Unicorn vs....

I have to support Black Unicorn's use of the courts.
Really, what choices were available?

a)  Do nothing.  Eat the losses.  Suffer destruction
    of his reputation.  Does anyone really advocate
    this?  Even the religiously inclined don't advocate
    turning the other cheek ad inifinitum...

b)  Mail bombs or other amusements.  Not only does one
    join the target in the same figurative gutter, there
    are real questions of efficacy and legality.  Simply
    because one side foreswears the legal system, there
    is no guarantee both sides will.  And, there is 
    absolutely no guarantee that a sys. admin. won't seek
    criminal prosecution under a tampering with the computer
    theory.

c)  Hire some fool(s) to break the target's hands.  Not only
    do you risk prosecution, ala T. Harding, but I rather
    doubt we want to enter this still lower gutter.

d)  Pursue a criminal indictment.  Nice in that it really
    gets the target's attention, but it can be difficult to
    do.  And if people object to civil litigaton, I suppose 
    criminal charges would be even more objectionable.

e)  Sue the guy.  It's legal, it's easy, and it get's people's
    attention.  

So, I, for one, think Black Unicorn took the best and most
reasonable approach.  I'd be very interested in which course
(or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that
the anarchists feel would be reasonable...

Regards,

Dave

C'punks,

On Thu, 26 May 1994, David L Womack wrote:

> I have to support Black Unicorn's use of the courts.
> Really, what choices were available?
> . . .
> e)  Sue the guy.  It's legal, it's easy, and it get's people's
>     attention.  
> 
> So, I, for one, think Black Unicorn took the best and most
> reasonable approach.  I'd be very interested in which course
> (or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that
> the anarchists feel would be reasonable...
> . . .

Well, I'm an anarchist and I would have no *philosophical* problem with 
pursuing redress in the king's court.  It is because I am an anarchist 
that I don't impute any special status to "government."  "Government" is 
just the term we use for one particular form of collective force.  I 
would use it in the same way I would use an oncoming truck; if someone 
were trying to mug me, I would consider pushing them in front of the 
truck.  It would just be a handy tool to be employed for self-defense.  
So to the government often is useful as a handy blunt instrument to keep 
other forms of muggers at bay.

Now in actuality, I have grave *practical* reservations about using the 
government in this way.  It is hard not to get entangled once one begins 
to dance with the devil.

Now ask me if I would have any philosophical objection to taking welfare.


 S a n d y

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

Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> writes:

> Well, I'm an anarchist...

...a reputation you have earned well in your postings to this list,
which is why your answers matter to me.

> and I would have no *philosophical* problem with pursuing redress in
> the king's court.

How could you do this, without incurring cognitive dissonance?

> I would use [government] in the same way I would use an oncoming
> truck; if someone were trying to mug me, I would consider pushing them
> in front of the truck.

Government differs from the oncoming truck in that its power comes from
its constituency of willing clients generating a demand for its
services.  Granted, withdrawing your demand will hardly affect that
power, because the other hundred million constituents will still be
pressing their demands.

But how do you deflect accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy?  Our
archist adversaries use such charges to deflate anarchist arguments.

I don't understand and am increasingly unable to abide the inconsistent
and hypocritical attitude of many of my anarchist friends who decry
government while at the same time willfully patronizing it, even when
they have reasonable alternatives.  You have apparently accommodated
yourself to this inconsistency.  How?

> Now ask me if I would have any philosophical objection to taking welfare.

Would you have any philosophical objection to taking welfare?

This may be drifting away from the charter of cypherpunks, but I'll bet
I'm not alone among the anarchists here in wondering how you would
answer these questions.

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

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

iQCVAgUBLeVNwsDhz44ugybJAQEzCQP/WLswNle4Ixo50Lf0QGC4I4U4cDyGd1xM
eg3t675kioj8zqQMZWwCu5id+GC1V/o5V0FZ0mAxknSR37X+CYlwCTFxEUDBJPEm
v//9k9HS97CckEtlFdsCTbB/NTiw3HGFYAVyVDtZaxt4DayDENPETh+joQ2LElog
i7duMq7fUxg=
=ITjs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In the discussions of what is or is not an "anarchist", aside from the
obvious "Anarchist Cookbook" (couldn't resist), is there an official
Anarchist codicil?  What makes one an official anarchist?

<g,d&r>

*.................................................................*
. ==  =    =....James D. Wilson.....jdwilson@gold.chem.hawaii.edu..
.  "  "    "....P. O. Box 15432..........or..NetSurfer@sersol.com..
.  "  " /\ "....Honolulu, HI  96830..Give me the finger for my key.
. \"  "/  \"....FRC/FAM/AASR/GWB/OTO..........NETSURFER............
*.................................................................*

NetSurfer says:
> In the discussions of what is or is not an "anarchist", aside from the
> obvious "Anarchist Cookbook" (couldn't resist), is there an official
> Anarchist codicil?  What makes one an official anarchist?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. However, if you send
.23gAu via The Trystero Mail Service to the International Federation
of Profound Thinkers, they might be able to give you a hint.

Perry

C'punks,

On Thu, 26 May 1994, NetSurfer wrote:

> 
> In the discussions of what is or is not an "anarchist", aside from the
> obvious "Anarchist Cookbook" (couldn't resist), is there an official
> Anarchist codicil?  What makes one an official anarchist?

You have to submit your application (with appropriate fee) in triplicate
to the admissions committee.  If you pass a background check you will be
allowed to sit for the exam.  A passing score for the exam is 70%.  If you
do not pass you must wait at least six months before re-submiting your
application (with appropriate fee) in triplicate.  Those passing the test
will be sworn in as Official Anarchists (tm).  Official Anarchists are
issued an official certificate (suitable for framing) and an official
membership card.  Continued membership is contingent upon payment of
annual dues.  Breaches of appropriate anarchist conduct may also be
grounds for loss of membership. 


 S a n d y,  Supreme Leader, UBA

United Brotherhood of Anarchists
(An equal opportunity association)

C'punks,

On Thu, 26 May 1994, John E. Kreznar wrote, first quoting me:

> . . .
> > and I would have no *philosophical* problem with pursuing redress in
> > the king's court.
> 
> How could you do this, without incurring cognitive dissonance?

What cognative dissonance?  If I am satisfied that I am in the right, the 
so-called "government" is just another handy weapon with which to get my 
way.  I'd have no problem using a gun produced by slave labor, either.

> . . .
> Government differs from the oncoming truck in that its power comes from
> its constituency of willing clients generating a demand for its
> services.

This is philosophical gobblydegook.  There is no government.  People who 
call themselves the government derive their powers from their use of 
force and their ability to con or intimidate other people to recognize 
them as the "it" of government.  You have your government/client 
causality backwards.

> . . .
> But how do you deflect accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy?
> . . .

I don't bother.  Their wrong; I ignore them.  

> . . .  You have apparently accommodated
> yourself to this inconsistency.  How?

There is no inconsistency.  There is no government for me to patronize.  
The folks who call themselves the government will sometimes do things 
that benefit me.  Great.  It doesn't mean I condone other things they do 
that involve the initiation of force.

> . . .
> Would you have any philosophical objection to taking welfare?

Nope.  I leave the reasons for this as an exercise for the student.


 S a n d y

P.S.  Reasonable minds may differ.  I apologize to John if I seem too
cavalier in my responses.  It's just that I've given these topics much 
thought over the years, and I'm satisfied with my beliefs.  John has 
raised good questions and I may yet be shown the error of my ways.  :-)
(Sometimes smileys, just like exclamation points, are justified.)

> I have to support Black Unicorn's use of the courts.
> Really, what choices were available?

> So, I, for one, think Black Unicorn took the best and most
> reasonable approach.  I'd be very interested in which course
> (or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that
> the anarchists feel would be reasonable...

Let's see.  I didn't read the thread in question but am reasonably 
familiar with the unsavory debating tactics of Mr. Tmp from other 
discussions.  

As I understand it, Mr. Unicorn and Mr. Tmp, their true identities safely
concealed behind their respective handles, engaged in a minor flame war
and major ass-kicking contest related to the topics of crypto, privacy,
and nasty authoritarian governments.  Mr. Tmp, following his usual modus 
operandi, engaged in some reasonably clever hand-waving, out-of-context 
quoting, misdirection, and misrepresentation at the expense of a number 
of people, including Mr. Unicorn.

All this would have been water under the bridge were it not for the fact 
that Mr. Unicorn, who is wont to travel in circles considerably more 
conservative than most of his political writings, inadvertantly disclosed 
his identity in the thread while showing a friend how to use Usenet.  
Certainly this blunder was no fault of Mr. Tmp.

Ultimately, as a consequence of this leak, certain business associates of
Mr. Unicorn, with no knowlege of Usenet or the context of the discussion,
were exposed to portions of it and the identity of Mr. Unicorn was
disclosed.  Again no fault of Mr. Tmp.

Said business associates, being relatively anal upper-class European 
types with a great respect for authority, were singularly unamused by
Mr. Unicorn's political views and the even worse things falsely 
attributed to him by Mr. Tmp in the heat of discussion.  Mr. Unicorn 
became worried that his business might suffer as a consequence.  Since I 
personally believe that one should not discriminate in doing business 
based on someones political beliefs, I would certainly characterize this 
as a moral failure on the part of Mr. Unicorn's business associates, and 
not the fault of Mr. Tmp.

Finally, Mr. Unicorn, mustering all the legal and financial resources at
his disposal, threatens to skewer Mr. Tmp for alleged libel, and Mr. Tmp,
lacking similar resources and unable to risk a courtroom defeat, is forced
to go on Usenet and publicly eat you-know-what with a large wooden spoon. 

Since Mr. Tmp is not well-liked in the Cypherpunk community, response to 
this sorted tale consists mostly of praise for Mr. Unicorn, and silence 
by those who might have been critical, but who don't want Mr. Unicorn to 
treat them the same way.

I don't think there are any heros in this story.  I think it is a dark 
day for freedom of expression in general and Usenet in particular.  

In the past, I have engaged in lots of heated discussions on many 
hot-button topics, on Usenet and in many other forums, sometimes under my 
own name, and occasionally under a pseudonym.  I have been called many 
vile things along the way, and have had my views on occasion 
misrepresented far more cleverly than Mr. Tmp could imagine or articulate.

Nonetheless, if I found myself losing work because an unpopular view of
mine came to light, filing a lawsuit against another Usenet poster would
be just about the last thing I would think of doing.  Particularly if the
discussion took place under a pseudonym and I was the person who had 
broken my own anonymity.

Antics like this threaten the entire concept of Usenet as a 
reputation-based cooperative anarchy.  The solution to Mr. Tmp is to put 
him in your killfile, not sue him into submission.  

-- 
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

<In mail Mike Duvos said:>
> Said business associates, being relatively anal upper-class European 
> types with a great respect for authority, were singularly unamused by
> Mr. Unicorn's political views and the even worse things falsely 
> attributed to him by Mr. Tmp in the heat of discussion.  Mr. Unicorn 

    The key is falsely attributed to him by tmp@netcom.com.

> became worried that his business might suffer as a consequence.  Since I 
> personally believe that one should not discriminate in doing business 
> based on someones political beliefs, I would certainly characterize this 
> as a moral failure on the part of Mr. Unicorn's business associates, and 
> not the fault of Mr. Tmp.
  
	Granted, tmp is not responsible for so called moral failures on the
	part of European business associates of Uni's BUT tmp IS responsible
	for damaging Uni's reputation by making it look as if he said things
	that tmp couldn't prove he had said.  If Uni lost a 7 figure business
	deal because tmp attributed a comment to Uni that Uni didn't make then
	tmp is definitely guilty of damaging Uni's character and SHOULD be
	sued... 

    The bottom line is that when you play on the net and flame each other
	that is one thing, but when your games cause someone's business and
	real-life character to be damaged then you are playing in the real
	world and the name of the game there is SUE, RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR
	ACTIONS, and TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ACTIONS.  

> Antics like this threaten the entire concept of Usenet as a 
> reputation-based cooperative anarchy.  The solution to Mr. Tmp is to put 
> him in your killfile, not sue him into submission.  

   Who defined the concept?  I think of Usenet as a cooperative anarchy
   on the technological level of how it works, but as far as what people
   say I consider it to be a means of communication no different than
   speaking in public or on the telephone.  If I say terrible things
   about you on a mail list message it should be no different than if I
   say it in a crowded room of your business associates.
	
   Putting tmp@netcom.com in a kill file will be fine if his influence
   on your world is confined to the screen, but when he starts costing
   you potentially millions of dollars it is an entirely different 
   situation.  I don't think that kill file of yours will pay Uni's
   house mortgage or food bill!

 I suppose we all could use this as an opportunity to see how well
 our anarchist, freedom of speech, privacy, encryption ideas mesh
 with the 'real world'.  

 Jim

-- 
 Tantalus Inc.          Jim Sewell      Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ
 P.O. Box 2310          Programmer           Internet: jims@mpgn.com
 Key West, FL 33045     C-Unix-PC          Compu$erve: 71061,1027
 (305)293-8100                            PGP via email on request. 
 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3  C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73

Mike Duvos scripsit
> 
> > I have to support Black Unicorn's use of the courts.
> > Really, what choices were available?
> 
> > So, I, for one, think Black Unicorn took the best and most
> > reasonable approach.  I'd be very interested in which course
> > (or some other undefined course I didn't think of) that
> > the anarchists feel would be reasonable...
> 
> Let's see.  I didn't read the thread in question but am reasonably 
> familiar with the unsavory debating tactics of Mr. Tmp from other 
> discussions.  
> 
> As I understand it, Mr. Unicorn and Mr. Tmp, their true identities safely
> concealed behind their respective handles, engaged in a minor flame war
> and major ass-kicking contest related to the topics of crypto, privacy,
> and nasty authoritarian governments.  Mr. Tmp, following his usual modus 
> operandi, engaged in some reasonably clever hand-waving, out-of-context 
> quoting, misdirection, and misrepresentation at the expense of a number 
> of people, including Mr. Unicorn.
> 
> All this would have been water under the bridge were it not for the fact 
> that Mr. Unicorn, who is wont to travel in circles considerably more 
> conservative than most of his political writings, inadvertantly disclosed 
> his identity in the thread while showing a friend how to use Usenet.  
> Certainly this blunder was no fault of Mr. Tmp.
> 
> Ultimately, as a consequence of this leak, certain business associates of
> Mr. Unicorn, with no knowlege of Usenet or the context of the discussion,
> were exposed to portions of it and the identity of Mr. Unicorn was
> disclosed.  Again no fault of Mr. Tmp.
> 
> Said business associates, being relatively anal upper-class European 
> types with a great respect for authority, were singularly unamused by
> Mr. Unicorn's political views and the even worse things falsely 
> attributed to him by Mr. Tmp in the heat of discussion.  Mr. Unicorn 
> became worried that his business might suffer as a consequence.  Since I 
> personally believe that one should not discriminate in doing business 
> based on someones political beliefs, I would certainly characterize this 
> as a moral failure on the part of Mr. Unicorn's business associates, and 
> not the fault of Mr. Tmp.
> 
> Finally, Mr. Unicorn, mustering all the legal and financial resources at
> his disposal, threatens to skewer Mr. Tmp for alleged libel, and Mr. Tmp,
> lacking similar resources and unable to risk a courtroom defeat, is forced
> to go on Usenet and publicly eat you-know-what with a large wooden spoon. 
> 
> Since Mr. Tmp is not well-liked in the Cypherpunk community, response to 
> this sorted tale consists mostly of praise for Mr. Unicorn, and silence 
> by those who might have been critical, but who don't want Mr. Unicorn to 
> treat them the same way.
> 
> I don't think there are any heros in this story.  I think it is a dark 
> day for freedom of expression in general and Usenet in particular.  
> 
> In the past, I have engaged in lots of heated discussions on many 
> hot-button topics, on Usenet and in many other forums, sometimes under my 
> own name, and occasionally under a pseudonym.  I have been called many 
> vile things along the way, and have had my views on occasion 
> misrepresented far more cleverly than Mr. Tmp could imagine or articulate.
> 
> Nonetheless, if I found myself losing work because an unpopular view of
> mine came to light, filing a lawsuit against another Usenet poster would
> be just about the last thing I would think of doing.  Particularly if the
> discussion took place under a pseudonym and I was the person who had 
> broken my own anonymity.
> 
> Antics like this threaten the entire concept of Usenet as a 
> reputation-based cooperative anarchy.  The solution to Mr. Tmp is to put 
> him in your killfile, not sue him into submission.  
> 
> -- 
>      Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
>      mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $
> 
> 


-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

From: dwomack@runner.jpl.utsa.edu (David L Womack)
   Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 12:16:44 -0500 (CDT)

       Even the religiously inclined don't advocate turning the other
       cheek ad inifinitum...

Oh?  Methinks you don't know the context of what Jesus said.  At that
time, only citizens hit each other with their fists.  Slaves were hit
with the back of the hand.  The penalty for hitting someone with a
fist was much greater than backhanding them.  In a predominantly
right-handed society, slaves got backhanded on the right cheek.  Now
how do you backhand someone after they've turned the other cheek?  You
can't -- you can only strike them like a citizen.

And in the same context, Jesus told his followers to carry a soldier's
pack for two miles if they were asked to carry it for one.  The Roman
soldiers were allowed to impress citizens to carry their packs for no
more than a mile.  Any more and they were fined.  So Jesus was telling
his followers to cause trouble for soldiers by making them beg for
their packs back.

And in the same context, poor people had no collateral to borrow money
except the clothes on their back, that is, inner and outer robes.  A
person could borrow against the value of their outer robes.  And of
course, if they didn't pay back their debt, they had their outer robe
taken from them.  Now, the outer robe was necessary to keep from
freezing at night, so this was a problem!  So Jesus told his followers
that, when someone sued them for their outer robe, to give them their
inner robe as well.  At the time, nudity was shameful to the *viewer*,
so this caused great consternation.


Jesus didn't expect his followers to suffer fools gladly, but neither
did he ask them to use violence against them.

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>      ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX)    | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.