Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife's Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

J.A. Terranson measl at
Tue Dec 21 04:31:54 PST 2004

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:

> Well, there's a TINY little hole in your logic here...
> >Scale of distance is the only difference.  Either you support the system
> >or you don't.  I don't: I either drive to jobs (charging for mileage) or I
> >pass on them, rather than take part in the police state that is todays air
> >system.  You have the very same choices.  The argument eveyone is making
> >here is that it is too much of an inconvenience (financial or otherwise),
> >*not* to fly.  Sorry, but that's just pure self-serving BS.
> For one, Flying can easily be a requirement, not an option.

You keep asserting this, but at the same time fail to provide an example.
Please show how flying "can easily be a requirement, not an option".  One
legitimate example will suffice.

> But that's besides the point here.

No - that's the entire point here.

> The real point is that some Super-JAT could (5 years from now when there are
> ubiquitous highway checkpoints) argue that "walking from NYC to Boston may
> be difficult but it IS possible". Or of course (after Tenent's vision for
> the internet is realized) "You could simply Fedex those files, you don't
> need to use the internet"

So, your position is that we should not take action now, because we may
have to take the same action later?

If people would assert their economic powers today through refusal to fund
the airlines, the same threat would prevent your example from being
possible in the future.  The only reason your "walking" scenario is even a
little plausible is because TheMan/G'mint/etc., knows that there will be
no pushback on *any* front.

Also, not that while airlines are heavily regulated, they are not
(theoretically at least) publicly funded, and as such, your "right" to use
them is limited - whereas roads are public property, and will be a lot
harder to place prohibitions upon.  A real boycott of airlines would take
only days to bring both the airlines and the TSA to it's knees - the
economic impact would be both national in scope and immediate in effect:
you can make no legitimate argument for not addressing the TSA problem
head on.


J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at

 Civilization is in a tailspin - everything is backwards, everything is
upside down- doctors destroy health, psychiatrists destroy minds, lawyers
destroy justice, the major media destroy information, governments destroy
freedom and religions destroy spirituality - yet it is claimed to be
healthy, just, informed, free and spiritual. We live in a social system
whose community, wealth, love and life is derived from alienation,
poverty, self-hate and medical murder - yet we tell ourselves that it is
biologically and ecologically sustainable.

The Bush plan to screen whole US population for mental illness clearly
indicates that mental illness starts at the top.

Rev Dr Michael Ellner

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list