression are so important and why they are usually thought of as inalienable - thoughts do not usually just jump out and start killing people. They are easy to protect since conflicts between other people's similar rights rarely arise. This is not the case with liberties involving physical violence, property et cetera. (Really, this is simply the age old debate about positive liberties as opposed to negative ones. In other words, a can of worms. Should we close it before more nasty things crawl out?)
Tolerance means tolerating intolerant groups. The latter-day euros (germans and french esp.) don't get it. When you burn nazi literature you have become them.
I agree. But the way I see it, tolerance applies to the intangible side of things, not the physical. I.e. you can hate and insult the somali or the Finnish all you want and webcast as much hate speech as you want but once you start beating people, you're off. Similarly, you have to tolerate the speech but not the actions. In the case of our proverbial lesbians, you have to tolerate their 'deviant ways' and even the occasional kiss, while they have to tolerate you speaking behind their back, insulting them and whatever else nasty you can do with ideas alone. What you do not have to tolerate is a lesbian kissing you (a bit of a bad analogy since you're male), or a shop owner throwing you out for a public display of love. The argument of private vs. public services, I think, is a bad one - in a society in which practically everything can be privately owned it puts the rights of everybody in the hands of those with the dough. Against this background your view of rights being absolute sort of dries up. Of course one valid attempt at resolving the problem would be to limit private ownership of things somehow essential to the preservation of people's liberties. I think I better not go there, right? Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
participants (11)
-
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
Ken Brown -
Kevin Elliott -
Konrad Podloucky -
Olav -
petro -
Riad S. Wahby -
Sampo A Syreeni -
Tim May -
Tom Vogt