Windows XP Professional will be only $39.95 !!! smatter
Continued claims, the number of people out of work for a week or more, rose slightly to 3.06 million in the week ended Mar. 6, the latest data available, from 3.02 million the prior week. "We have what we believe is an effective way to do it but we don't know it's effective until we test it," he said. The AU wants the pan-African assembly, modelled on the European Union parliament, to give Africans a bigger voice in how they are governed, officials said. Directors and actresses speak candidly about body image, nude scenes, age and the tendency to glorify sex scenes. Continued claims, the number of people out of work for a week or more, rose slightly to 3.06 million in the week ended Mar. 6, the latest data available, from 3.02 million the prior week. The parliament, expected to evolve into the law-making arm of the AU, will provide a venue for debates on matters such as human rights, democracy, culture and good governance. But significant challenges to GPRA implementation exist. Specifically, federal managers have had difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on results, and linking performance measurements and reward systems. In addition, the report found that there has been an inadequate focus on addressing program areas that cut across federal agencies.
Cheaap Soft 0fferz - big discouunts ! stumpage
Ron James, president and chief executive officer of the Center for Ethical Business Cultures; Gregory Poulson, senior vice president of Intermountain Health Care; Gwendolyn Galsworth, president of Quality Methods International Inc.; and Andrew Fujimoto, chief executive officer of AmeriBen/IEC Group. Klainberg and Reticker's film takes a comprehensive and interesting look at women in the film business, though sometimes the documentary seems to be taking on too much and the directors would be better served by a narrower focus. "We focused on independent films essentially by default. In doing our research, it's where most women's careers were fostered and developed. Also, it's where women were greeted on an open playing field," Klainberg said. But significant challenges to GPRA implementation exist. Specifically, federal managers have had difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on results, and linking performance measurements and reward systems. In addition, the report found that there has been an inadequate focus on addressing program areas that cut across federal agencies. Directors and actresses speak candidly about body image, nude scenes, age and the tendency to glorify sex scenes. The Homeland Security Task Force is composed of governors, mayors, county officials, tribal leaders and other senior officials with first-hand experience in homeland security issues and will operate under the aegis of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and its State and Local Officials and Emergency Response Senior Advisory Committees. Massachusetts Ron James, president and chief executive officer of the Center for Ethical Business Cultures; Gregory ! Poulson, senior vice president of Intermountain Health Care; Gwendolyn Galsworth, president of Quality Methods International Inc.; and Andrew Fujimoto, chief executive officer of AmeriBen/IEC Group.
Mail delivery failure
Sent RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received 550 5.1.1 unknown or illegal alias: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could not deliver mail to this user. [EMAIL PROTECTED] * End of message *** ---BeginMessage--- If the message will not displayed automatically, follow the link to read the delivered message. Received message is available at: www.peopledaily.com.cn/inbox/zhenman/read.php?sessionid-28885 ** Message from InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT ** ** WARNING! Attached file message.scr contains: WORM_NETSKY.P virus It has been deleted. * End of message *** ---End Message---
Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
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 say, I in no way called for any
corporate vs. state, TD's education
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.
Mac OS X XGrid, anyone?
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 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 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, TD's education
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/dialuppgmarket=en-usST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
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: no photography, no questions, no rights
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
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.
hi :) im amy
Title: 5xT7e755qcC5Z6DX2tvVqu Hey im amy and i'd love for you to see me on webcam. visit the page.I realized I was a special tree. They cut me into smaller sheets of paper.To get off our listings - press here.
Spectator registration
Thank you for registering with the Spectator. Please click the following link to complete the registration process. If your email does not show any link, please go to the following web address: http://www.spectator.co.uk/confirm.php?id=26690rd=33089
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
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
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 ethnic, 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
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
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, TD's education
[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 (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
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
-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 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 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'
¾¯¸æ£ºÄã¿ÉÄÜÓÐÒ»·â
The Declude Virus software on megasii.com has reported that you sent an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], containing the Unknown Virus virus in the Unknown File attachment. The subject of the E-mail was Re: Hello. The E-mail containing the virus has been quarantined to prevent further damage. Headers Follow: Received: from megasii.com [211.94.143.199] by snsun.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id AFEB2D004F6; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:05:31 +0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hello Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:13:54 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary==_NextPart_000_0007_6B9A.6202 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [Õâ·âÓʼþÒÑͨ¹ý²¡¶¾¼ì²â]
Headset mp3 player comes out with a very good price!
Dear friends, Good day! Just a short message from HY Technology Co, Ltd. We just updated our Mp3 players with internal FM radio function to support 8 languages, English, Chinese, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Czech, Swede. From now on, our BX1002Na, BX1002Nd and BXKing can come with internal FM radio function and support 8 languages also. The price is only 50 USD for 128M and 68 USD for 256M. By the way, did you get our introduction about our latest Mp3 player--Butterfly, the headset Mp3 player? The Mp3 IC and pc board are already installed in headphone. You can enjoy music completely free now, without any wire around you! The price is only 54 USD for 128M and 75 USD for 256M. We have 20 kings of mp3 players to satisfy your demand. And the smallest mp3 player in the world- BXDIOMAND! If you need catalogue and price list, please kindly tell us and we will send them to you. Looking forward to any comment from you. Have a nice day! Emma HY Technology (Hong Kong) Company Ltd.
Re: corporate vs. state
-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 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 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
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Mar-21-Sun-2004/opinion/23315158.html 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 unsuccessful
Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The following address(es) failed: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: host listonos.foe.co.uk [193.114.240.30]: 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... User unknown -- This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. -- Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from trupppv92-227-226.inet.co.th ([203.151.227.226] helo=foe.co.uk) by relay2.mail.uk.psi.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1B6iUq-0007iI-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:59:04 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Private document Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:59:20 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary==_NextPart_000_0016=_NextPart_000_0016 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0016=_NextPart_000_0016 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I cannot believe that. +++ Attachment: No Virus found +++ Bitdefender AntiVirus - www.bitdefender.com --=_NextPart_000_0016=_NextPart_000_0016 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=about_you_timr.pif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=about_you_timr.pif TVqQAAME//8AALgAQAAA YA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hV2luZG93cyBQcm9ncmFtDQokUEUAAEwBAwAA AADgAA8BCwEEcgAgAQAAECAAQAAAEAIAAAQA BAAAMAEAAAQCAAAQAAAQABAAABAQ AAD0IAEAawCwAABobQAA dACgEAAA AADgAADAAHRhcLAAAHRvBAAA4AAAwABh ABAgAQAAAgIAAOAAAMAFBAYEAQDOIUAAAgAAQG4M AABAAABAAAC70AFAAL8AEEAAviwcQQBT6AoC0nUFihZG EtLD/LKApGoCW/8UJHP3M8n/FCRzGDPA/xQkcyGzAkGwEP8UJBLAc/l1P6rr3OhDK8t1 EOg46yis0eh0QRPJ6xyRSMHgCKzoIgAAAD0AfQAAcwqA/AVzBoP4f3cCQUGVi8WzAVaL 9yvw86Re65YzyUH/VCQEE8n/VCQEcvTDX1sPtztPdAhPdBPB5wzrB4t7AleDwwRDQ+lR X7soIUEAR4s3r1f/E5UzwK51/f4PdO/+D3UGR/83r+sJ/g8PhKLw/v9XVf9TBAkGrXXbi+zD HCEBNCEBACghAQAAAEAhAQBOIQEAAEAh AQBOIQEAAEtFUk5FTDMyLmRsbAAATG9hZExpYnJhcnlBAABHZXRQcm9jQWRkcmVzcwDr AAEAAgAYAQCAKAAAgAMAAABAAACADgAAAGAAAIEA ZQAAAHgAAIIAAQAAAJAAAIACqAAAgAEA AAAmAQCAwAAAgQAHBAAA2QAHBAAA 6QAHBAAA+QAHBAAACAEAADCx aABEGQEA6AIAMEAAACgBADAZAQAi AAAGAEIASQBOAEEAUgBZAAEAMABrfWaFlBWtHdaU3cSJ5jkxSa21WPCT lzJZK9HA/RaOTkibC/U7SahjXd4/321otIeaqs3c98FEgSkIG0C6ODBOmsur3t5wGFBqh50K ds6TPEgjC6CdNZN7rjIV8vVYEeYEudN7R75kOiMW8iMOucg+gAgTXuypw1pQ+ca7eliihvH+ BKZOhikSH0oRAfDprm0Vh687q8QC/ZmshNoRyjjQjMemK1iKjEvkj8KBP4/d0gQrjoViQVpc RCQCofUL//pjNEcThyvQrFIhYOB29tPY/yF8mWd97Pk/bNiiP2WUW+j2DTqnFxOp9dMi6sWw nvjkyggxsi4BkiGP2II4tZ6x1rLKgUZ8XsW+9S/Ji25/hCze1WlfWwiU3UCXYzryPnJEh8or O18rjsHmyS6iSx58HvJ7SFS2KoUB065NYMOkJXQG7YFuOKmLZz6kIEHBlhsaL6fX2L2O7wDx 9kimzvhSeVIJise//UQYlGGngOYO+cK8/R3Dtl1ZsiPgXbQvX4G3M5dPL2tRQT3SqssXE6+c RPIrIgjovkwjDS+TuzwDO5ZxT9aMdcoLPL4mlf+QoY4aadfuOJzaTxc8hPOBOwwHftPYKcgl kil/IX4MHqULV82GzO85GtjqghWLg/Nnom7XI9tQycfRI2zCWjldmhV9ZjpG/XWq4UW4lJ05 +Tfr9wlX/1F596yCbQlgIqSy6YqsI1pPUpQdCV0IQVk8whLKDtufVb7pUszp8jvR3JOuBudv jIg6ebOdnVJErWJhPY+YbUwHwgDlTEjwkU7rh4l3fuCDsZSUzOn1l5dTlVyVr8ZAxcqsJY5H 8V0Ln7vLpmfbROjSSDuPdsue4VP7+0ERbOcAiSSgdYdO8VDOM1YrXWVhYvE9XCXLiDDLs36G aT30K6RL0rnD08Z0CeM6ckHihP+aGF0/tXGVFf19BUQ3vMTUWRmeuKC0wa3d5LplEH2g5TdO jyxo7lgVHrl3ftEVRqrJ+nDkM7GnZXXbmni/tiHc4py7ambMO/fWbb58X9DgdZr2MIalUuFk eM/C83YVcKxDCMlC1pKlhc+jwYYKdvz8dBXG5h0f1XKPyRkeXyPzHQGdovzgyf6FrmJo5PmO AQgAYBpMxKHsV2LQiUCfZxP2xWAs4K74rcAes5vdVqBXYeXeFADCX47amOz6o2FpOAE2W1A1 Zacc/sWcQrpGNGbPzJedST7hJMXZJVKNy7LLBP2V90UwX7IHSyhFxPPTlRpdlJtxYLAU3s+E ekcFyTLIwRYHVjWm16JZXIxAhQROCT/c+L5SU8juIBBaGTg21xUr52qxnAfzmZdzLksQUE+0 vr6WcDtbfnRz4lhVzqCXLuEPlcGOB25srOGhtfZXA0llkT5irGdOIYJdpth4ywJlkp4tZzMw gzWFTY/+U0A/e4Q30iVwhPG4rXCk+CakG0ZZe48xZDriMjSo+R7+LHYI6nu34GDLQyJD8Kfb x4+7coaLSI86T8fhZbtiUi0l02A582HFQrAyBI3aPmQs/2UHgqm3oeH5Q2YHwraT+ZCHz+RL 6RkZkj6zuNhdMeK/YDD6hyzsbrnX/5b7Hu7U+hNtkbC8ptcin0sBLQk0qVQikf3q/5bji4Tz
Report to Recipient(s)
Incident Information:- Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Recipients: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender The file mime001.txt (about_you_timr.pif) you received was infected with the W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ED) virus and was deleted.
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
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
Pre-qualify, and apply for home [loans] and [mortgages]
Today is a new day for your residence. With levels at their headline-making historic lows, our programs are better now than ever before. Even if you've recently closed on a property, now is the time to check your numbers. Our advisors are here to help you decide your options. In fact, did you know that a 30 year fixed program may not always be the best option? There are other ways to do it, and we would like to tell you about it. Find out what all your neighbors are talking about: http://activesaving.com/?partid=98235 Future reference options: http://activesaving.com/st.html
Re: corporate vs. state
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?
Extreme Markup Languages Conference 2004
Two kinds of information are necessary for human life on this planet: (1) Genetic information. No batteries required. (2) Everything else, i.e., civilization. Batteries required. Please be welcome to participate in the 11th annual Extreme Markup Languages Conference -- August 2-6, 2004 -- Hotel Europa Montreal, Canada www.extrememarkup.com As always, it's a family gathering for rubber-meets-the-road technical luminaries interested in doing a better job of supporting civilization. Come share your light, and be brightened, too. You'll be glad you did, and not only because Montreal in August is great fun. Peer-reviewed paper submissions are due -- April 16, 2004 -- Submission guidelines: http://www.mulberrytech.com/Extreme (e-mail questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Peer Reviewer Applications are due TODAY, Friday March 26, 2004. Tutorial Proposals are due TODAY, Friday March 26, 2004. -- Steve Steven R. Newcomb, Co-chair Extreme Markup Languages 2004 -- An IDEAlliance Event www.extrememarkup.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Coolheads Consulting http://www.coolheads.com direct: +1 540 951 9773 main: +1 540 951 9774 fax:+1 540 951 9775 208 Highview Drive Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 USA
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
This is what Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said about corporate vs. state, TD's education on 25 Mar 2004 at 9:16 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. Maybe in the good ol' USA, but apparently not so elsewhere. The following quote is from a CBC radio show, Dispatches, about 3/4 down the page at http://www.cbc.ca/dispatches/thisseason.html = Start quote = In the Congo,...a mining company can pay its taxes and fees to the local warlord, knowing full well that the money will be used to arm guerillas and kill more people. All perfectly legal. All perfectly immoral. That's a passage from the new book, Making A Killing: How And Why Corporations Use Armed Force To Do Business. Canadian author Madelaine Drohan has examined the corporate use of violence and private militias down through the years, and concludes, you can't trust corporations to wield armed force. While the cases she documents are all in Africa, in our interview she reminds us that Canada was opened up by British fur companies operating on the same principle. = End quote = The RealAudio transcript is at http://www.cbc.ca/dispatches/audio/031022_drohan.rm -- -- -- -- Bob Jonkman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
expiring bearer documents
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.
Anonymizer employees need killing
Anonymizer is working with the FBI on international blackmail cases - no subpoena required! From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36485.html : To download the online picture, he used the Anonymizer.com service, believing the companys privacy policy would protect him. Not so. Dutch police worked closely with the US company and the FBI to track him down. He was caught red-handed last year when he withdrew the money from a cash machine using his copy of the credit card. Which just goes to show that even criminal masterminds can make simple mistakes. The error, experts say, could have been easily avoided if the blackmailer had visited an internet cafe to download the encoded picture, rather than using his own PC. What's more, he paid for the Anonymizer service through Paypal, giving his personal email address. Fuck these sell-outs.
Re: corporate vs. state
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:43:53PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: 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? No, but if the club, as an entity, does such, you should be. If the corporation pollutes, all and sundry owners and employees should be equally liable. Or maybe liability adjusted to investment or wage, i.e., the biggest stockholders and highest paid employees get the longest sentences. The concept that no one is actually responsible for the criminal acts of a corporation is patently absurd. It means that they only recourse for justice is thru anarchistic action, guerilla warfare, and constant terrorism. Essentially a return to the dark ages -- just as we now see before us. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Time may be running out
Today is a new day for your residence. With levels at their headline-making historic lows, our programs are better now than ever before. Even if you've recently closed on a property, now is the time to check your numbers. Our advisors are here to help you decide your options. In fact, did you know that a 30 year fixed program may not always be the best option? There are other ways to do it, and we would like to tell you about it. Find out what all your neighbors are talking about: http://activesaving.com/?partid=98235 Future reference options: http://activesaving.com/st.html
Re: corporate vs. state
R. A. Hettinga (2004-03-26 02:20Z) wrote: blah blah (those nasty latin words ceterus paribus) blah blah Those nasty latin words are ceteris paribus. -- That woman deserves her revenge... and... we deserve to die. -- Budd, Kill Bill Vol. 1
no photography, no questions, no rights
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. snip http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_MICHAEL_JACKSON_CAOL-?SITE=CAANRSECTION=STATE --- In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the freelancer... Fuck you, Anderson III
RE: no photography, no questions, no rights
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. snip http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_MICHAEL_JACKSON_CAOL-?SITE=CAANRSECTION=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-uspage=hotmail/es2ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
no photography, no questions, no rights
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. snip http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_MICHAEL_JACKSON_CAOL-?SITE=CAANRSECTION=STATE --- In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the freelancer... Fuck you, Anderson III
corporate vs. state, TD's education
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.
Mac OS X XGrid, anyone?
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 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 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, TD's education
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/dialuppgmarket=en-usST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
