Free & Open Society & toleration

Hi,

It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should
not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a
free and open society must tolerate any action.

This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY
ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no
means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy.
It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open
society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting 
individualy or in concert.

I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and
equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an
environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which
economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order
and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of
the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a
'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST
protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is
worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of
all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government'
and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is
not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a
class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a
democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of
the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with
enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a
contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total
of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state').

I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence
which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold
that our current system of legal representation is inherently  flawed and
prevents equal representation under the law.


                                                      Jim Choate
                                                      CyberTects
                                                      ravage@ssz.com

Jim Choate wrote:
> It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should
> not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a
> free and open society must tolerate any action.
> This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY
> ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no
> means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy.
> It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open
> society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting
> individualy or in concert.

[snip]

Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is
trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that:

1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals.
2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant
   level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more,
   until there's a sudden, catastrophic break.
3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of
   corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide
   unnecessary.

Jim Choate wrote:
> It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should
> not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a
> free and open society must tolerate any action.
> 
> This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY
> ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no
> means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy.
> It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open
> society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting
> individualy or in concert.

  I have waited, with bated breath, for you to take a position which is 
short, concise, and well-reasoned. Well, you finally did, but you just
couldn't leave it alone, could you?
  I think that what you have written (above) is a valid and meaningful
statement of your position. I see what follows, however, as a train of
'logic' which follows a pre-defined, emotionally-charged justification
of a defensive position you have taken, as a result of a real or 
imagined 'slight'.

  I have followed your 'libel' thread, as rambling (and sometimes 
dichotomously incoherent) as it is, and I recognize that you are
passionate in your beliefs (for which I salute you), but I think
that perhaps your interests might be better served if you let
logic lead your emotions.
  If you did so, I might well hire you as my lawyer (to defend me
in your libel suit against me), since you do have a 'bulldog' 
sense of determination in pursing any position you take.
  The million-and-one posts you made with the results of your
search-engine research on libel only served to accentuate your
inability to fully understand the issues underlying libel and
defamation. Your own opinions regarding your thoughts and 
opinions regarding these same issues were much more poignant
and enlightening.
  I would hope that, in the future, you would justify your 
beliefs and opinions with a revelation of your own points of
logic (or illogic) rather than attempting to support them 
with legalese rulings which often stand on a foundation of
sand, especially under close judicial scrutiny.
  You do, indeed, raise some points that are worthy of valid
consideration, and debate, but they tend to get lost in your
excessive arguments regarding them.

Toto

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

on or about 970201:2001 Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> said:

+I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on
+precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with
+defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal
+representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation
+under the law.

    BULLSHIT

    why don't you toll the bell for freedom while you're at it, and 
    think about 'for whom the bell tolls.' --it tolls for thee.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBMvTgoL04kQrCC2kFAQHeuQP8CtEQx/Rw/fLHqIx9UOfqp3QK4fQXKneV
PXDiZvTi9aTLqd/8D64CgNmRizmb26NIMlEBXXt/YreucdYKSWByBkmMozKw7kxY
QN3N/of1wZfqbXmJQj2+oV5dG9ieNWM3mkQw8pp79z8qa6jGYMt3xW1aqsYaweR0
Kx8zM9xm8S8=
=4Hwo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----