On 2014-10-09, Steve Furlong wrote:
As the US State Department classifies cryptography as a munition, shouldn't the use of cryptography be protected under the 2nd Amendment?
You're expecting consistency, logic, or even honesty from a government? Your naivete is so /cute/!
So is yours: obviously you can *have* and *use* it, it's just that you can't *export* it to the *terrorists* and the rest of the bad people who aren't you. Perfectly consistent. Of course perfectly fucked up from the viewpoint of a foreign libertarian like me as well. But it really is fully consistent, and it was so from the very start, right downto the basic classical liberal ideology I as well share: "there is only one correct law, it is universal, if you don't share it then you haven't Been Enlightened yet, and thus we for very good reason don't Mind you too much". "Till you join our movement of universal rationality..." So, then, as it's basically a valid argument, how about taking its contraposition? "As we then already know crypto is right, and it'ss used by precisely the right, righteous people all round, should it not be the case those who make a claim against are simply wrong." Should it not in fact be, that making a case against free crypto should be taken as a prima facie case of the speaker being a fascist, against democracy, a luddite, and an all-round bad guy? Out to get immortalized as the next Hitler? -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2