Choate Free Zone (I'm famous Ma!)
It's interesting that the current users of SSZ are free to express their views now, by moving to an alternate node. Even one of the 'CDR:' free ones (which realy makes the point moot, but it is insiteful). Personaly, I can't fathom why somebody who was bothered by the 'CDR:' or my views would participate through SSZ, so why would a strategy as proposed work? Ignorance. What I try to do is offer my users an alternate, a choice. The polar opposite of ignorance. My goal is to treet them as a true peer. Information is power (that't WHY it want's to be free). Wasn't it Stalin who said something about books being stronger than guns? The reality is that the issue isn't the CDR, attachments, or whatever. Just another demonstration of why anarchy doesn't work. "Do it my way or I won't play..." ;) ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
If I were to take Choate seriously, I'd point out that most of us, when we talk about "crypto anarchy" (which is a chapter by itself in Crypto), are not talking about lack of rules. In fact, anarchy can include many rules: protocols, standards, and social routines. Instead, we're talking about lack of *government* rules instituted by force. But all of us know better than to take Choate seriously. So we can do what's appropriate in an anarchy, and simply ignore him. Shunning, after all, is more than appropriate: When it comes to loons, it's even necessary. -Declan On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 09:46:56AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
The reality is that the issue isn't the CDR, attachments, or whatever.
Just another demonstration of why anarchy doesn't work. "Do it my way or I won't play..." ;)
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
If I were to take Choate seriously, I'd point out that most of us, when we talk about "crypto anarchy" (which is a chapter by itself in Crypto), are not talking about lack of rules. In fact, anarchy can include many rules: protocols, standards, and social routines. Instead, we're talking about lack of *government* rules instituted by force.
I never said there weren't rules. Anarchy means no central authority, no 'arch'. The distinction you gloss is that the rules and protocols are TOTALLY VOLUNTARY. The decision to comply is left at the discretion of the individual. Some do, some don't.
But all of us know better than to take Choate seriously. So we can do what's appropriate in an anarchy, and simply ignore him. Shunning, after all, is more than appropriate: When it comes to loons, it's even necessary.
Just another example of 'freedom for me but not for thee'. You feel it's ok to shun, but not ok to be shuned. What a hypocrite. In ANY sort of anarchy the act of shunning must be for something more than simply refusing to go along. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to follow any rules; thus, there's no coercion involved, just social norms. Contrary to what you say, shunning can take place for simply refusing to go along: If someone repeatedly violates norms, it's a perfectly reasonable response. As for whether OK to be shunned, if folks want to shun me, I support their right to do so. But, not being all that Choatian, I doubt they will. -Declan On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:33:29AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
If I were to take Choate seriously, I'd point out that most of us, when we talk about "crypto anarchy" (which is a chapter by itself in Crypto), are not talking about lack of rules. In fact, anarchy can include many rules: protocols, standards, and social routines. Instead, we're talking about lack of *government* rules instituted by force.
I never said there weren't rules. Anarchy means no central authority, no 'arch'. The distinction you gloss is that the rules and protocols are TOTALLY VOLUNTARY. The decision to comply is left at the discretion of the individual. Some do, some don't.
But all of us know better than to take Choate seriously. So we can do what's appropriate in an anarchy, and simply ignore him. Shunning, after all, is more than appropriate: When it comes to loons, it's even necessary.
Just another example of 'freedom for me but not for thee'. You feel it's ok to shun, but not ok to be shuned. What a hypocrite.
In ANY sort of anarchy the act of shunning must be for something more than simply refusing to go along.
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate