Re: a retort + a comment + a question = [RANT]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
dave kinchlea wrote:
>As said in "Hair" (the movie), "Don't do it for me man, 'cause 
>if the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn't do it for you!" 

>It's a lie anyway, you do it for yourself.

That's an _easy_ judgment to make (and i definitely have to stop 
adding anecdotes from my life in these things!), but you missed the 
point - the freedoms the Cpunks diligently try to preserve (or seem to 
want to create...) are protected _by_ the military.  who was it that 
said:       "law, without force, is impotent"  -?  

keep in mind that even "bad" laws have to be enforced.  you can scream 
all you want about "good, strong" cryptostuffs, but if the phone lines 
are slashed, the satellite links are down, the elcerticity is off and 
you've got a foreign soldier waving a .45 around -  just how are you 
going to boot up that pretty little computer and make it encode 
information for you, much less get it anywhere?  anarchy implies 
ruthlessness - you going to practice cryptostuffs from a prison cell?

was i assuming that you've read the book and/or seen the broadway 
play, "Hair"?  OHHHHH - i'm sorry - you saw the _movie!_ shame on me.

---------------------- SUCRUM22@cv62.navy.mil -----------------------
a calculated risk based on the possible consequence of an action
is better than a haphazard one based on poor judgment or ignorance
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Don't confuse my views with those of the DoD or the United States Navy

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

C'punks,

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil wrote:

> ...the freedoms the Cpunks diligently try to preserve (or seem
> to want to create...) are protected _by_ the military. 

Wrong on two counts:

1) Strictly speaking, the C'punks list is primarily concerned 
   with privacy.  Of course, most of us seem to have strong
   interest in freedom, but the original intent of the list 
   founders was the "self-help" preservation of privacy through
   technological means. 

2) Putting aside that nit-pick, we are still left with two  
   implicit and unsupported assumptions:

   a) military=government.  
   b) military/government doesn't also threaten freedoms.

As to a), market anarchists (aka, anarcho-capitalists) believe
that militaries would be better provided by private business.
The concept is usually called "private defense agencies."  The
conservative preference is for para-military "militias."  I have
no intention of getting into a debate over these concepts.  I
mention it only for the purpose of pointing out that alternative
do exist and the fact that governments--through force of the
threat of force--maintain their monopoly hold on the instruments
of war does not mean we are better off for that fact.

With regard to b), governments--primarily through the use of 
their militaries--have killed, by some counts 170,000,000, men,
women and children in this century alone.  Hardly the guardians
of freedom, in my opinion.

> who was it that said:  "law, without force, is impotent"  -?  

He says that as if it's a bad thing.

> keep in mind that even "bad" laws have to be enforced. 

Actually, this is not true either.  In the US at least, if a law
is unconstitutional, it is void ab initio.  The military ananlogy
is found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  A subordinate
is not required to follow an order that violates the UCMJ.  The
international version was enunciated at the Nurenburg trials. "I
was only following orders" is not esculpatory.

> ...anarchy implies ruthlessness

To some people, yes.  Literally--and that's how most libertarians
and anarchists use it--it means no rulers.  In my opinion, 
observation and experience and experience rulers, government and
military imply ruthlessness far more directly.


 S a n d y

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

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> dave kinchlea wrote:
> >As said in "Hair" (the movie), "Don't do it for me man, 'cause 
> >if the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn't do it for you!" 
> 
> >It's a lie anyway, you do it for yourself.
> 
> That's an _easy_ judgment to make (and i definitely have to stop 
> adding anecdotes from my life in these things!), but you missed the 
> point - the freedoms the Cpunks diligently try to preserve (or seem to 

I missed nothing, I simply don't agree. It seems to me that the US
military is much more the agressor than the defender. Just who is it that
you are believe you are defending against? What year do you live in?

> want to create...) are protected _by_ the military.  who was it that 
> said:       "law, without force, is impotent"  -?  

The military is NOT the defender of laws, that is the job for the civilian
police. Are you really that confused? I actually live in Canada where I
enjoy the same or more freedoms that you do, funny thing though, we don't
find it necessary to have a large military force to `protect' us. 

[...]

> 
> was i assuming that you've read the book and/or seen the broadway 
> play, "Hair"?  OHHHHH - i'm sorry - you saw the _movie!_ shame on me.

What the fuck is this? When did the play end on broadway, mid-seventies?
Do you have a point? I thought not. The only reason I pointed out that it
was the movie is because I am not certain that that line IS in the play.
You see I practice something called honesty, something you might do well
to learn about yourself.