expiring bearer documents

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 09:20 PM 3/25/04 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>Fine. Make it cheaper. Moore's Law creates geodesic networks, so
>let's have geodesic internet bearer transactions.

Yesss!  Its only taken a month or so of plonklessness, and we've
got the geodesics back!

:-)

This recently occurred to me.  There is a type of bearer document
which is exactly like cash (anonymous, finder's keepers/spenders)
*except*
that it expires.  Its called a concert ticket.  The liquidators are
called
ticket agencies.  I suppose if I were more cultured this would
have occurred to me sooner.  Apologies if obvious.

Re: corporate vs. state

[R. A. Hettinga]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

First off, yes, corporations are creatures of the state. So, what
else is new?

They are an easy way to achieve limited liability. In the UK after
the South Sea Bubble popped (and in France, after the same thing
happened to the Mississippi Company did the same, see "Millionaire",
the story of John Law and the first central bank in France), they
banned joint stock companies and had to jump through many hoops to
get the same effect involving limited liability partnerships (trusts)
of various kinds.

After the US started to kick everyone's butt, the LSE and the Paris
Bourse woke up and changed the law.

Limited liability, fungible equity shares and efficient secondary
markets are still necessary if you want to raise lots of money to do
things with.

So far.

:-).

Cypherpunks are about using cryptography and code to replace law and
force-monopoly.

The way to do limited liability with financial cryptography is, of
course, fairly trivial in theory, and maybe we'll get to practice it
someday.

You do a Shamir secret-spilt of a key with m-of-n copies, and set n
to be a majority of m. Vote that key with a board, and you have a
board vote. Vote one or several keys to elect the board using
something like a zero-knowledge proof of knowledge with your
blind-signature bearer certificates to claim your key-pieces
according to the amount of shares you have.

Boom. An anonymously-voted limited liability business entity.

Look, ma. No state.

Kewl.

Cheers,
RAH

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQGOOdMPxH8jf3ohaEQIrKACgx1DycYtHxhjGAkQf0dr4xfhbMD4AoKfA
0bRl1o6zzdaD0euagd0RW6Yq
=Lxzq
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: corporate vs. state

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 12:39 AM 3/26/04 -, Frog wrote:
>Harmon Seaver wrote:
>>  each and every person involved in it should be liable.
>
>If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of violence,
are you liable for that act?

Excellent question.  The gestap^H^H^H^H Feds think you are --membership
in a group, some of the members of which perform violence, can get
you RICOd etc.  A rather clever form of intimidation on their part,
don't you think?

Of course, the reverse might also be applied.  Your ordinary govt clerk
might be
liable for the actions of her employer.

Is "just following orders" a legit defense?

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:46:29PM +, Justin wrote:
> 
> Why should it be impermissible for corporations to be "persons" under
> the law when parents can be "persons" on behalf of their minor children?

   Why should they be?

> 
> In both situations, one or more people are "persons" only to represent
> others.  Does a parent have any more right to act on behalf of others
> than a company does?
> 
> -- 

   No, why should they? 

-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: corporate vs. state

[R. A. Hettinga]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At 8:59 PM -0500 3/25/04, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>Boom. An anonymously-voted limited liability business entity.
>
>Look, ma. No state.

Oh. One more thing.

It'll *never* happen until the risk-adjusted (those nasty latin words
ceterus paribus) cost of doing so is *significantly* cheaper than
doing so with lawyers, legislatures and a monopoly composed of lots
of guys with guns.

Fine. Make it cheaper. Moore's Law creates geodesic networks, so
let's have geodesic internet bearer transactions.

I always throw around "three orders of magnitude" (divide the cost by
a thousand, for you philosophy majors out there :-)) as a WAG. It's
the price-point where I would wager that if functionally anonymous
bearer transactions were that cheap, for the same level of risk, that
book-entry transactions would go the way of the intaglio bearer bond,
armored transport of same, and clearing house vaults as a percentage
of modern total transactions by transaction count and dollar volume.

Cheers,
RAH

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQGOTdMPxH8jf3ohaEQLqXACgiX2eC2A/1Xf4DkuND8c4bRHlqh8AniZM
iqYVYT+FN2U5RhXar8V7SvBG
=pRTZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Air-drop them on the Rat Islands

[R. A. Hettinga]

Sunday, March 21, 2004
 Las Vegas Review-Journal

 VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Part II: Air-drop them on the Rat Islands




Last time, we were answering Michael's e-mail inquiry: "I would like to
know what alternative you propose when saying we should do away with
prisons."

 We started by suggesting the retroactive repeal of every law enacted since
1912.

 Was murder illegal by 1912? Of course. Rape? Of course. Kidnapping, armed
robbery, bunko fraud? All serious criminal behaviors had been outlawed by
1912. So why have the number of lawbooks on the shelf multiplied tenfold in
the past 92 years?

 Release everyone jailed on a drug law (unknown before 1916), for income
tax evasion (impossible before 1913), for any kind of illegal possession of
or commerce in firearms (laws unimagined a century ago), or for violating
any kind of regulatory scheme or edict erected since 1912, and the federal
prisons would be virtually empty, while even the state pens would probably
see their populations cut in half.

 Of course, repealing all those laws enacted since 1912 would have another
huge benefit: In the process, we'd eliminate the welfare state.

 Stop subsidizing drunkenness and sloth, and the darndest thing happens:
People have to go to work. And people busy working to support themselves
have far less time to commit crimes. (Don't tell me no jobs would be
available. By repealing all laws enacted since 1912, we'd be repealing
virtually all the ordinances that currently outlaw many jobs, including the
minimum wage laws, the laws which make it illegal for strong young men of
15 to help support their families, OSHA, and the EEOC ... just for
starters.)

 Get rid of the welfare state, and most unmarried women would no longer be
able to afford to raise their children. They'd have to marry someone who
could help support them. Why, they might even have to (feminists may now
squint their eyes closed really hard) make some kind of unsavory deal with
such a man, in which they would agree to raise and school the kids, cook
some meals, and explicitly negotiate such other arrangements as were
anciently considered appropriate to "marriage."

 (No one is proposing this be made mandatory. Child-bearing is now
optional. We're just tired of being taxed to support other people's brats
without being in on the negotiations. Also note that with the end of the
taxes that now support the welfare state -- including the mandatory
government youth propaganda camps, cynically dubbed "public schools" -- a
second income would no longer be necessary to support a family. One spouse
could stay home to tutor the kids -- which spouse would be nobody else's
business.)

 And guess what? Members of stable married families tend to commit a lot
fewer crimes, especially if adult supervision is pretty much constant.

 By now our prison population has probably dropped by three-quarters. (What
was the incarceration rate before 1912?) To reduce it beyond that, we might
have to apply an optional death penalty to a lot more crimes, including
serious property crimes.

 What's an optional death penalty? The ancient Greeks knew. Either we're
going to execute you this weekend, or you can leave the country. For good.

 Send them to any land that would take them. If there are no takers, give
them a permanent tattoo (remember, they do have another option) -- a
red-white-and-blue target might work. Evacuate as far east as Dutch Harbor,
give them a 50-pound bag of beans and a book of matches, and air-drop them
into the Aleutian islands. The only catch is, if they ever come back, any
citizen who shoots and kills the bearer of one of those tattoos will
receive that $30,000 reward we were discussing last week.

 There are people willing to risk their lives to get into this country.
Doesn't it make sense to use exile from this country as a punishment for
sociopathic predators -- admitting some worthy Cuban or Romanian or Sri
Lankan in their place? I somehow suspect word would get back to their
street buddies that a life of crime in New Guinea or the Congo or the cold
and fogbound Rat Islands is nowhere near as pleasant. No cable TV. No
7-Elevens to knock over.

 Prison seems to hold few terrors for our growing professional criminal
class. So on top of being vastly expensive and not terribly humane, there's
not even much evidence that our prison system really "works."

 But it's a measure of the terminal decadence of our society that
"responsible people" simply bite their nails and simper, "Oh, woe is us.
What can we do but loot ever more money from the paychecks of the shrinking
productive class to lock up this ever-growing population of angry,
illiterate losers? Where on earth do you think they're coming from? We
didn't have this problem back before the government ran all the schools!"

 But anyone who proposes anything dramatically different from this status
quo is accused of being either a) an uns

Re: corporate vs. state

[Frog]

Harmon Seaver wrote:

>  If a "voluntary association" injures me, 

Associations - corporate or otherwise - are abstract, intangible entities.  They don't 
perform actions.  People do.

>  each and every person involved in it should be liable. 

If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of violence, are you liable 
for that act?

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[Justin]

Harmon Seaver (2004-03-25 23:06Z) wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:27:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > 
> > >Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say 
> > otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the 
> > slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to 
> > corporations.
> 
>Correct, that is unfortunate -- and it certainly is additional evidence (as
> if anyone needed more) that the Supremes are just another criminal gang. 

Why should it be impermissible for corporations to be "persons" under
the law when parents can be "persons" on behalf of their minor children?

In both situations, one or more people are "persons" only to represent
others.  Does a parent have any more right to act on behalf of others
than a company does?

-- 
That woman deserves her revenge... and... we deserve to die.
 -- Budd, "Kill Bill"

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[Justin]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-03-25 22:27Z) wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> 
> >Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say 
> otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the 
> slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to 
> corporations.

"Persons", not "humans".  Nobody has ever claimed that corporations are
human.

-- 
That woman deserves her revenge... and... we deserve to die.
 -- Budd, "Kill Bill"

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:27:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> 
> >Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say 
> otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the 
> slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to 
> corporations.

   Correct, that is unfortunate -- and it certainly is additional evidence (as
if anyone needed more) that the Supremes are just another criminal gang. 



-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: corporate vs. state

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:42:13PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> 
> 2. Humans don't lose their rights when they form voluntary associations.
> 
> That's all the corporate decisions are saying.
> 
Humans don't lose their rights, but they also shouldn't lose their
responsibility either. If a "voluntary association" injures me, each and every
person involved in it should be liable. 


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: corporate vs. state

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 05:27 PM 3/25/04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
>>Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.
>
>Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that
say
>otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the
>slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to
>corporations.

1. The 14th says that anything Congress is prohibited from doing, states

(and other local govs) are too.  Slavery is merely a historical aside.
(Were the 14th not there, California could ban speech, support
religions, deny the right to keep and bear arms..)

2. Humans don't lose their rights when they form voluntary associations.

That's all the corporate decisions are saying.

Unfortunately, the *opposite* is practiced.  I, as an individual, can
choose
not to hire , but a group of people together are threatened
with violence should they care to choose similarly.

Freedom isn't being able to do what you like, it's allowing someone else

to do or say something you hate and supporting their right to do so.
Marshall Clow

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[mfidelman]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:

>Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.

Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say 
otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the 
slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to 
corporations.

RE: corporate vs. state

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 02:02 PM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
>Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner.
>For one, in the old days Corporations regularly hired goons to mow down

>striking coalminers and whatnot.

You have no right to trespass simply because you once worked there.

Neither does anyone have a right to unreasonable force.

>OK, those days are all gone, right? Wrong. Halliburton and Bechtel have
both
>hired mercs for their Iraq operations.

Who gives a rat's ass about what someone does in a foreign land?
US law only applies in the US, despite the current US Regime's
behavior to the contrary.

And BTW, what is wrong with hired police ("mercs") esp. when the local
police don't work?   Do you have a problem with private security guards
in the US, as long as
they don't involve you in unconsensual transactions?  Do you have a
problem
with weaponsbearing citizens, again, if they don't involve you in
unconsensual transactions?

Note that if some company makes enemies overseas, its not the US as a
whole
that has earned the airplane-in-the-skyscraper feedback.   Its the
official US regime behavior that Gen. Washington warned about: Trade
with all, make treaties with none, and beware of foreign entanglements.


>However, a corporation doesn't actually have to hire the goons these
days in
>order to get the job done, not when it's much cheaper to call upon the
>publically-available pool of goons that function as a government in
some
>places.

Anyone who abuses the power of the (gullible) State to coerce others
deserves killing.

The fact that some corporations may leverage existing thuggery to
>get their job done doesn't make them any less complicit. But this is
all
>besides my main point...

Its not thuggery to protect your own property or freedoms.  If someone
is guilty of true thuggery --ie coercion-- then the State is obligated
to act to protect the thuggees.  The State only gets involved when a
transaction is not mutually consensual; if the State gets involved in
mutually consensual transactions the State deserves killing -er,
preemptive regime change.

RE: no photography, no questions, no rights

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 02:05 PM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
>"In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the
>freelancer...
>Fuck you, Anderson III"
>
>All he did was raise the prices of said photos, correct? Shit...I
should get
>on out there and make myself a fortune...

In practice, because markets are robust, and anonymity not so hard, yes.
:-)

However this is a classic case of the State using *violence* to
(wrongly) prohibit
behavior which is in fact protected.

You *don't* have a right to take pictures inside *my* walls if its
prohibited, since
its private property.   In my house or store, I can call for the State's
violence
against you if you do things I don't consent to.

But on public land, or from a private building in the area, no one
(incl.
the State's twerps like Anderson III) can prohibit such behavior,
as there is no right to privacy in public.

Excellent (and 'punkly) point about the market for information, though.

PS: I'd say the Streisand vs. Coastal Photographer lawsuit was a good
example of someone trying to abuse the State's violence by convincing
it that the Photog was somehow doing a wrong.  In that case the
Judge correctly decided that Streisand was full of shit.

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:02:25PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> >Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
> >you.
> >You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is
> >coercing you at gunpoint.
> 
> Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner.
> For one, in the old days Corporations regularly hired goons to mow down 
> striking coalminers and whatnot.
> 
   That's for sure -- you should read the history of the strike back around the
early 1900's on Minnesota's Iron Range. The goons would surround a whole small
town, then go from house to house beating *everyone*, even children, with
axehandles. Killed a lot of people too. 


> OK, those days are all gone, right? Wrong. Halliburton and Bechtel have 
> both hired mercs for their Iraq operations. (In fact, I was on a call a 
> couple of weeks ago where a Halliburton official was describing the 
> casualties they take on a regular basis. These don't get reported much in 
> the news, though, for obvious reason...)
> 
   Not to mention all the goons they still hire all over the 3rd world to break
strikes, kill organizers and labor leaders, etc. 


> However, a corporation doesn't actually have to hire the goons these days 
> in order to get the job done, not when it's much cheaper to call upon the 
> publically-available pool of goons that function as a government in some 
> places. The fact that some corporations may leverage existing thuggery to 
> get their job done doesn't make them any less complicit. But this is all 
> besides my main point...
> 
> 
> >PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could
> >be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too.  Doesn't
> >matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone.

   Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. Together we
could be a partnership, with 100K others we could be a partnership as
well. Corporations where the owners (shareholders) and employees are not liable
for the crimes and debts of the corp should be illegal. And there's nothing at
all socialistic or statist about that -- in fact, it's more that corporations
require statism to even exiest. 
   

> 
> Well, this is where I suspect a little knee-jerk. I'm no socialist: in no 
> way am I saying that "Corporations are inherently evil". (In fact, I'm 
> hoping to continue profiting admirably as the result of my participation in 
> the capitalist system.) What I think bares investigation is whether or not, 
> here in the US, a subset of the big corporations are so tied in with the 
> political engine as to be complicit in the violations we both agree are 
> occurring.
> 
> As Max said so eloquently, this is not to imply that "we should make some 
> laws and eliminate these big evil corporations". Or maybe it is (I 

Why not? If Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had their way,
corporations would be illegal in the US. 



-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

RE: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[Tyler Durden]

Ah Variola...do I detect a wee bit of Knee-jerk in your otherwise 
consistently iconoclastic views? Let's take a looksee...

Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
you.
You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is
coercing you at gunpoint.
Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner.
For one, in the old days Corporations regularly hired goons to mow down 
striking coalminers and whatnot.

OK, those days are all gone, right? Wrong. Halliburton and Bechtel have both 
hired mercs for their Iraq operations. (In fact, I was on a call a couple of 
weeks ago where a Halliburton official was describing the casualties they 
take on a regular basis. These don't get reported much in the news, though, 
for obvious reason...)

However, a corporation doesn't actually have to hire the goons these days in 
order to get the job done, not when it's much cheaper to call upon the 
publically-available pool of goons that function as a government in some 
places. The fact that some corporations may leverage existing thuggery to 
get their job done doesn't make them any less complicit. But this is all 
besides my main point...


PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could
be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too.  Doesn't
matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone.
Well, this is where I suspect a little knee-jerk. I'm no socialist: in no 
way am I saying that "Corporations are inherently evil". (In fact, I'm 
hoping to continue profiting admirably as the result of my participation in 
the capitalist system.) What I think bares investigation is whether or not, 
here in the US, a subset of the big corporations are so tied in with the 
political engine as to be complicit in the violations we both agree are 
occurring.

As Max said so eloquently, this is not to imply that "we should make some 
laws and eliminate these big evil corporations". Or maybe it is (I 
dunno...I'm a stoopid Cypherpunk...). But I don't think it's inherently 
inconsistent to point out that there may be a direct correlation between the 
activities of our particular State and the interests of a subset of Large, 
Old-money-dominated US Coporations.

-TD







>In fact, it's easy to argue that the
>current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting
a set
>of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I
think
>most Cypherpunks espouse.
The state can legitimately only use taxpayers' armies to defend citizens
in the
country, not other countries, not its perceived-by-some self-interest,
not
corporations.  All the oil colonialism is illegitimate for that reason,
as well
as illegal as Congress has not declared war.


_
Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! 
(Limited-time offer) 
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

RE: no photography, no questions, no rights

[Tyler Durden]

"In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the
freelancer...
Fuck you, Anderson III"
All he did was raise the prices of said photos, correct? Shit...I should get 
on out there and make myself a fortune...

-TD



From: "Major Variola (ret.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: no photography, no questions, no rights
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:27:58 -0800
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- On the eve of grand jury proceedings in the Michael
Jackson molestation case, the presiding judge of the Santa Barbara
courts barred pictures or communication with any prospective or final
panelists, or grand jury witnesses.
Superior Court Judge Clifford R. Anderson III did not mention Jackson's
name in his order Wednesday, but acknowledged a grand jury summoned this
week "has created significant media and public interest."
The order threatens to hold in contempt anyone who communicates with a
juror, prospective grand juror or witness - or reveals secret testimony.
It also prohibits photography of jurors or prospective jurors entering
and exiting the courthouse and "any other facility or property utilized
by the grand jury."
Media lawyers immediately protested, calling the order "overbroad and
unconstitutional prohibition of activity protected under the First
Amendment and California law." They said the courthouse and its environs
have long been recognized as a public forum.
"I've not seen an order so broad and so sweeping," said attorney
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents several media organizations
including The Associated Press.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_MICHAEL_JACKSON_CAOL-?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=STATE
---

In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the
freelancer...
Fuck you, Anderson III
_
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

Mac OS X XGrid, anyone?

[R. A. Hettinga]

I downloaded XGrid yesterday, fired it up here, and noticed that, among
other grid computing demo projects, it does factoring. :-).

Anyone out there want to play around with this, just to see how it works?

Contact me directly.

, BreadPudding

Cheers,
RAH

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

corporate vs. state, TD's education

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 10:26 AM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
>I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what
has
>been described as Crypto-Anarchy.

Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against
you.
You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is
coercing you at gunpoint.

The state, on the other hand, is entirely based on coercion.

If you can't appreciate this, you'll be hopelessly inconsistant.

PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could
be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too.  Doesn't
matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone.


>In fact, it's easy to argue that the
>current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting
a set
>of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I
think
>most Cypherpunks espouse.

The state can legitimately only use taxpayers' armies to defend citizens
in the
country, not other countries, not its perceived-by-some self-interest,
not
corporations.  All the oil colonialism is illegitimate for that reason,
as well
as illegal as Congress has not declared war.

no photography, no questions, no rights

[Major Variola (ret.)]

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- On the eve of grand jury proceedings in the Michael
Jackson molestation case, the presiding judge of the Santa Barbara
courts barred pictures or communication with any prospective or final
panelists, or grand jury witnesses.

Superior Court Judge Clifford R. Anderson III did not mention Jackson's
name in his order Wednesday, but acknowledged a grand jury summoned this
week "has created significant media and public interest."

The order threatens to hold in contempt anyone who communicates with a
juror, prospective grand juror or witness - or reveals secret testimony.
It also prohibits photography of jurors or prospective jurors entering
and exiting the courthouse and "any other facility or property utilized
by the grand jury."

Media lawyers immediately protested, calling the order "overbroad and
unconstitutional prohibition of activity protected under the First
Amendment and California law." They said the courthouse and its environs
have long been recognized as a public forum.

"I've not seen an order so broad and so sweeping," said attorney
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents several media organizations
including The Associated Press.


http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_MICHAEL_JACKSON_CAOL-?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=STATE

---

In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the
freelancer...
Fuck you, Anderson III

Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)

[Tyler Durden]

Max wrote...

"I mean, The Just-Us system's "only be for us peasants, right, massah?"."

Nice little lick there.

I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what has 
been described as Crypto-Anarchy. If large corporations in the US and the 
wealthy happen to ultimately drive the current roundup of civil rights, then 
they've effectively become the state that some Cypherpunks some vehemently 
despise. Pointing this out (or at least making the case that this is the 
state of affairs) should not by any means be equated with socialism (unless 
of course you actually believe the socialists who maintain this is an 
inherent byproduct of capitalism). In fact, it's easy to argue that the 
current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set 
of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think 
most Cypherpunks espouse.

-TD



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk  to 
the  FBI)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:30:17 -0500

[snide preposterous presumptions deleted to save space]

In response to "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

I did not in any way or form, either explicitly much less implicitly, make 
any claim for the expropriation of money from wealthy persons in any form, 
much less by the state.  Much as you'd like to presume that I am just some 
"socialist" and rant on from there; Whatever you feel you must do to avoid 
the point.

The point was that there are a thousand other injustices, such as civil 
asset forfeiture, which effect and have been effecting people of all 
economic strata for over a decade now (and a lot of other governmental 
connivances, such as RICO anti-racketeering, and drug prohibition, from 
which it was spawned).  Things that routinely effect not just the Martha 
Stewarts, or the so-called investor class. Things from which spring forth 
the presumptive powers which now also threaten the investor class, who had 
not resisted earlier and deeper erosions of their civil liberties.  Things 
about which the wealthy (and politicians) don't give a rats ass about, 
because they are a privileged class, by and large, and the laws generally 
are not applied equally to them as to others.  So why should they care?  
Until one of them has to take a fairly minor fall, and then it's crocodile 
tears, and poor Martha!  Oh the injustice of it all!  Screaming meamies, 
that oh God, how dare they apply the same laws against the wealthy they 
have been abusing the peasants and workers with all these years?!  The 
travesty of it!  You see, people like you only have a problem when you 
can't "buy your way out of trouble".  I mean, The Just-Us system's "only be 
for us peasants, right, massah?".

Martha is just a token sacrifice for appearances sake, to appease the 
masses and protect the status quo from any serious reform.  So Martha goes 
to Club Fed for a short stint, and business basically goes on as usual.  Is 
it Justice?  Nah, Just-Us.. maybe, especially if it maintains the privilege 
system intact and beyond serious scrutiny or reform.

It is rather telling that you have completely sidestepped anything I 
mentioned (aside from making false assumptions).

At 05:49 PM 3/24/2004, , "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

So, Max, as a socialist, an unwitting user of such lies as
"movement", or "(un)just state", as someone who believes that the
*earned* property of "the rich" should be confiscated, or that
There we go with nonsensical presumptions and stereotyping again.  I could 
pull out my own label for you my friend, but that would be really 
pointless.  I believe that earned property of ANY strata of society should 
be safe from arbitrary seizure or confiscation.  It is rather amusing how 
you have put words in my mouth which are not there, and then spend all your 
time kicking down your own non-existant straw man.

You want to mock "justness" of the laws of the State...? Well then, what is 
your beef about Martha then?  If the state is inherently a manifestation of 
unjust cronyism (as you seem to claim), does that become an argument that 
somehow we should NOT strive to make the system MORE uniformly just and 
therefore abuse of power less common and arbitrary?  I mean, that's just 
the way it is... but then, you shouldn't be whining about poor Martha.  
That's just the way States are, you know.  But I guess we come back to the 
double standard, and as long as the "wealth exemption" comes into play, 
then you really don't concern yourself with such an "inherently socialist" 
(as you might say) concept as JUSTICE?


"marketing" should be controlled by force, welcome to the other side
of the looking glass. The *real* side of the looking glass, I might
add, where the "justice" of the state is simply another not-so-polite
fiction to keep power.
Alas, you were so quick to falsely label me a socialist, that you did not 
read what I wrote.  Needless to