L&J: Libertarians

[Jean-Francois Avon]

On 23 Jun 96 at 22:21, s1113645 at tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote:

> David Friedman (<http://www.best.com/~ddfr>

Thanks for the reference

> > Anybody who discuss it openly on the net and plan to implement it will
> > get killed by governments (pick your favorite one).  I find it very

> You don't see death
> squads going after old anti-government Milton Friedman, do you?

I guess I made myself misunderstood.  I meant to reply to Jim Bell 
mentionning that he would like to see some peoples interested in 
discussing the implementation of AP.  It is very different than just 
talking about (against) govt.

> No offense meant, but have a couple of Valiums, J-F. 

No. No offense meant, but you are wrong here. Did you read
Assasination Politics?  By the nature of it, govt employees will get
killed and *this* warrant trying to kill everybody they would
suspect of setting up an AP server.


> > And communicating with each other with PGP without remailers would
> > probably put us instantly on a hit list.  To quote a famous french

> Use a nym. I do.
No offense, but please, re-read the paragraph.  That is exactly what 
I meant...

 
> They already have such a thing. <snip> After all, Cypress Hill,
> Hyperreal.com, High Times and The Economist are still in business.

Did you read the AP essay?  I don't think so otherwise you wouldn't 
have commented in that sense.  What you say is true but IMO, AP is 
absolutely different from The Economist.  Remember, it entails 
asassination of govt employees...
 
> > C'Punks has a total cumulative
> > subscription of, say, 10000 (out of the blue number), which represent
> Closer to 1000. Send a "who cypherpunks" to majordomo at toad.com

I did not say "subscription", but "cumulative subscription".  I think 
that C'Punks is having around 1500 subscribers theses days.

> ;-) In the past little while 
<snip>

Interesting and good luck for the future!

> I really do think it's necessary for people to read a good book
<snip> 

wholehartedly agreed
 
> The subject of "anarchy vs. statism" doesn't really have much to do with
> politics, really. It's all economics.
<snip>

Somehow agreed.

Regards

JFA