Re: Dr. Vulis

Bill Frantz wrote:
> 
> As I put on my flame resistant suit...
> 
> IMHO, most of the posts about John Gilmore's action re: Dr. Vulis are
> seriously miss-analyzing what has happened.  As far as I can tell, John
> instructed his Majordomo to refuse subscription requests to cypherpunks
> from Dr. Vulis.  That is all that John has done.  What John has not done
> is:

Of course John was right to give Vilus the boot. Cypherpunks is a club
and like many private clubs occasionaly finds it necessary to give some
oik the boot.

And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in
terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. Rights
are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society finds
it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were
affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional
liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them.
If libertarians would read "on Liberty" rather than using it like
a magic charm they would know that the main theory it advances is of
the *balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of
individuals. 

The genius of Mills is that he shows that the "rights" of government
stem from its duty to protect the "rights" of the citizens.

Its an imperfect answer because the notiopn of "citizenship" it advances
fails to take any account of foreign relations. Mill's rationale for 
obeying laws breaks down when one crosses national borders for example.

> The best paradigm I can come up with to analyze John's action is my quite
> imperfect understanding of communitarian theory.  In essence,
> communitarians say that there should be a level of social control between
> individual rights and the forceful coercion of the state.  What John has
> done is step forward and excommunicate Dr. Vulis.  He has said to Dr.
> Vulis, "You are no longer a member of the cypherpunks community."

Rather than "should", try the word "is". One of the things the Web 
demonstrates is that there are such communities. I would not state the
action in terms of "excommunication", rather consider that John took
the action on behalf of the community for the good of the community as a 
whole.

> I would love to hear how people feel this action fits in to the
> cryptoanarchy, libertarian utopias we frequently discuss.  E.g. Why is it
> not a perfectly reasonable action for some one to take in an anarchy?

If we could get away from the bleating denials of the need for
government
and instead consider them as a positive force, preventing a power vacum
that 
others would fill a synthesis can be reached. The founders of the
US realised that to pervent tyranny it was necessary to have different 
branches and levels of government. The essential point being however to
prevent power being used.

When a community of people get together they can exercise far more power
than individuals acting alone. Sometimes this power can be for the
common
good, other times it can be the sectarian persuit of one minorities 
interests against another. 



	Phill

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

 A million monkeys operating under the pseudonuym "Hallam-Baker
 <hallam@ai.mit.edu>" typed:
>
> Of course John was right to give Vilus the boot. Cypherpunks is a club
> and like many private clubs occasionaly finds it necessary to give some
> oik the boot.


Yeah!  That was GREAT!  Now let's ban Dr. Hallam-Baker!  He's
always pissing off the libertarianpunks and causing
flamewars...


> And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in
> terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about.  
> Rights are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society 
> finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were
> affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional
> liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them.


Dear Sir:  I humbly put it to you that the above reflects a 
misunderstanding about the libertarian conception of "absolute
rights".  I personally do _not_ subscribe to said theory, but 
I try to understand a thing correctly before criticizing it in 
public.


> If libertarians would read "on Liberty" rather than using it like
> a magic charm they would know that the main theory it advances is of
> the *balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of
> individuals. 


I have read (parts of) _On_Liberty_, and as I recall it was
adamant in an ("unbalanced") defense of absolute rights of
individuals.  The only exception I remember is an unexplored
comment on rights-violations of ommission counting as well as
rights-violations of commission.  (E.g. if you see a drowning
man and you fail to save him you are violating his rights.)  
Perhaps that is what you see as "balance between the rights of
communities and the rights of individuals"?  Or perhaps the
book goes into detail on that subject in a part that I didn't 
read.  Again I ask not because I have a particular ideological
axe to grind here, but because I seek accuracy in public
dialogue.


Regards,

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMn8EXkjbHy8sKZitAQGWJQL+JzzPf0NOovQ3hZpEsim6wzz9OIWetfX4
ZQM7SYZkvNMQOX7QkShj0PXE+xtD+Vw513ENJwrzw5Y9hqRYr2P53dk10h7ovWth
egHhGYGB5YhZ4H2BQrA0FB+7y1F/9RDG
=wjM8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bryce wrote:
>  <hallam@ai.mit.edu>" typed:
> > Of course John was right to give Vilus the boot. Cypherpunks is a club
> > and like many private clubs occasionaly finds it necessary to give some
> > oik the boot.

> Yeah!  That was GREAT!  Now let's ban Dr. Hallam-Baker!  He's
> always pissing off the libertarianpunks and causing flamewars...

[snip]

> I have read (parts of) _On_Liberty_, and as I recall it was
> adamant in an ("unbalanced") defense of absolute rights of
> individuals.  The only exception I remember is an unexplored
> comment on rights-violations of ommission counting as well as
> rights-violations of commission.  (E.g. if you see a drowning
> man and you fail to save him you are violating his rights.)
> Perhaps that is what you see as "balance between the rights of
> communities and the rights of individuals"?  Or perhaps the
> book goes into detail on that subject in a part that I didn't
> read.  Again I ask not because I have a particular ideological
> axe to grind here, but because I seek accuracy in public dialogue.

Since we all start out as children, learning by imitation, and reasoning by comparison,
a valid argument can be made that our minds work best that way.  Certainly the wide
variety of opinion here shows that theory doesn't produce nearly the consensus that
real experience does.

Therefore I suggest that we look more at analogies, but try hard to make the analogies
more accurate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Phill wrote:

> ...as Mills observes [rights] are a product of law.  Society
> finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights...

Logically, you can't have it both ways.  Which is it?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> ...as Mills observes [rights] are a product of law.  Society
>> finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights...

>Logically, you can't have it both ways.  Which is it?

Both sentences say the same thing. Society enacts laws which
provide protections to the individual. As a result of these
protections the individual has rights.

The decision to enact laws may be affected by a consensus 
in society concerning which rights are desirable. But this
does not affect the fact that the realisation of rights is
a through society and law.

If you like you could replace the word "protect" with "create"
but most laws enacted don't create rights, rather they continue
to preserve previously granted rights which are under threat.


And then you get the type of laws which Bod Dole so ardently 
fought for such as special favours to Archer Daniel Midlands,
the Kansas Argi-business which recently paid a $100 million
corruption fine. Of course power can be exercised in a corrupt
fashion.

If you admit that rights are simply abstract conclusions from
a wider arguement based in more fundamental principles then
there is some purpose to the discussion. Otherwise the argument
is simply a stale restatement of the axioms as the conclusion.


If we return to the original basis on which Mill opposed censorship
its not hard to find out why Dimitri is denied his support. The
argument is based on the need to keep alive debate. Dimitri wants
to prevent debate, he does not wish to meet with the argument,
he merely wishes to indulge in character assasinations and insults.


		Phill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 hallam@ai.mit.edu wrote:

> 
> >> ...as Mills observes [rights] are a product of law.  Society
> >> finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights...

I responded:

> >Logically, you can't have it both ways.  Which is it?

To which Phill alleged:
 
> Both sentences say the same thing. Society enacts laws which
> provide protections to the individual. As a result of these
> protections the individual has rights.

Unfortunately, both sentences, as originally written, DO NOT
say the same thing.  They are recursive in the extreme.  

"Society enacts laws which provide protections to the individual"
is not the logical equivalent of "Society finds it necessary to 
enact laws to protect rights" unless rights exist prior to the
enactment of laws.  

Maybe Phill should just say he misspoke himself rather then go
through his elaborate back-and-fill charade.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Both sentences say the same thing. Society enacts laws which
>> provide protections to the individual. As a result of these
>> protections the individual has rights.

>Unfortunately, both sentences, as originally written, DO NOT
>say the same thing.  They are recursive in the extreme.  

They are mutually recursive but the types of the relations are 
different.

Laws create rights	- argument in "is"
=> Should create good laws to protect valid rights.
			- argument in "ought"

Of course the two sentences don't say exactly the same thing, 
otherwise I would have written one.

If law did not have the potential to create rights there  would
not be the same duty of care for law creators.

>Maybe Phill should just say he misspoke himself rather then go
>through his elaborate back-and-fill charade.

I'll tell you what, ill admit that my original statement was
not of the clarity that I would ideally wish to achieve. But
I don't think that we need apply the criteria of a journal article
here. :-)

I don't think we have a problem with the statements conflicting,
there is an interaction. What a Hegelian would call dilectic. 
I prefer to use a different term for much the same reasons as
Sorros, the misuse of the term has created garbage that one
does not want to associate with (eg Historical materialism). 


		Phill

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

In list.cypherpunks, hallam@ai.mit.edu writes:

> Laws create rights      - argument in "is"

This is way too broad.  The only "rights" laws can _create_ are the
zero-sum rights of entitlement that impose a corresponding
responsibility on others.  Natural rights can't be created by fiat.
- -- 
           Roy M. Silvernail     [ ]      roy@scytale.com
DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division
PGP Public Key fingerprint =  31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54  13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6
                Key available from pubkey@scytale.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMoCPLBvikii9febJAQEnBwQAorQEvRmmByqhVaT36RH3o7J/eB3GBPl2
//F1eydnxifDtKNJZ318se2E53fei0dVUHCTnHziP5ZLzZeKHsQxmBY6e8iwG+Pv
dvZ2GjZw1SKiyMML1HQtAo1pgATcSPocBXwNpwRsxm2bYSOe3IpFqHLT+TlZLxBJ
2d3dP2IB2qw=
=sP9G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>> Laws create rights      - argument in "is"
>
>This is way too broad.  The only "rights" laws can _create_ are the
>zero-sum rights of entitlement that impose a corresponding
>responsibility on others.  Natural rights can't be created by fiat.

If you look at the original argument you will see that I'm explicitly
denying the existence of Natural law. It has been recognised as a
bankrupt philosophical position for at least two centuries.

Its not even the basis for Libertarian argument which is principaly
contractarian. 

The change in the wording of the declaration of Independence from
"God Given" to "Self Evident" reflects the wider philosophical
movement of the time. After Rousseau there was no need to depend on
superstition as the foundation of ethics.

If you argue from "natural law" you are simply parrotting the
predjudices of society. It isn't philosophy, its more akin to the
religious bigotry popular in the US South and Afghanistan. 


		Phill

Whats done is done, why don't we move on?


G
============================================================================

Email:
gen2600@aracnet.com
					   Available on the web:
Beeper: (503) 204-3606
					Http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600


Something I've been known to babble in my sleep:

   It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.
   It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed,
   the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
   It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.

============================================================================

hallam@ai.mit.edu writes:
> If we return to the original basis on which Mill opposed censorship
> its not hard to find out why Dimitri is denied his support. The
> argument is based on the need to keep alive debate. Dimitri wants
> to prevent debate, he does not wish to meet with the argument,
> he merely wishes to indulge in character assasinations and insults.

This isn't true, Phil.  Whatever gave you this impression?
Are you confusing me with Timmy May (fart) by any chance?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps