RE: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
> James A. Donald[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On 20 Dec 2002 at 19:26, William Warren wrote: > > voting keeps you free..voting is our way of controlling and > > shaping the government. > > No matter who you vote for, a politician always gets elected. > > > Those who do not exercise this duty do not deserve to > > complain about what goes on. > > By voting, you give the appearance of consent to what the > government does to you. > Non-voters are NOT viewed by those in power as protesting against the system. They are viewed as: a: People who are happy as fat with the way things are going. and b: People whose viewpoints can be totally ignored. So Jim, I think you have it exactly backwards. I vote. But I always vote for libertarian candidates if they are available (and they increasingly are), and against the incumbent if not (modulo some *very* local races where I actually have personalities to deal with, as opposed to spindoctored facades). Peter Trei
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
-- William Warren > voting keeps you free..voting is our way of controlling and > shaping the government. In http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_19/PT hy_Chap_19.html David Friedman explains why democracy does not work. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG EE2kJk6NPO8w6BAmEjpZ3C4Ebd+deCFguLnVxSim 4l1W1bAjtNXV2/66RWaY7NrrWziR17QbWSWW4V9Ib
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
-- On 20 Dec 2002 at 19:26, William Warren wrote: > voting keeps you free..voting is our way of controlling and > shaping the government. No matter who you vote for, a politician always gets elected. > Those who do not exercise this duty do not deserve to > complain about what goes on. By voting, you give the appearance of consent to what the government does to you. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG xmBBW56MrvFmh7U6fPSMDbyYqa+PTDPhTlRLmwmD 4cHSTvSFFo32sjmnBGPqe0vLtp3CfQhXyVLccQaXm
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
On Friday 20 December 2002 06:26 pm, William Warren wrote: > voting keeps you free..voting is our way of controlling and shaping the > government. Those who do not exercise this duty do not deserve to > complain about what goes on. I used to be in the non-voting > category..then i stopped and stepped out of life and looked at hte > gov't..and did not like it..i now vote...that is the way it should be..:) You're new here, aren't you ? -- Neil Johnson
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
James A. Donald wrote: -- Disney doesn't have the power to tell me what I may eat or smoke, except in their parks and on their property. On 20 Dec 2002 at 10:24, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: Now, imagine a Disney owning the whole of the land of the USA, and having armed forces the size of the USA. If a single corporation owned everything, then it would be a socialist government. If the US government was socialist, if it owned all or nearly all of the means of production. it would behave the same way all other socialist governments have acted -- it would engage in terror and mass murder. The fact that Disney, and lots of other groups own various small things makes me free. Voting does not make me free. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qikI/Zvu3HswGlLSZkKaevQ3pU6OY28ELljC0Jbd 4cAxIRdESGs/ZREaCsKc0sn3T8IF21aiD8Wwoy3Os -- May God Bless you and everything you touch. My "foundation" verse: Isiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
voting keeps you free..voting is our way of controlling and shaping the government. Those who do not exercise this duty do not deserve to complain about what goes on. I used to be in the non-voting category..then i stopped and stepped out of life and looked at hte gov't..and did not like it..i now vote...that is the way it should be..:) James A. Donald wrote: -- Disney doesn't have the power to tell me what I may eat or smoke, except in their parks and on their property. On 20 Dec 2002 at 10:24, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: Now, imagine a Disney owning the whole of the land of the USA, and having armed forces the size of the USA. If a single corporation owned everything, then it would be a socialist government. If the US government was socialist, if it owned all or nearly all of the means of production. it would behave the same way all other socialist governments have acted -- it would engage in terror and mass murder. The fact that Disney, and lots of other groups own various small things makes me free. Voting does not make me free. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qikI/Zvu3HswGlLSZkKaevQ3pU6OY28ELljC0Jbd 4cAxIRdESGs/ZREaCsKc0sn3T8IF21aiD8Wwoy3Os -- May God Bless you and everything you touch. My "foundation" verse: Isiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
RE: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
-- > > Disney doesn't have the power to tell me what I may eat or > > smoke, except in their parks and on their property. On 20 Dec 2002 at 10:24, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: > Now, imagine a Disney owning the whole of the land of the > USA, and having armed forces the size of the USA. If a single corporation owned everything, then it would be a socialist government. If the US government was socialist, if it owned all or nearly all of the means of production. it would behave the same way all other socialist governments have acted -- it would engage in terror and mass murder. The fact that Disney, and lots of other groups own various small things makes me free. Voting does not make me free. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qikI/Zvu3HswGlLSZkKaevQ3pU6OY28ELljC0Jbd 4cAxIRdESGs/ZREaCsKc0sn3T8IF21aiD8Wwoy3Os
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
>My intuition is that the government is going to be slightly fairer than, >for example, Disney. That's just a guess, though. > >Bruce > With an emphasis on "slightly" I might tend to agree but it looks more like the difference between liver cancer and kidney failure than it does the difference between perfect health and a cardiac arrest. As I age I find my eyesight is changing and I have a tougher time discerning government from corporate entities. ( en what? ). Who writes our legislation? Who controls what is said in our mass media? Dumbing down the population so that when they put on their thinking caps they'll choose a good screwing every time seems to be job #1. The pit is getting deeper and the guards on the edge are better armed every day. Think happy Christmas thoughts Think happy Christmas thoughts Think happy Christmas thoughts Think happy Christmas thoughts Think happy Christmas thoughts Ahhh, that's better, Mike
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
Bruce wrote: > My intuition is that the government is going to be slightly fairer than, > for example, Disney. That's just a guess, though. Governments have no restrictions on their conduct, aside from moderating it to the extent that they are not overthrown from within, or attacked by other governments. Governments cannot commit themselves to anything they cannot later undo by simply declaring they have changed their minds. Treaties, for instance, are far different legal instruments than contracts made between corporations. Given that governments can sell pretty much anything to the Proles, if they get to spin it to their benefit, my guess would be that we have far less to fear from Disney than we do from government. Disney also doesn't arrogate to itself the right to kill those who disclose its secrets. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
From: "Shawn Duffy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > While I disagree with the phrase "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" and I certainly don't agree with everything ever written in a Crypto-Gram, I must disagree with your evaluation of Mr. Schneier's editorial. Specifically, the phrase "why the state can NOT be just"... Please tell me why... [Mark] The state must have two characteristics, or it's a private company: 1) compulsory taxation, and 2) a legal monopoly over the use of power in a certain geographic area. That is, it has the "legal right" to steal and kill, a right which individuals don't have. (They can buy it, but it has to be granted by the state.) It must also have a monopoly over the creation / enforcement of laws, which individuals are forbidden from doing. In having these characteristics - which it must have BY NECESSITY, if it is to be a state and not a private defense agency - it is automatically injust; it applies different rules to individuals, depending on whether they are acting as state agents or not. (Note: it's not enough for someone to be a state employee to be able to steal with impunity; but if he is acting as a state agent when stealing, then he is NOT legally guilty of theft.) > or better yet, how do you define "just"? [Mark] A simple way would be "same laws (legal rights, although I don't like the term) for all people". > perhaps, I am living in a dream world, but, if you live in the United States, then we DO still have control over what the State does... [Mark] And I DO have some bridges to sell... just send me your bank account number and SSN... (Btw, believing this only makes you a *willing* accomplice to your government's actions.) > bring on the naysayers, and the people who cry about corruption and conspiracy... but the fact still remains, that what the people want, the people can have... [Mark] Definitely. Most people want to steal, apparently. > if they want it bad enough... the problem is that the people don't want it bad enough anymore.. the apathy is sickening... who's fault is that? [Mark] Apathy is not the problem. Supporting murderers and thieves is. But this is unrelated to my point. > as for the State having "NO motivation to be fair"... please support this... [Mark] There's an entire economic school - the public-choice school - devoted to this. As someone's sig in cypherpunks says (very approx. quote), politicians don't (and shouldn't) do the right things because they're good guys... they will only do it when they know that otherwise they'll be shot or hanged. Since they aren't (also a recent observation made by someone on cypherpunks), they don't have any incentive to be fair. > instead of getting on your soapbox to bitch and moan about how unfair things are, why not start makings things fair... [Mark] Watch out, you might begin to sound like Tim May... who believes that a good way to do that would be to nuke Washington, D.C. I can't say I disagree with him there. Mark
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
At 11:08 AM 12/16/2002, you wrote: Are you for real??? I'm reading with horror the editorial of your latest crypto-gram. Phrases like "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" or "the State has more motivation to be fair" sound like right out of 1984. What happened to you? This is so utterly ridiculous that I'd laugh if you wouldn't have so much influence on so many people. I got over your idea that arming pilots and people on planes is bad, while armed marshals are good (because they get 3 balls while on duty, presumably), I got over your ignorance of the solution to the public good dilemma - which is NOT state control, but private property and enforcement of property rights - but this is nuts. Do I have to explain to you why the state can NOT be just? Why it has NO motivation to be fair, if it can get away with it? Why the incentives are all wrong - and why, even if we found saints and put them to govern, their *signals* would be all wrong, because they wouldn't put *their* lives and properties on the line? Do you even read the articles whose URLs you present to support your ideas - because the first one, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64688,00.html , is definitely not friendly to the state's "justice"? I would have thought that someone whose name is well known among cypherpunks has at least some familiarity with these ideas. At the very least, it would have required you to explain why you believe the state is good for justice - something which is definitely alien for most of us! My intuition is that the government is going to be slightly fairer than, for example, Disney. That's just a guess, though. Bruce
RE: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
> Marcel Popescu[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > My intuition is that the government is going to be slightly fairer than, > > for example, Disney. That's just a guess, though. > > While I do have a "talent" for pissing off (and getting pissed off by) > known > celebrities (see Tim May in the cypherpunks list), I must confess that you > are an incredible disappointment. I mean, nevermind the flippant response > (I > don't know why you bothered, honestly - I would rather you hadn't), but > that's it? You "guess" that the government is going to be "slightly" > fairer > than Disney? Do you know of many people wrongfully imprisoned by Disney? > Mark > Well, I'm sure there have been some. Remember that Disney Corp is just about the sole land owner of the Reedy Creek Improvment District, which was cut out of central Florida in 1967 on Walt's promise to build "The ExPerimental Community Of Tommorrow" there. Originally EPCOT was to have been a real town, where thousands of ordinary Floridians would live, vote, and have families. What actually happened was Disneyworld, with EPCOT just another theme park. Within the RCID, Disney is effectively as sovereign as Kissimmee or Orlando. It pays no local taxes (except to the RCID), and supplies all it's own services - roads, water, fire, and law enforcement. Yes, there are Disney Cops, over 800 of them, who can arrest you and lock you up, rightfully or wrongfully. A few Disney employees and their families (about 65 people) live on the 24 acres (out of 27,000) not owned by the Disney Corp, RCID, or the State of Florida. They are the only voters in the RCID, and the board of directors they elect are the "independent" government of the RCID. Check http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney101.html Peter Trei
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
hi, > Mr. Scheiner was always a bozo, If he is such a bozo,why are n't many of those saying this not as sucessful as he is? Mr. Sheiner's book on applied cryptography is a beauty for a beginer. --- Sleeping Vayu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Scheiner was always a bozo, for those who > actually know him firsthand. His main talent was > creating an extremely successful crypto-celebrity > image at the opportune moment, boosting the sales of > his under-mediocre "Applied Cryptography" (not to be > confused with the excellent "Handbook of Applied > Cryptography" by Alfred Menezes) and consulting > business for his company. > In business dealings, when hired as consultant, he > was extremely unreliable and unprofessional. In > direct contact he failed to deliver expertize, > rising possibility that he was simply a frontman for > actual experts. His analysis was pompous and most of > the time outright wrong. > Of course no body remembers the A to Z of cryptography to give instant expertise all the time. Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
At 01:00 AM 12/17/2002 -0500, Shawn Duffy wrote: While I disagree with the phrase "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" and I certainly don't agree with everything ever written in a Crypto-Gram, I must disagree with your evaluation of Mr. Schneier's editorial. Specifically, the phrase "why the state can NOT be just"... Please tell me why... or better yet, how do you define "just"? perhaps, I am living in a dream world, but, if you live in the United States, then we DO still have control over what the State does... bring on the naysayers, and the people who cry about corruption and conspiracy... but the fact still remains, that what the people want, the people can have... if they want it bad enough... the problem is that the people don't want it bad enough anymore.. the apathy is sickening... who's fault is that? I am so tired of hearing people cry about government corruption and what is wrong with this country and society when only 50% or less of the people actually vote... People say that they don't vote because they don't like the options presented to them... well, then change them... as for the State having "NO motivation to be fair"... please support this... our system is, by no means, perfect... but, it is a system where if you want to make things different, then make them different... instead of getting on your soapbox to bitch and moan about how unfair things are, why not start makings things fair... My reply to your question is in my .sig A much more erudite reply can be found at http://www.fff.org/freedom/1096e.asp "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
While I disagree with the phrase "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" and I certainly don't agree with everything ever written in a Crypto-Gram, I must disagree with your evaluation of Mr. Schneier's editorial. Specifically, the phrase "why the state can NOT be just"... Please tell me why... or better yet, how do you define "just"? perhaps, I am living in a dream world, but, if you live in the United States, then we DO still have control over what the State does... bring on the naysayers, and the people who cry about corruption and conspiracy... but the fact still remains, that what the people want, the people can have... if they want it bad enough... the problem is that the people don't want it bad enough anymore.. the apathy is sickening... who's fault is that? I am so tired of hearing people cry about government corruption and what is wrong with this country and society when only 50% or less of the people actually vote... People say that they don't vote because they don't like the options presented to them... well, then change them... as for the State having "NO motivation to be fair"... please support this... our system is, by no means, perfect... but, it is a system where if you want to make things different, then make them different... instead of getting on your soapbox to bitch and moan about how unfair things are, why not start makings things fair... shawn On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 04:12, Marcel Popescu wrote: > Are you for real??? > > I'm reading with horror the editorial of your latest crypto-gram. Phrases > like "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" or "the > State has more motivation to be fair" sound like right out of 1984. What > happened to you? This is so utterly ridiculous that I'd laugh if you > wouldn't have so much influence on so many people. I got over your idea that > arming pilots and people on planes is bad, while armed marshals are good > (because they get 3 balls while on duty, presumably), I got over your > ignorance of the solution to the public good dilemma - which is NOT state > control, but private property and enforcement of property rights - but this > is nuts. > > Do I have to explain to you why the state can NOT be just? Why it has NO > motivation to be fair, if it can get away with it? Why the incentives are > all wrong - and why, even if we found saints and put them to govern, their > *signals* would be all wrong, because they wouldn't put *their* lives and > properties on the line? Do you even read the articles whose URLs you present > to support your ideas - because the first one, > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64688,00.html , is definitely not > friendly to the state's "justice"? > > I would have thought that someone whose name is well known among cypherpunks > has at least some familiarity with these ideas. At the very least, it would > have required you to explain why you believe the state is good for justice - > something which is definitely alien for most of us! > > Mark -- email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org cell: mobile-pakkit at codepiranha dot org web: http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit pgp key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E 98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A having problems reading email from me? http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit/pgp-trouble.html [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
>Are you for real??? > >I'm reading with horror the editorial of your latest crypto-gram. Phrases >like "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" or "the Mr. Scheiner was always a bozo, for those who actually know him firsthand. His main talent was creating an extremely successful crypto-celebrity image at the opportune moment, boosting the sales of his under-mediocre "Applied Cryptography" (not to be confused with the excellent "Handbook of Applied Cryptography" by Alfred Menezes) and consulting business for his company. In business dealings, when hired as consultant, he was extremely unreliable and unprofessional. In direct contact he failed to deliver expertize, rising possibility that he was simply a frontman for actual experts. His analysis was pompous and most of the time outright wrong. His flirting with the government's position on crypto and other issues is not new; he did it many times before, seizing every opportunity to promote himself, following the money.
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
Are you for real??? I'm reading with horror the editorial of your latest crypto-gram. Phrases like "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" or "the State has more motivation to be fair" sound like right out of 1984. What happened to you? This is so utterly ridiculous that I'd laugh if you wouldn't have so much influence on so many people. I got over your idea that arming pilots and people on planes is bad, while armed marshals are good (because they get 3 balls while on duty, presumably), I got over your ignorance of the solution to the public good dilemma - which is NOT state control, but private property and enforcement of property rights - but this is nuts. Do I have to explain to you why the state can NOT be just? Why it has NO motivation to be fair, if it can get away with it? Why the incentives are all wrong - and why, even if we found saints and put them to govern, their *signals* would be all wrong, because they wouldn't put *their* lives and properties on the line? Do you even read the articles whose URLs you present to support your ideas - because the first one, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64688,00.html , is definitely not friendly to the state's "justice"? I would have thought that someone whose name is well known among cypherpunks has at least some familiarity with these ideas. At the very least, it would have required you to explain why you believe the state is good for justice - something which is definitely alien for most of us! Mark
