Re: CONTROL FREAKS (nee, AIDs testing and privacy)

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                         SANDY SANDFORT
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>C'punks,
>
>In response to Duncan's post which said, in part, that developing
>countries could not afford totalitarianism, Alan Olsen opined:
>
>    The nature of control freaks is that they ignore the
>    actual costs of their actions.... Do they really think
>    of the financial costs associated every little decision
>    designed to control our lives?  The true concern is
>    *POWER*...
>
>Well to paraphrase Star Trek's Scotty, "They canno' change the
>laws of economics."  What would-be totalitarians want, and what
>they can get, are two different things.  The massive Soviet Union
>took three-quarters of a century to grind to a halt.  It would
>have been much quicker, but for the Czar's strong agricultural
>and burgeoning industrial base, "liberated" German technology,
>the absorption of richer, more savvy Eastern Bloc countries and
>massive infusions of capital, food and technology from the West.

But it is also the case that industrial countries, when they fall on hard 
times tend to fall back on an authoritarian "bread and circuses" approach to 
governing.  Fascism in 1930's Germany was one such govenment.  The current 
government was unable to deal with the financial and social problems and so 
reactionary elements were able to seize control of the government and impose 
their own brand of totalitarianism.  (Remember that Hitler was elected.) I 
think that this country is ripe for such a movement.  We have a number of 
groups that are ripe for scapegoating.  We have the economic conditions 
(although this seems to be changing for the better...).  We have the control 
freaks just wating to gain the power and more waiting in the wings.  They 
have the money and they have the technology.  And they have a population 
that is willing to give up alsmost any right to gain "security".
 
>
>The underdeveloped countries, on the other hand, don't even have
>"seed corn" to eat--unless we give it to them.  Let them try to
>go down the totalitarian road; if they do, they are doomed to
>self-destruct.
>
>History and technological progress are on our side.  There will
>be some temporary, local setbacks in the coming years, and have
>some mopping up to do, but we've already won.

Don't be too smug yet...  There are people in power who have not figured out 
that totalitarian states cannot survive.  (They also do not seem to care 
about the long run.)  All they are concerned about is making people follow 
their rules under their conditions.  Logic and reason have nothing to do 
with the "thought patterns" of these people.  Besides, it is not their money 
they are spending on this.  It is yours.

As far as I have been able to determine, the only thing that you can do with 
a control freak is to kill him before he obtains any position of power.  (Or 
wrap him in duct tape and feed him lots of Thorazine(tm).)
/========================================================================\
|"I would call him a Beastialic Sadomasochistic   | alano@teleport.com   |
|Necrophile but that would be beating a dead      | Disclaimer:          |
|horse." -- Teriyaki (What's up Tiger Lily?)      | As if anyone cares!  |
\========================================================================/

Alan Olsen writes
> But it is also the case that industrial countries, when they fall on hard 
> times tend to fall back on an authoritarian "bread and circuses" approach to 
> governing.  Fascism in 1930's Germany was one such govenment.  ...
> ...
> ... (Remember that Hitler was elected.) I 
> think that this country is ripe for such a movement.

Not so.

Fascism was a more sophisticated and coherent philosophy than
you give it credit for.  Hitler mass marketed a vulgarized
mass market version to the ignorant unwashed masses, but this
was only after the political romantic philosophies came to have
substantial support among the intellectuals, and this philosophical
support was translated into political support by intellectuals 
for the various volkish parties, one of which was the National
German Socialist Workers party, which Hitler later joined
and swiftly came to dominate.

There really is no similar contender on the scene today.

The fascists were able to take power only after the ideas that
underly fascism had been growing in support and sophistication
for three hundred years.  When put into practice this system 
of ideas suffered a devastating setback, not only the particular
form that we called fascism, but all forms.

While a military dictatorship is possible, a military dictatorship
that is not armed with good volkish philosophy is unlikely to
be capable of doing much harm, because military dictatorships
are continually and gravely threatened by loss of internal cohesion
and discipline.

A military takeover might well be a good thing.  The soldiers could
in the short term impose discipline on a corrupt and lawless government,
and in the long term would profoundly weaken that which they sought
to strengthen.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com

> 
> Fascism was a more sophisticated and coherent philosophy than
> you give it credit for.  Hitler mass marketed a vulgarized
> mass market version to the ignorant unwashed masses, but this
> was only after the political romantic philosophies came to have
> substantial support among the intellectuals, and this philosophical
> support was translated into political support by intellectuals 
> for the various volkish parties, one of which was the National
> German Socialist Workers party, which Hitler later joined
> and swiftly came to dominate.
>
I hate to burts your bubble but the masses of the Germany of the first
half of this century were no more unwashed or ignorant than today. The
Germany of that day was technologicaly sophisticated and education was
as wide spread as it is today. The vast majority of Germans could read
and do their cyphers (couldn't resist). The reason that Nazi success was
so great was because of two simple reasons. First they were so heavily
'victimized' by the peace treaty of WWI and secondly, because they saw
as a means to bypass this humiliation a return to the past, ie monarchy
and more ideal Germanic ideals. The Germans of that time thought they
were the best and the brightest and saw their predicimate as a humiliating
turn of events. These people got tires of everyone else blaiming them.

> There really is no similar contender on the scene today.
>
There is always a contender. 

> The fascists were able to take power only after the ideas that
> underly fascism had been growing in support and sophistication
> for three hundred years.  When put into practice this system 
> of ideas suffered a devastating setback, not only the particular
> form that we called fascism, but all forms.
>
In Italys case, the fascist were voted in. They did not 'take' the power
it was given to them.  A case can be made that Hindenburg in Germany gave
the power to Hitler (even though there was clearly a case  of threat 
imposed as a sweetner).

> While a military dictatorship is possible, a military dictatorship
> that is not armed with good volkish philosophy is unlikely to
> be capable of doing much harm, because military dictatorships
> are continually and gravely threatened by loss of internal cohesion
> and discipline.
>
Germany, Italy, and Japan did not start out as military dictatorships. Both
Germany and Italy were relative demecrocies which did not take into account
a lot of their 'reality'. The powers that be were more interested in making
a 'ideal' society but not realizing that folks outside of their borders were
not going to play along. This is the exact same reason that the USSR failed
today. Competition.

> A military takeover might well be a good thing.  The soldiers could
> in the short term impose discipline on a corrupt and lawless government,
> and in the long term would profoundly weaken that which they sought
> to strengthen.
>
Whose discipline? Exactly whose ideals and morality do we impose? A military
takeover is  NEVER a good thing. Implicit in its existance is the assumption
that people can't take care  of themselves. This particular dichotomy harks
back to the Enlightenment and the  Great Awakening. The real root of th e
problem is that we (as humans) have never devised a system which is Janus
faced in that  it recognizes that some people believe a strong central 
structure is good and those that disagree. To build a system which forces
either to compromise is wrong (either way you become what you hate the most).
What needs to be developed (and may be created as a fate acompli through
technology) is a system that lets 'control freaks' control and 'freedom
hounds' be free. In a certain way (though admittedly less than perfect)
the structure of  Internet is a good example. What you have is little
islands of freedom (ie each system) controlled very tightly by a commen
thread or standard of communication. Democracy in our country should work
the same way. There should be a very tightly controlled methodology for 
states to communicate and assist each other (ie Federal beurocracy) but
at the same time the individual states can do pretty much as they want
in their own borders.

> 
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our
> property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
> are.  True law derives from this right, not from
> the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com
> 
> 
>

Jim choate writes
> I hate to burts your bubble but the masses of the Germany of the first
> half of this century were no more unwashed or ignorant than today. The

They may be clean but they are still ignorant as ever.

> Germany of that day was technologicaly sophisticated and education was
> as wide spread as it is today. The vast majority of Germans could read
> and do their cyphers

Exactly so.

> In Italys case, the fascist were voted in.

1. They have not been voted in - they are a junior partner
   in a multi party coalition. 

2. They are a mere political party - no longer a powerful, 
   attractive, and superficially plausible ideology.  

> > While a military dictatorship is possible, a military dictatorship
> > that is not armed with good volkish philosophy is unlikely to
> > be capable of doing much harm, because military dictatorships
> > are continually and gravely threatened by loss of internal cohesion
> > and discipline.
> >
> Germany, Italy, and Japan did not start out as military dictatorships. Both
> Germany and Italy were relative demecrocies which did not take into account
> a lot of their 'reality'.

Read before flaming:  I am quite aware that the fascists were a 
political movement, not a military coup.

My point was exactly that.  That though a military coup is possible,
the ideology that made that political movement possible is dead,
dead, dead, dead.

Get it.


Dead.

Fascism was an idea.  That idea has been proven false.

The end.

> 
> My point was exactly that.  That though a military coup is possible,
> the ideology that made that political movement possible is dead,
> dead, dead, dead.
> 
> Get it.
> 
> 
> Dead.
> 
> Fascism was an idea.  That idea has been proven false.
>
Somebody needs to tell the Aryian Brotherhood, The KKK, Louis Farackim (sp?),
etc. that what the beliefes they are acting on have been disproven.

I wrote:
> > the ideology that made that political movement possible is dead,
> > dead, dead, dead.
> > 
> > Get it.
> > 
> > 
> > Dead.
> > 
> > Fascism was an idea.  That idea has been proven false.

Jim choate writes
> Somebody needs to tell the Aryian Brotherhood, The KKK, Louis Farackim (sp?),
> etc. that what the beliefes they are acting on have been disproven.

Fascism is not racism.  Racism, like war and trade restrictions,
was an accidental and almost unintentional byproduct of a complex
ideological system that is now dead as stone, even though racism
and so forth still live.

This is now totally off cypherpunk issues, so I will not respond
to further replies on this topic.
> 
> 


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com

this mailing list has swayed far from it's original purpose.
	"cypherpunks" ? sounds more like daytime t.v. to me.

> 
> this mailing list has swayed far from it's original purpose.
> 	"cypherpunks" ? sounds more like daytime t.v. to me.
> 

I was busy last week, so did anyone tape Oprah's episode on crypto?

Sally Jesse Raphael is doing "The Dining Transexual Cryptographers
Problem" and Montel Williams is doing "Men who love women who love
PGP."

It's so exciting to see crypto enter the mainstream. Me, I can't wait
for next month's Barbara Walters interview with Dorothy Denning!


--Tim

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> 
> Fascism was a more sophisticated and coherent philosophy than
> you give it credit for.  Hitler mass marketed a vulgarized
> mass market version to the ignorant unwashed masses, but this
> was only after the political romantic philosophies came to have
> substantial support among the intellectuals, and this philosophical
> support was translated into political support by intellectuals 
> for the various volkish parties, one of which was the National
> German Socialist Workers party, which Hitler later joined
> and swiftly came to dominate.
> 
> There really is no similar contender on the scene today.

I would recommend reading "the Ominous Parallels" by  Leonard Peikoff
(spelling?). It discusses this in great detail, as well as how the US of
today is moving more and more in that direction. Many good ideas to mull
over.

	Ed