Re: CIA & FBI, a marriage made in ___?

From: Black Unicorn

(from an earlier post)
In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should
try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution.

(from the above named post)
Yes, I'm tired of the issue [of the political aspects of crypto] being 
framed as a crime problem that needs political attention through law 
enforcement when in actuality it is a
question of regulation and domestic policy.
......................................................

I'm not seeing the consistency in embracing the concepts of the law, 
while questioning the regulation of crypto through law enforcement.

It all rather looks the same to me: political attention-> law 
enforcement-> regulation-> domestic policy.

??

Blanc

> 
> 
> From: Black Unicorn
> 
> (from an earlier post)
> In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should
> try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution.
> 
> (from the above named post)
> Yes, I'm tired of the issue [of the political aspects of crypto] being 
> framed as a crime problem that needs political attention through law 
> enforcement when in actuality it is a
> question of regulation and domestic policy.
> ......................................................
> 
> I'm not seeing the consistency in embracing the concepts of the law, 
> while questioning the regulation of crypto through law enforcement.
> 
> It all rather looks the same to me: political attention-> law 
> enforcement-> regulation-> domestic policy.
> 
> ??

The hinge question is what I, or you, mean by "concepts of law."

In the first post, a cypherpunk was dismissing the importance of the 
constitution as valueless to his quest, because current law meant nothing 
to him and was an authority he did not respect.  (I'm extracting from 
memory, if the poster would care to comment...?)  My point was that one 
should never dismiss the constitution, and that the framers had some 
heads between them.  The concepts of law I refer to are the original 
frameworks embodied in the constitution.  In reality I have a great deal 
of respect for the concepts and the notions and the genius I see in the 
document that is the Constitution of the United States.  Just the 
process, the intellectual endeavor of that, of developing a stable structure
restraining the various powers from dominating still gives me chills.
Call me a fanatic.

The question of its application to current events is another matter. 

Was the separation of power just to keep the infighting to a low level, 
or was it to keep any one power from growing too large?

Therein lies the answer you seek.

If the current structure of government is proper true to the 
constitution, and more importantly the goal of a stable government with 
co-equal branches, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to embrace 
centralism, regulation of markets, export restrictions and an ever 
growing executive branch.

If the current structure of government is improper, and goes beyond the 
bounds of power the framers intended, then respecting those "concepts of 
law" is to reject the current state of affairs.

It all depends on the ground you start from, I start from the latter, and 
not the former.  In my framework, I feel it is consistent to embrace the 
constitution and its doctrine while still resisting regulation.

You'll note my quote in the first post:

"In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should
try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution."

Perspective is key.

> 
> Blanc
> 

-uni- (Dark)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Unicorn writes:

> If the current structure of government is proper true to the 
> constitution, and more importantly the goal of a stable government with 
> co-equal branches, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to embrace 
> centralism, regulation of markets, export restrictions and an ever 
> growing executive branch.

> If the current structure of government is improper, and goes beyond the 
> bounds of power the framers intended, then respecting those "concepts of 
> law" is to reject the current state of affairs.

Surely someone of Unicorn's erudition is aware of Lysander Spooner's
words on this subject, but just to remind the others, here are some of
them:

Spooner wrote these words in 1869 (_eighteen_ sixty-nine); imagine what
he might have written today!

	The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.  It has no
	authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and
	man.  And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between
	persons now existing.  It purports, at most, to be only a contract
	between persons living eighty years ago....  Furthermore, we know,
	historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing
	were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either
	their consent or dissent in any formal manner.  Those persons, if any,
	who did give their consent formally, are all dead now....  _And the
	Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them._  They
	had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children.

	...

	APPENDIX.

	Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by
	anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now
	binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an on as no people can ever
	hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do
	so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its
	true legal meaning, as a contract, is.  Nevertheless, the writer thinks
	it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such
	instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false
	interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in
	practice a very widely and almost wholly, different thing from what the
	Constitution itself purports to authorize.  He has heretofore written
	much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth.  But
	whether the Consitution really be one thing, or another, this much is
	certain --- that it has either authorised such a government as we have
	had, or has been powerless to prevent it.  In either case, it is unfit
	to exist.

These are excerpts from Spooner's article "No Treason: The Constitution of No
Authority", available from Laissez Faire Books, 1-415-541-9780 in San Francisco.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLcDuh8Dhz44ugybJAQG8lgQAlNkH0XGRMZbNvwYVOm0kPn6ECAMxPvf4
4Ue1llTfFtQEyLWC+NwpxPULDvVzkstFGngHhVfQtv1dWRFpKulL5NuuDoiY1xqp
4kU+8iT0NeRu/NEBck/Gh3MolNHrXCmhbHvCAx83UHk0aWDEZrxH6tpuqKXTn3tj
PWzSblyPAKw=
=+nMS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 
 
>
>- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Unicorn writes:
>
> > If the current structure of government is proper true to the 
> > constitution, and more importantly the goal of a stable
> > government with co-equal branches, then respecting those
> > "concepts of law" is to embrace centralism, regulation of 
> > markets, export restrictions and an ever growing executive
> > branch.
> 
> > If the current structure of government is improper, and goes
> > beyond the bounds of power the framers intended, then
> > respecting those "concepts of law" is to reject the current
> > state of affairs.
> 
> Surely someone of Unicorn's erudition is aware of Lysander Spooner's
> words on this subject, but just to remind the others, here are some
> of them:
> 
> Spooner wrote these words in 1869 (_eighteen_ sixty-nine); imagine
> what he might have written today!
> 
>	The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.  It has 
>	no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between
>	man and man.  And it does not so much as even purport to be a
>	contract between persons now existing.  It purports, at most, to
>	be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago....
>
[Lack of representation makes Constitution an invalid contract]
>
 
 
This is part of the reason I reject the contention that the Constitution 
is a contract among peoples.  As far as contract law goes, this makes 
every Constitution invalid and a pointless exercise if you adopt 
this theory.  Under this model all constitutions, indeed all governments 
would have to be passed unanimously by a national vote.  Those 
constitutions that do not bear the signatures of all the citizens are 
either not valid or not binding to those citizens.  How can this be 
rationalized in context?  Are we to adopt all the elements of contract 
law to constitutions?  Are we to apply the doctrines of inability to 
contact to constitutional protections?  This would require us to deny 
constitutional protections to minors, and infants.  What about the 
mentally infirm?  Women in the 17-1800's?  Will we apply doctrines of 
efficient breach?  Commercial impracticability? (No government would 
exist!)  Promissory estoppel?  Can 3rd party beneficiaries sue for 
losses?  Clearly an attack on a constitution on these grounds has no 
bearing in practical application, or explanation.
 
Even in 1869, the heyday of Victorian Legal Thought, where one could not 
be held liable except by an act of self volition, the idea of strict
contract law being applied to social duty, or limitations on power, and 
thus Spooner's theory, was rejected.  This in an era where debts were 
non-assignable because it was looked upon as pushing the parties into an
agreement they never contemplated or consented to.  Yet, Victorian 
Freedom of Contract at its height still rejected the "constitution as 
contract" theory.
 
The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under
the Constitution.  The continued acceptance of the process, the
participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the
amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of
government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, 
the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.
 
Consider the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Court has no 
police, no army, no command authority, no enforcement branch what so 
ever.  (Forgetting the Supreme Court Police who guard the building)
What then keeps the other branches from disobeying the rulings of 
the Court? Nothing but respect for the structure of government.  
This in itself is impressive for a structure established by a document 
with "no authority."  If there is a historical precedent for such an 
institution, an institution of unelected officials who pass down at 
times massively unpopular decisions that are none the less followed 
without the slightest force to back them, I am unaware of it.  How can 
one deny the genius of this structure?  (Even if the current trend of 
decisions is questionable).
 
The United States does not claim its authority to be rooted in divine 
grant, nor in pure power over the people, nor in a quest for utopia, but 
in consent of the people.  In so far as the United States remains a
representative democracy, it looks to the Constitution for its rules.
 
The Constitution is not a contract at all, but a grant of authority.  
A deed with covenants of sorts.  You may rule provided you follow these
rules, and if you don't, the people reserve the right to overthrow you.
 
Spooner's position represents a tact that was fashionable in the day, 
that being the dismissal of sovereign authority on many grounds 
and using disciplines from economics to philosophy to science.  
What Spooner's theories lack is timeliness.  They are, in fact, really
just reiterations of the anti-federalist position in the late 1700's.  
These included objections to the notion of a constitution because of 
its betrayal of the concepts that the revolution was fought for.  The 
anti-federalist position relied heavily on the objectionable nature of 
removing people from the political process and the lack of individual 
control.  See generally, H. Storing, What the Antifederalists Were For 
(1981).  This line of argument is quite old and tired by 1869, and 
really represents a throwback.
 
One must remember that power was surrendered to the federal government 
by the people and the states conditioned upon limits.
 
Power was not, in the reverse, granted to the people and signed for in 
receipt.
 
It is such that I reject the following assumption:
 
>	The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.  It
>	has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract
>	between man and man.
 
Instead I feel the Constitution should be looked at as a grant of power.
The argument that such grant should expire after the grantors do seems 
to rely upon the notion that the grant was some sort of limited term 
leasehold on power.  "You may rule for one generation" in effect.  To my 
view, this is silly.  Instead it is a conditional grant of power 
providing in part that:
 
All legislative Powers herein granted SHALL be vested in a Congress of 
the United States....  Art I sec.1 [1]
 
No Person SHALL be a Representative who shall not have attained to the 
Age of twenty five Years....  Art I sec.2 [2]
 
The Executive power SHALL be vested in a President of the United States 
of America....  Art II sec.1 [1]
 
My emphasis.
 
See also, U.S. CONST. Amend. X.
 
Insofar as these conditions are met, government authority is legitimate 
by the terms it was granted.
 
Or as I said before:
 
> > If the current structure of government is improper, and goes beyond
> > the bounds of power the framers intended, then respecting those
> > "concepts of law" is to reject the current state of affairs.
 
 
>
>	APPENDIX.
>
>	Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by
>	anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is
>	now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an on as no people
>	can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may
>	be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of
>	no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is
 
[Deletions]
 
The government rules by the bayonet only because it was given the 
bayonet by the states and the people.  The problem of preventing tyranny 
is in the structure established with the grant, and it is here that the 
need for embracing the concepts of "law" within the constitution is 
important.  Questioning the previous generations for their audacity in 
waiving your "rights" to anarchy is on the same order as questioning the 
audacity of those who set down the doctrine of Freedom of Contract.  The 
hand of the dead does influence the exercise of power.
 
Mr. Sandfort is correct in my view.  There is no "magic" in the 
Constitution.  It is a guidebook, and no more; but what a guidebook it 
is.  It contains within a concept of government structure that has 
endured and maintained relative stability and freedom from tyranny for 
quite a while now.  The Constitution of the United States does not say, 
"Follow me because I am law", but rather "This is the recipe for a 
stable check against tyranny."
 
If the federal government mixes the recipe with too much power, the 
checks against tyranny established by the Constitution threaten to 
topple.  It is this that worries me.  It is this that worried the 
framers.  Should we dismiss their genius because it is old?  Because it 
did not bear the unanimous mandate of the people?
 
> 
>These are excerpts from Spooner's article "No Treason: The Constitution
>of No Authority", available from Laissez Faire Books, 1-415-541-9780 in
>San Francisco.
> 
> 	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
> 	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
A Victorian after my own heart.  I think we disagree, if we differ at 
all, in the application of this theory to grants of authority.
 
 
>- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.3a
[...]
>- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 
- -uni- (Dark)
 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
 
iQCVAgUBLcGzExibHbaiMfO5AQGZxAQAvDDL7pZRGjgQyhXLD7hoXrEEQezCcwtO
X9bv2uW1JJwmuVeF23nSOV1LL1Dodp2YUS0xw2hIJU99wwtcBc3XwERkidywbL5k
NJL1KAaCpA4lizJZB4q1e0Hp+hGKIxrhF2wPcQIz0lVPuZDOrDeSi0pS4D+GpEKE
Q9NOKO7fWLo=
=UCQz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Summary: Unicorn thoughtfully underscores the need for the defense
afforded by strong cryptography and other means.

He writes:

> The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under
> the Constitution.

Thank you.  It's good for a freedom-loving person to be reminded of the
nature of the threat.

The appeal of strong cryptography is that it may help to defend against
those who embrace this deceitful attitude.

> The continued acceptance of the process, the
> participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the
> amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of
> government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, 
> the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.

It is for _exactly this reason_ that the freedom-loving person forbears
from willful participation.

> The United States does not claim its authority to be rooted in divine 
> grant, nor in pure power over the people, nor in a quest for utopia, but 
> in consent of the people.

...which is fine for a person who consents.  The problem comes when he
assumes that the authority extends to his neighbor who does not consent.

> > 	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
> > 	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> A Victorian after my own heart.  I think we disagree, if we differ at 
> all, in the application of this theory to grants of authority.

Again, this is no doubt wonderful for a person who grants his authority.
The trouble begins when he presumes that his neighbor, too, has granted
his authority.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLcIK9sDhz44ugybJAQFdAQP/SIox/IF4WjOGCjppJngkNF1Y/kJ+g1cQ
0YxXQYQjFLkeRPHszXX6OtBjWpoFER2CZha107sVBo791YxekBU0KE16ItcUZ548
86IZMj/JKSrANbjtHXC6qZ0YKOFLiLA/ZdpDRHOTsKN1OSCApVumtFHmNTKue/TF
+bu6kFbeBX4=
=42fR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> 
> Summary: Unicorn thoughtfully underscores the need for the defense
> afforded by strong cryptography and other means.
> 
> He writes:
> 
> > The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under
> > the Constitution.
> 
> Thank you.  It's good for a freedom-loving person to be reminded of the
> nature of the threat.

Are you being sarcastic here or...?

You seem to think I look upon the above description with fondness and 
adoration.  I do not.


> 
> The appeal of strong cryptography is that it may help to defend against
> those who embrace this deceitful attitude.

Which deceitful attitude, mine or the federal government's?

> > The continued acceptance of the process, the
> > participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the
> > amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of
> > government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, 
> > the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.
> 
> It is for _exactly this reason_ that the freedom-loving person forbears
> from willful participation.

I think that's difficult to do and still live in the United States, or 
most nations.

Regardless of how persuasive I find the argument, you do probably benefit 
from the police, fire, emergency rescue, and national defense services 
provided by the government.  You also probably benefit from what 
deterence the civil litigation and criminal processes affords those who 
would do you ill.

While I don't find this justifies the abridgement of the constitution, I 
do think it stifles the argument that one is not willfully participating 
or partaking of soceital benefit.


> > The United States does not claim its authority to be rooted in divine 
> > grant, nor in pure power over the people, nor in a quest for utopia, but 
> > in consent of the people.
> 
> ...which is fine for a person who consents.  The problem comes when he
> assumes that the authority extends to his neighbor who does not consent.

I think your position is basically "I didn't sign the Constitution, so 
the government has no power over me."  I don't really see a rationale for 
this position, only the position itself.  The clause "but in consent of 
the people" is a collective form of "the people."  I wish it needn't be, but 
it is none-the-less.

> > > 	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
> > > 	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.
> >                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> > A Victorian after my own heart.  I think we disagree, if we differ at 
> > all, in the application of this theory to grants of authority.
> 
> Again, this is no doubt wonderful for a person who grants his authority.
> The trouble begins when he presumes that his neighbor, too, has granted
> his authority.

Again, I don't know where to go with this.  You give me a position, and 
use it to support your position.

I will say that if I believed a soceity could exist without some minority 
oppression I would reject all regulation.

-uni- (Dark)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Strong cryptography renders moot the Statist's arrogant pretense that
every person is a national of some nation.  With it, the determined
individual can make good his wish to be part of no nation.

Why would a person want to do this?  Read on.

> > Summary: Unicorn thoughtfully underscores the need for the defense
> > afforded by strong cryptography and other means.

> > He writes:

> > > The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under
> > > the Constitution.

> > Thank you.  It's good for a freedom-loving person to be reminded of the
> > nature of the threat.

> Are you being sarcastic here or...?

(Sarcastic???)

You made a fitting assertion which I believe to be true and worth
reemphasizing, and I thanked you for it.  That's all.

> > The appeal of strong cryptography is that it may help to defend against
> > those who embrace this deceitful attitude.

> Which deceitful attitude, mine or the federal government's?

Government, deceit and all, is sustained and nourished by willful
participation, as you have previously pointed out in the passage
immediately following.  If you participate, it's your conscience you
have to live with.

> > > The continued acceptance of the process, the
> > > participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the
> > > amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of
> > > government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, 
> > > the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.

> > It is for _exactly this reason_ that the freedom-loving person forbears
> > from willful participation.

> I think that's difficult to do and still live in the United States, or 
> most nations.

Keep in mind that the United states is a membership association, not a
geographical region, so to ``live in the United States'' means to
willfully be a member of the United States.  So, yes, to ``live in the
United States'' is certainly to be a willful participant.

But if you're saying it's difficult for a non-member to avoid
participation, I agree; it's difficult.

Where participation is unavoidable, it's not willful.

> While I don't find this justifies the abridgement of the constitution, I 
> do think it stifles the argument that one is not willfully participating 
> or partaking of soceital benefit.

Except nobody's arguing about willful partaking of societal benefit.
The issue is willful participation in _government_.

The benefit of society results from voluntary association among people.
Imposed relations, as institutionalized in government, benefit only
their perpetrators.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLcMSesDhz44ugybJAQGDeAP8CUpBpQkAPNQda3iHBcpOZ+B8qU2rP1+x
TDh229mhBVWShMbnXIaA6idLBRine+zfvHtH52XFRUx5ehE88AzGxV+oQIhUczi4
lFOkSr5M9ogMbKeWmISrFcnXeiDxqJoMM/xR1bp+qiY8JZnBdvDDisGPt/Aq022l
cF+EjKt3DEk=
=8Tbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

actually, it is just a piece of paper.  Burn the paper it's all gone.
4!/4! +-0
Bye all

****************************************************************************
   Qjones@infi.net                She kissed me- I felt the hot blush      *
*  Qjones@larry.wyvern.com         Of raging passion incinerate my  heart  *
****************************************************************************