Why are there so many statists and communists here on this list now?

[Tyler Durden]

"people who use encryption technology to make statism impossible"

I just think that's too grandiose a statement. In my particular case,

"People who use encryption technology to make interference in my personal 
communications impossible", where interference is defined as eavesdropping, 
jamming, "man-in-the-middle" and so on. In other words, an infinitely hard 
titanium pipe between me and who/whatever is on the other side.

As for the state, well, it may come or go as a result of secure 
communications. I suspect it will find a way to stick around. But if heavy 
crypto proliferates it will force it to change, at the very least.

But the state is secondary. If they get out of my way (or if by technology I 
push them out of the way) for the important stuff, fine.

But then again, the implications of further terrorist attacks (and the 
reasons) may be relevant here, but one must tread very carefully on any 
public board.....

-TD

"I used to be in favor of gun control prior to the Patriot Act."
-Tyler Durden






>From: Matt Beland <matt at rearviewmirror.org>
>To: cypherpunks at lne.com
>Subject: Re: Why are there so many statists and communists here on this   
>list  now?
>Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 16:50:08 -0700
>
>On Friday 02 May 2003 04:14 pm, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
> > I think my analogy is good.  I think your error is displayed by your
> > analogy.  In your example, both groups are astronomers.
> >
> > In the current situation on this list, both groups are _not_ 
>cypherpunks,
> > if you accept the definition of cypherpunks as "people who use 
>encryption
> > technology to make statism impossible."  If you don't accept that
> > definition, that's fine, but I think my definition is consistent with
> > the history of the list, and my guess is that Tim would agree.  And he's
> > the one who asked the question in the first place.  I think it's a good
> > question, and I'm curious to hear the answer from one of the folks it's
> > aimed at.
>
>Accepting your definition for a moment, your analogy is still flawed 
>because
>it assumes one group is rejecting science altogether, where here the two
>groups simply arrive at different conclusions from the same data.
>
>But in fact, I don't completely agree with your definition. A Cypherpunk is
>one who is interested in the technology and use of encryption, and the 
>social
>and political effects thereof. One definition assumes a conclusion, one
>definition defines a group in search of a conclusion.
>
>And really, my question would remain valid in either case. IF this list is 
>to
>be the home of any sort of useful discussion, then the discussion must
>include both sides of the issue. Otherwise you don't have discussion, you
>have dogma.
>
> > You left statists out of your list, unless you were including them when
> > you said "cranks" and "gun control nuts".  The original question was 
>about
> > statists.
>
>Statists and communists both would be included in politician, Republican,
>Green, Democrat, Libertarian, crank (though not only statists and 
>politicians
>fit there) and gun control nut. Just pick the flavor that matches the 
>label.
>
> > Some interesting people have left.  Other interesting people have
> > joined and are contributing.
>
>And being railed at as statists and communists. Oh, some interesting people
>have joined on the other side, as well - but again, what value in one-sided
>discussion?
>
>--
>Matt Beland
>matt at rearviewmirror.org
>http://www.rearviewmirror.org


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail