I have to support Black Unicorn's use of the courts. Really, what choices were available? a) Do nothing. Eat the losses. Suffer destruction of his reputation. Does anyone really advocate this? Even the religiously inclined don't advocate turning the other cheek ad inifinitum... b) Mail bombs or other amusements. Not only does one join the target in the same figurative gutter, there are real questions of efficacy and legality. Simply because one side foreswears the legal system, there is no guarantee both sides will. And, there is absolutely no guarantee that a sys. admin. won't seek criminal prosecution under a tampering with the computer theory. c) Hire some fool(s) to break the target's hands. Not only do you risk prosecution, ala T. Harding, but I rather doubt we want to enter this still lower gutter. d) Pursue a criminal indictment. Nice in that it really gets the target's attention, but it can be difficult to do. And if people object to civil litigaton, I suppose criminal charges would be even more objectionable. e) Sue the guy. It's legal, it's easy, and it get's people's attention. So, I, for one, think Black Unicorn took the best and most reasonable approach. I'd be very interested in which course (or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that the anarchists feel would be reasonable... Regards, Dave
C'punks, On Thu, 26 May 1994, David L Womack wrote:
I have to support Black Unicorn's use of the courts. Really, what choices were available? . . . e) Sue the guy. It's legal, it's easy, and it get's people's attention.
So, I, for one, think Black Unicorn took the best and most reasonable approach. I'd be very interested in which course (or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that the anarchists feel would be reasonable... . . .
Well, I'm an anarchist and I would have no *philosophical* problem with pursuing redress in the king's court. It is because I am an anarchist that I don't impute any special status to "government." "Government" is just the term we use for one particular form of collective force. I would use it in the same way I would use an oncoming truck; if someone were trying to mug me, I would consider pushing them in front of the truck. It would just be a handy tool to be employed for self-defense. So to the government often is useful as a handy blunt instrument to keep other forms of muggers at bay. Now in actuality, I have grave *practical* reservations about using the government in this way. It is hard not to get entangled once one begins to dance with the devil. Now ask me if I would have any philosophical objection to taking welfare. S a n d y
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> writes:
Well, I'm an anarchist...
...a reputation you have earned well in your postings to this list, which is why your answers matter to me.
and I would have no *philosophical* problem with pursuing redress in the king's court.
How could you do this, without incurring cognitive dissonance?
I would use [government] in the same way I would use an oncoming truck; if someone were trying to mug me, I would consider pushing them in front of the truck.
Government differs from the oncoming truck in that its power comes from its constituency of willing clients generating a demand for its services. Granted, withdrawing your demand will hardly affect that power, because the other hundred million constituents will still be pressing their demands. But how do you deflect accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy? Our archist adversaries use such charges to deflate anarchist arguments. I don't understand and am increasingly unable to abide the inconsistent and hypocritical attitude of many of my anarchist friends who decry government while at the same time willfully patronizing it, even when they have reasonable alternatives. You have apparently accommodated yourself to this inconsistency. How?
Now ask me if I would have any philosophical objection to taking welfare.
Would you have any philosophical objection to taking welfare? This may be drifting away from the charter of cypherpunks, but I'll bet I'm not alone among the anarchists here in wondering how you would answer these questions. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLeVNwsDhz44ugybJAQEzCQP/WLswNle4Ixo50Lf0QGC4I4U4cDyGd1xM eg3t675kioj8zqQMZWwCu5id+GC1V/o5V0FZ0mAxknSR37X+CYlwCTFxEUDBJPEm v//9k9HS97CckEtlFdsCTbB/NTiw3HGFYAVyVDtZaxt4DayDENPETh+joQ2LElog i7duMq7fUxg= =ITjs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In the discussions of what is or is not an "anarchist", aside from the obvious "Anarchist Cookbook" (couldn't resist), is there an official Anarchist codicil? What makes one an official anarchist? <g,d&r> *.................................................................* . == = =....James D. Wilson.....jdwilson@gold.chem.hawaii.edu.. . " " "....P. O. Box 15432..........or..NetSurfer@sersol.com.. . " " /\ "....Honolulu, HI 96830..Give me the finger for my key. . \" "/ \"....FRC/FAM/AASR/GWB/OTO..........NETSURFER............ *.................................................................*
NetSurfer says:
In the discussions of what is or is not an "anarchist", aside from the obvious "Anarchist Cookbook" (couldn't resist), is there an official Anarchist codicil? What makes one an official anarchist?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. However, if you send .23gAu via The Trystero Mail Service to the International Federation of Profound Thinkers, they might be able to give you a hint. Perry
C'punks, On Thu, 26 May 1994, NetSurfer wrote:
In the discussions of what is or is not an "anarchist", aside from the obvious "Anarchist Cookbook" (couldn't resist), is there an official Anarchist codicil? What makes one an official anarchist?
You have to submit your application (with appropriate fee) in triplicate to the admissions committee. If you pass a background check you will be allowed to sit for the exam. A passing score for the exam is 70%. If you do not pass you must wait at least six months before re-submiting your application (with appropriate fee) in triplicate. Those passing the test will be sworn in as Official Anarchists (tm). Official Anarchists are issued an official certificate (suitable for framing) and an official membership card. Continued membership is contingent upon payment of annual dues. Breaches of appropriate anarchist conduct may also be grounds for loss of membership. S a n d y, Supreme Leader, UBA United Brotherhood of Anarchists (An equal opportunity association)
C'punks, On Thu, 26 May 1994, John E. Kreznar wrote, first quoting me:
. . .
and I would have no *philosophical* problem with pursuing redress in the king's court.
How could you do this, without incurring cognitive dissonance?
What cognative dissonance? If I am satisfied that I am in the right, the so-called "government" is just another handy weapon with which to get my way. I'd have no problem using a gun produced by slave labor, either.
. . . Government differs from the oncoming truck in that its power comes from its constituency of willing clients generating a demand for its services.
This is philosophical gobblydegook. There is no government. People who call themselves the government derive their powers from their use of force and their ability to con or intimidate other people to recognize them as the "it" of government. You have your government/client causality backwards.
. . . But how do you deflect accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy? . . .
I don't bother. Their wrong; I ignore them.
. . . You have apparently accommodated yourself to this inconsistency. How?
There is no inconsistency. There is no government for me to patronize. The folks who call themselves the government will sometimes do things that benefit me. Great. It doesn't mean I condone other things they do that involve the initiation of force.
. . . Would you have any philosophical objection to taking welfare?
Nope. I leave the reasons for this as an exercise for the student. S a n d y P.S. Reasonable minds may differ. I apologize to John if I seem too cavalier in my responses. It's just that I've given these topics much thought over the years, and I'm satisfied with my beliefs. John has raised good questions and I may yet be shown the error of my ways. :-) (Sometimes smileys, just like exclamation points, are justified.)
I have to support Black Unicorn's use of the courts. Really, what choices were available?
So, I, for one, think Black Unicorn took the best and most reasonable approach. I'd be very interested in which course (or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that the anarchists feel would be reasonable...
Let's see. I didn't read the thread in question but am reasonably familiar with the unsavory debating tactics of Mr. Tmp from other discussions. As I understand it, Mr. Unicorn and Mr. Tmp, their true identities safely concealed behind their respective handles, engaged in a minor flame war and major ass-kicking contest related to the topics of crypto, privacy, and nasty authoritarian governments. Mr. Tmp, following his usual modus operandi, engaged in some reasonably clever hand-waving, out-of-context quoting, misdirection, and misrepresentation at the expense of a number of people, including Mr. Unicorn. All this would have been water under the bridge were it not for the fact that Mr. Unicorn, who is wont to travel in circles considerably more conservative than most of his political writings, inadvertantly disclosed his identity in the thread while showing a friend how to use Usenet. Certainly this blunder was no fault of Mr. Tmp. Ultimately, as a consequence of this leak, certain business associates of Mr. Unicorn, with no knowlege of Usenet or the context of the discussion, were exposed to portions of it and the identity of Mr. Unicorn was disclosed. Again no fault of Mr. Tmp. Said business associates, being relatively anal upper-class European types with a great respect for authority, were singularly unamused by Mr. Unicorn's political views and the even worse things falsely attributed to him by Mr. Tmp in the heat of discussion. Mr. Unicorn became worried that his business might suffer as a consequence. Since I personally believe that one should not discriminate in doing business based on someones political beliefs, I would certainly characterize this as a moral failure on the part of Mr. Unicorn's business associates, and not the fault of Mr. Tmp. Finally, Mr. Unicorn, mustering all the legal and financial resources at his disposal, threatens to skewer Mr. Tmp for alleged libel, and Mr. Tmp, lacking similar resources and unable to risk a courtroom defeat, is forced to go on Usenet and publicly eat you-know-what with a large wooden spoon. Since Mr. Tmp is not well-liked in the Cypherpunk community, response to this sorted tale consists mostly of praise for Mr. Unicorn, and silence by those who might have been critical, but who don't want Mr. Unicorn to treat them the same way. I don't think there are any heros in this story. I think it is a dark day for freedom of expression in general and Usenet in particular. In the past, I have engaged in lots of heated discussions on many hot-button topics, on Usenet and in many other forums, sometimes under my own name, and occasionally under a pseudonym. I have been called many vile things along the way, and have had my views on occasion misrepresented far more cleverly than Mr. Tmp could imagine or articulate. Nonetheless, if I found myself losing work because an unpopular view of mine came to light, filing a lawsuit against another Usenet poster would be just about the last thing I would think of doing. Particularly if the discussion took place under a pseudonym and I was the person who had broken my own anonymity. Antics like this threaten the entire concept of Usenet as a reputation-based cooperative anarchy. The solution to Mr. Tmp is to put him in your killfile, not sue him into submission. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
<In mail Mike Duvos said:>
Said business associates, being relatively anal upper-class European types with a great respect for authority, were singularly unamused by Mr. Unicorn's political views and the even worse things falsely attributed to him by Mr. Tmp in the heat of discussion. Mr. Unicorn
The key is falsely attributed to him by tmp@netcom.com.
became worried that his business might suffer as a consequence. Since I personally believe that one should not discriminate in doing business based on someones political beliefs, I would certainly characterize this as a moral failure on the part of Mr. Unicorn's business associates, and not the fault of Mr. Tmp.
Granted, tmp is not responsible for so called moral failures on the part of European business associates of Uni's BUT tmp IS responsible for damaging Uni's reputation by making it look as if he said things that tmp couldn't prove he had said. If Uni lost a 7 figure business deal because tmp attributed a comment to Uni that Uni didn't make then tmp is definitely guilty of damaging Uni's character and SHOULD be sued... The bottom line is that when you play on the net and flame each other that is one thing, but when your games cause someone's business and real-life character to be damaged then you are playing in the real world and the name of the game there is SUE, RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS, and TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
Antics like this threaten the entire concept of Usenet as a reputation-based cooperative anarchy. The solution to Mr. Tmp is to put him in your killfile, not sue him into submission.
Who defined the concept? I think of Usenet as a cooperative anarchy on the technological level of how it works, but as far as what people say I consider it to be a means of communication no different than speaking in public or on the telephone. If I say terrible things about you on a mail list message it should be no different than if I say it in a crowded room of your business associates. Putting tmp@netcom.com in a kill file will be fine if his influence on your world is confined to the screen, but when he starts costing you potentially millions of dollars it is an entirely different situation. I don't think that kill file of yours will pay Uni's house mortgage or food bill! I suppose we all could use this as an opportunity to see how well our anarchist, freedom of speech, privacy, encryption ideas mesh with the 'real world'. Jim -- Tantalus Inc. Jim Sewell Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ P.O. Box 2310 Programmer Internet: jims@mpgn.com Key West, FL 33045 C-Unix-PC Compu$erve: 71061,1027 (305)293-8100 PGP via email on request. 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3 C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73
Mike Duvos scripsit
I have to support Black Unicorn's use of the courts. Really, what choices were available?
So, I, for one, think Black Unicorn took the best and most reasonable approach. I'd be very interested in which course (or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that the anarchists feel would be reasonable...
Let's see. I didn't read the thread in question but am reasonably familiar with the unsavory debating tactics of Mr. Tmp from other discussions.
As I understand it, Mr. Unicorn and Mr. Tmp, their true identities safely concealed behind their respective handles, engaged in a minor flame war and major ass-kicking contest related to the topics of crypto, privacy, and nasty authoritarian governments. Mr. Tmp, following his usual modus operandi, engaged in some reasonably clever hand-waving, out-of-context quoting, misdirection, and misrepresentation at the expense of a number of people, including Mr. Unicorn.
All this would have been water under the bridge were it not for the fact that Mr. Unicorn, who is wont to travel in circles considerably more conservative than most of his political writings, inadvertantly disclosed his identity in the thread while showing a friend how to use Usenet. Certainly this blunder was no fault of Mr. Tmp.
Ultimately, as a consequence of this leak, certain business associates of Mr. Unicorn, with no knowlege of Usenet or the context of the discussion, were exposed to portions of it and the identity of Mr. Unicorn was disclosed. Again no fault of Mr. Tmp.
Said business associates, being relatively anal upper-class European types with a great respect for authority, were singularly unamused by Mr. Unicorn's political views and the even worse things falsely attributed to him by Mr. Tmp in the heat of discussion. Mr. Unicorn became worried that his business might suffer as a consequence. Since I personally believe that one should not discriminate in doing business based on someones political beliefs, I would certainly characterize this as a moral failure on the part of Mr. Unicorn's business associates, and not the fault of Mr. Tmp.
Finally, Mr. Unicorn, mustering all the legal and financial resources at his disposal, threatens to skewer Mr. Tmp for alleged libel, and Mr. Tmp, lacking similar resources and unable to risk a courtroom defeat, is forced to go on Usenet and publicly eat you-know-what with a large wooden spoon.
Since Mr. Tmp is not well-liked in the Cypherpunk community, response to this sorted tale consists mostly of praise for Mr. Unicorn, and silence by those who might have been critical, but who don't want Mr. Unicorn to treat them the same way.
I don't think there are any heros in this story. I think it is a dark day for freedom of expression in general and Usenet in particular.
In the past, I have engaged in lots of heated discussions on many hot-button topics, on Usenet and in many other forums, sometimes under my own name, and occasionally under a pseudonym. I have been called many vile things along the way, and have had my views on occasion misrepresented far more cleverly than Mr. Tmp could imagine or articulate.
Nonetheless, if I found myself losing work because an unpopular view of mine came to light, filing a lawsuit against another Usenet poster would be just about the last thing I would think of doing. Particularly if the discussion took place under a pseudonym and I was the person who had broken my own anonymity.
Antics like this threaten the entire concept of Usenet as a reputation-based cooperative anarchy. The solution to Mr. Tmp is to put him in your killfile, not sue him into submission.
-- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
-- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
From: dwomack@runner.jpl.utsa.edu (David L Womack) Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 12:16:44 -0500 (CDT) Even the religiously inclined don't advocate turning the other cheek ad inifinitum... Oh? Methinks you don't know the context of what Jesus said. At that time, only citizens hit each other with their fists. Slaves were hit with the back of the hand. The penalty for hitting someone with a fist was much greater than backhanding them. In a predominantly right-handed society, slaves got backhanded on the right cheek. Now how do you backhand someone after they've turned the other cheek? You can't -- you can only strike them like a citizen. And in the same context, Jesus told his followers to carry a soldier's pack for two miles if they were asked to carry it for one. The Roman soldiers were allowed to impress citizens to carry their packs for no more than a mile. Any more and they were fined. So Jesus was telling his followers to cause trouble for soldiers by making them beg for their packs back. And in the same context, poor people had no collateral to borrow money except the clothes on their back, that is, inner and outer robes. A person could borrow against the value of their outer robes. And of course, if they didn't pay back their debt, they had their outer robe taken from them. Now, the outer robe was necessary to keep from freezing at night, so this was a problem! So Jesus told his followers that, when someone sued them for their outer robe, to give them their inner robe as well. At the time, nudity was shameful to the *viewer*, so this caused great consternation. Jesus didn't expect his followers to suffer fools gladly, but neither did he ask them to use violence against them. -russ <nelson@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
participants (9)
-
Black Unicorn -
dwomack＠runner.utsa.edu -
Jim Sewell -
jkreznar＠ininx.com -
mpd＠netcom.com -
nelson＠crynwr.com -
NetSurfer -
Perry E. Metzger -
Sandy Sandfort