Re: CIA & FBI, a marriage made in ___?
From: Black Unicorn (from an earlier post) In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution. (from the above named post) Yes, I'm tired of the issue [of the political aspects of crypto] being framed as a crime problem that needs political attention through law enforcement when in actuality it is a question of regulation and domestic policy. ...................................................... I'm not seeing the consistency in embracing the concepts of the law, while questioning the regulation of crypto through law enforcement. It all rather looks the same to me: political attention-> law enforcement-> regulation-> domestic policy. ?? Blanc
From: Black Unicorn
(from an earlier post) In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution.
(from the above named post) Yes, I'm tired of the issue [of the political aspects of crypto] being framed as a crime problem that needs political attention through law enforcement when in actuality it is a question of regulation and domestic policy. ......................................................
I'm not seeing the consistency in embracing the concepts of the law, while questioning the regulation of crypto through law enforcement.
It all rather looks the same to me: political attention-> law enforcement-> regulation-> domestic policy.
??
The hinge question is what I, or you, mean by "concepts of law." In the first post, a cypherpunk was dismissing the importance of the constitution as valueless to his quest, because current law meant nothing to him and was an authority he did not respect. (I'm extracting from memory, if the poster would care to comment...?) My point was that one should never dismiss the constitution, and that the framers had some heads between them. The concepts of law I refer to are the original frameworks embodied in the constitution. In reality I have a great deal of respect for the concepts and the notions and the genius I see in the document that is the Constitution of the United States. Just the process, the intellectual endeavor of that, of developing a stable structure restraining the various powers from dominating still gives me chills. Call me a fanatic. The question of its application to current events is another matter. Was the separation of power just to keep the infighting to a low level, or was it to keep any one power from growing too large? Therein lies the answer you seek. If the current structure of government is proper true to the constitution, and more importantly the goal of a stable government with co-equal branches, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to embrace centralism, regulation of markets, export restrictions and an ever growing executive branch. If the current structure of government is improper, and goes beyond the bounds of power the framers intended, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to reject the current state of affairs. It all depends on the ground you start from, I start from the latter, and not the former. In my framework, I feel it is consistent to embrace the constitution and its doctrine while still resisting regulation. You'll note my quote in the first post: "In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution." Perspective is key.
Blanc
-uni- (Dark)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Unicorn writes:
If the current structure of government is proper true to the constitution, and more importantly the goal of a stable government with co-equal branches, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to embrace centralism, regulation of markets, export restrictions and an ever growing executive branch.
If the current structure of government is improper, and goes beyond the bounds of power the framers intended, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to reject the current state of affairs.
Surely someone of Unicorn's erudition is aware of Lysander Spooner's words on this subject, but just to remind the others, here are some of them: Spooner wrote these words in 1869 (_eighteen_ sixty-nine); imagine what he might have written today! The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.... Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.... _And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them._ They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. ... APPENDIX. Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an on as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Consitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorised such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. These are excerpts from Spooner's article "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority", available from Laissez Faire Books, 1-415-541-9780 in San Francisco. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLcDuh8Dhz44ugybJAQG8lgQAlNkH0XGRMZbNvwYVOm0kPn6ECAMxPvf4 4Ue1llTfFtQEyLWC+NwpxPULDvVzkstFGngHhVfQtv1dWRFpKulL5NuuDoiY1xqp 4kU+8iT0NeRu/NEBck/Gh3MolNHrXCmhbHvCAx83UHk0aWDEZrxH6tpuqKXTn3tj PWzSblyPAKw= =+nMS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Unicorn writes:
If the current structure of government is proper true to the constitution, and more importantly the goal of a stable government with co-equal branches, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to embrace centralism, regulation of markets, export restrictions and an ever growing executive branch.
If the current structure of government is improper, and goes beyond the bounds of power the framers intended, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to reject the current state of affairs.
Surely someone of Unicorn's erudition is aware of Lysander Spooner's words on this subject, but just to remind the others, here are some of them:
Spooner wrote these words in 1869 (_eighteen_ sixty-nine); imagine what he might have written today!
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago....
[Lack of representation makes Constitution an invalid contract]
This is part of the reason I reject the contention that the Constitution is a contract among peoples. As far as contract law goes, this makes every Constitution invalid and a pointless exercise if you adopt this theory. Under this model all constitutions, indeed all governments would have to be passed unanimously by a national vote. Those constitutions that do not bear the signatures of all the citizens are either not valid or not binding to those citizens. How can this be rationalized in context? Are we to adopt all the elements of contract law to constitutions? Are we to apply the doctrines of inability to contact to constitutional protections? This would require us to deny constitutional protections to minors, and infants. What about the mentally infirm? Women in the 17-1800's? Will we apply doctrines of efficient breach? Commercial impracticability? (No government would exist!) Promissory estoppel? Can 3rd party beneficiaries sue for losses? Clearly an attack on a constitution on these grounds has no bearing in practical application, or explanation. Even in 1869, the heyday of Victorian Legal Thought, where one could not be held liable except by an act of self volition, the idea of strict contract law being applied to social duty, or limitations on power, and thus Spooner's theory, was rejected. This in an era where debts were non-assignable because it was looked upon as pushing the parties into an agreement they never contemplated or consented to. Yet, Victorian Freedom of Contract at its height still rejected the "constitution as contract" theory. The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under the Constitution. The continued acceptance of the process, the participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers. Consider the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court has no police, no army, no command authority, no enforcement branch what so ever. (Forgetting the Supreme Court Police who guard the building) What then keeps the other branches from disobeying the rulings of the Court? Nothing but respect for the structure of government. This in itself is impressive for a structure established by a document with "no authority." If there is a historical precedent for such an institution, an institution of unelected officials who pass down at times massively unpopular decisions that are none the less followed without the slightest force to back them, I am unaware of it. How can one deny the genius of this structure? (Even if the current trend of decisions is questionable). The United States does not claim its authority to be rooted in divine grant, nor in pure power over the people, nor in a quest for utopia, but in consent of the people. In so far as the United States remains a representative democracy, it looks to the Constitution for its rules. The Constitution is not a contract at all, but a grant of authority. A deed with covenants of sorts. You may rule provided you follow these rules, and if you don't, the people reserve the right to overthrow you. Spooner's position represents a tact that was fashionable in the day, that being the dismissal of sovereign authority on many grounds and using disciplines from economics to philosophy to science. What Spooner's theories lack is timeliness. They are, in fact, really just reiterations of the anti-federalist position in the late 1700's. These included objections to the notion of a constitution because of its betrayal of the concepts that the revolution was fought for. The anti-federalist position relied heavily on the objectionable nature of removing people from the political process and the lack of individual control. See generally, H. Storing, What the Antifederalists Were For (1981). This line of argument is quite old and tired by 1869, and really represents a throwback. One must remember that power was surrendered to the federal government by the people and the states conditioned upon limits. Power was not, in the reverse, granted to the people and signed for in receipt. It is such that I reject the following assumption:
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man.
Instead I feel the Constitution should be looked at as a grant of power. The argument that such grant should expire after the grantors do seems to rely upon the notion that the grant was some sort of limited term leasehold on power. "You may rule for one generation" in effect. To my view, this is silly. Instead it is a conditional grant of power providing in part that: All legislative Powers herein granted SHALL be vested in a Congress of the United States.... Art I sec.1 [1] No Person SHALL be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years.... Art I sec.2 [2] The Executive power SHALL be vested in a President of the United States of America.... Art II sec.1 [1] My emphasis. See also, U.S. CONST. Amend. X. Insofar as these conditions are met, government authority is legitimate by the terms it was granted. Or as I said before:
If the current structure of government is improper, and goes beyond the bounds of power the framers intended, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to reject the current state of affairs.
APPENDIX.
Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an on as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is
[Deletions] The government rules by the bayonet only because it was given the bayonet by the states and the people. The problem of preventing tyranny is in the structure established with the grant, and it is here that the need for embracing the concepts of "law" within the constitution is important. Questioning the previous generations for their audacity in waiving your "rights" to anarchy is on the same order as questioning the audacity of those who set down the doctrine of Freedom of Contract. The hand of the dead does influence the exercise of power. Mr. Sandfort is correct in my view. There is no "magic" in the Constitution. It is a guidebook, and no more; but what a guidebook it is. It contains within a concept of government structure that has endured and maintained relative stability and freedom from tyranny for quite a while now. The Constitution of the United States does not say, "Follow me because I am law", but rather "This is the recipe for a stable check against tyranny." If the federal government mixes the recipe with too much power, the checks against tyranny established by the Constitution threaten to topple. It is this that worries me. It is this that worried the framers. Should we dismiss their genius because it is old? Because it did not bear the unanimous mandate of the people?
These are excerpts from Spooner's article "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority", available from Laissez Faire Books, 1-415-541-9780 in San Francisco.
John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A Victorian after my own heart. I think we disagree, if we differ at all, in the application of this theory to grants of authority.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a [...] - -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLcGzExibHbaiMfO5AQGZxAQAvDDL7pZRGjgQyhXLD7hoXrEEQezCcwtO X9bv2uW1JJwmuVeF23nSOV1LL1Dodp2YUS0xw2hIJU99wwtcBc3XwERkidywbL5k NJL1KAaCpA4lizJZB4q1e0Hp+hGKIxrhF2wPcQIz0lVPuZDOrDeSi0pS4D+GpEKE Q9NOKO7fWLo= =UCQz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Summary: Unicorn thoughtfully underscores the need for the defense afforded by strong cryptography and other means. He writes:
The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under the Constitution.
Thank you. It's good for a freedom-loving person to be reminded of the nature of the threat. The appeal of strong cryptography is that it may help to defend against those who embrace this deceitful attitude.
The continued acceptance of the process, the participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.
It is for _exactly this reason_ that the freedom-loving person forbears from willful participation.
The United States does not claim its authority to be rooted in divine grant, nor in pure power over the people, nor in a quest for utopia, but in consent of the people.
...which is fine for a person who consents. The problem comes when he assumes that the authority extends to his neighbor who does not consent.
John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A Victorian after my own heart. I think we disagree, if we differ at all, in the application of this theory to grants of authority.
Again, this is no doubt wonderful for a person who grants his authority. The trouble begins when he presumes that his neighbor, too, has granted his authority. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLcIK9sDhz44ugybJAQFdAQP/SIox/IF4WjOGCjppJngkNF1Y/kJ+g1cQ 0YxXQYQjFLkeRPHszXX6OtBjWpoFER2CZha107sVBo791YxekBU0KE16ItcUZ548 86IZMj/JKSrANbjtHXC6qZ0YKOFLiLA/ZdpDRHOTsKN1OSCApVumtFHmNTKue/TF +bu6kFbeBX4= =42fR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Summary: Unicorn thoughtfully underscores the need for the defense afforded by strong cryptography and other means.
He writes:
The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under the Constitution.
Thank you. It's good for a freedom-loving person to be reminded of the nature of the threat.
Are you being sarcastic here or...? You seem to think I look upon the above description with fondness and adoration. I do not.
The appeal of strong cryptography is that it may help to defend against those who embrace this deceitful attitude.
Which deceitful attitude, mine or the federal government's?
The continued acceptance of the process, the participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.
It is for _exactly this reason_ that the freedom-loving person forbears from willful participation.
I think that's difficult to do and still live in the United States, or most nations. Regardless of how persuasive I find the argument, you do probably benefit from the police, fire, emergency rescue, and national defense services provided by the government. You also probably benefit from what deterence the civil litigation and criminal processes affords those who would do you ill. While I don't find this justifies the abridgement of the constitution, I do think it stifles the argument that one is not willfully participating or partaking of soceital benefit.
The United States does not claim its authority to be rooted in divine grant, nor in pure power over the people, nor in a quest for utopia, but in consent of the people.
...which is fine for a person who consents. The problem comes when he assumes that the authority extends to his neighbor who does not consent.
I think your position is basically "I didn't sign the Constitution, so the government has no power over me." I don't really see a rationale for this position, only the position itself. The clause "but in consent of the people" is a collective form of "the people." I wish it needn't be, but it is none-the-less.
John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A Victorian after my own heart. I think we disagree, if we differ at all, in the application of this theory to grants of authority.
Again, this is no doubt wonderful for a person who grants his authority. The trouble begins when he presumes that his neighbor, too, has granted his authority.
Again, I don't know where to go with this. You give me a position, and use it to support your position. I will say that if I believed a soceity could exist without some minority oppression I would reject all regulation. -uni- (Dark)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Strong cryptography renders moot the Statist's arrogant pretense that every person is a national of some nation. With it, the determined individual can make good his wish to be part of no nation. Why would a person want to do this? Read on.
Summary: Unicorn thoughtfully underscores the need for the defense afforded by strong cryptography and other means.
He writes:
The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under the Constitution.
Thank you. It's good for a freedom-loving person to be reminded of the nature of the threat.
Are you being sarcastic here or...?
(Sarcastic???) You made a fitting assertion which I believe to be true and worth reemphasizing, and I thanked you for it. That's all.
The appeal of strong cryptography is that it may help to defend against those who embrace this deceitful attitude.
Which deceitful attitude, mine or the federal government's?
Government, deceit and all, is sustained and nourished by willful participation, as you have previously pointed out in the passage immediately following. If you participate, it's your conscience you have to live with.
The continued acceptance of the process, the participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.
It is for _exactly this reason_ that the freedom-loving person forbears from willful participation.
I think that's difficult to do and still live in the United States, or most nations.
Keep in mind that the United states is a membership association, not a geographical region, so to ``live in the United States'' means to willfully be a member of the United States. So, yes, to ``live in the United States'' is certainly to be a willful participant. But if you're saying it's difficult for a non-member to avoid participation, I agree; it's difficult. Where participation is unavoidable, it's not willful.
While I don't find this justifies the abridgement of the constitution, I do think it stifles the argument that one is not willfully participating or partaking of soceital benefit.
Except nobody's arguing about willful partaking of societal benefit. The issue is willful participation in _government_. The benefit of society results from voluntary association among people. Imposed relations, as institutionalized in government, benefit only their perpetrators. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLcMSesDhz44ugybJAQGDeAP8CUpBpQkAPNQda3iHBcpOZ+B8qU2rP1+x TDh229mhBVWShMbnXIaA6idLBRine+zfvHtH52XFRUx5ehE88AzGxV+oQIhUczi4 lFOkSr5M9ogMbKeWmISrFcnXeiDxqJoMM/xR1bp+qiY8JZnBdvDDisGPt/Aq022l cF+EjKt3DEk= =8Tbq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
actually, it is just a piece of paper. Burn the paper it's all gone. 4!/4! +-0 Bye all **************************************************************************** Qjones@infi.net She kissed me- I felt the hot blush * * Qjones@larry.wyvern.com Of raging passion incinerate my heart * ****************************************************************************
participants (4)
-
Black Unicorn -
Blanc Weber -
jkreznar＠ininx.com -
Wayne Q Jones