3 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
From mbriceno@aol.com Sat May 22 03:56:25 1993 If everybody would be armend, we would no longer look at the government as the sole provider of protectios from violent crimes, rape, or muggings. I'm sure lots of people could give examples of areas where "everyone" *is* armed, and while they certainly don't rely on "the government" (i.e., local police forces) for protection, most would agree the situation is not desirable ... /jordan
In <9305231707.AA12544@IMSI.COM>, Jordan Hayes writes:
|> From mbriceno@aol.com Sat May 22 03:56:25 1993
|>
|> If everybody would be armend, we would no longer look at the
|> government as the sole provider of protectios from violent
|> crimes, rape, or muggings.
|>
|> I'm sure lots of people could give examples of areas where "everyone"
|> *is* armed, and while they certainly don't rely on "the government"
|> (i.e., local police forces) for protection, most would agree the
|> situation is not desirable ...
"Most would agree"? What a silly statement. You're in a big virtual
room with lots of different people, but a lot of them are "card-carrying"
libertarians who most certainly don't agree with that.
However, Marc also said, "I am glad that someone is finally mentioning
[the parallel between crypto and arms]." which is vacuous in light of
the _endless_ discussion on this very point on Usenet (sci.crypt and
elsewhere) in the beginnings of the wiretap chip flap.
Which leads me to my main point: please take this off-list before it
turns into the same flamewar that currently rages on
talk.politics.guns and for whatever weird reason, sci.skeptic.
^
/
------/---- cp@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson)
/
/
Gun Control: The belief that the government, with its great wisdom and
moral superiority, can be trusted with a monopoly on deadly force.
-- Clayton E. CramerJordan Hayes says: > From mbriceno@aol.com Sat May 22 03:56:25 1993 > > If everybody would be armend, we would no longer look at the > government as the sole provider of protectios from violent > crimes, rape, or muggings. > > I'm sure lots of people could give examples of areas where "everyone" > *is* armed, and while they certainly don't rely on "the government" > (i.e., local police forces) for protection, most would agree the > situation is not desirable ... Actually I can give such examples and show that the result id desirable, but are we discussing cryptography or anarchism here? .pm