politics aren't all or nothing

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

My problem with the "it's hopeless, politicians are idiots" approach is
the same as my problem with Tim May's approach --- it predisposes one to
think that a revolution and possibly violence are the only way to change
the laws. It is an attitude which constructs an obstacle which may or may
not be there. I get really sick of the inane "nuke DC" talk. Call me a
naive optimist, or an idiot; I believe there's hope to wage and win the
battle politically, and I think there's actually hope for real democracy
without the memetics bullshit and the control and the manipulation. 

I got a personal reply from a Senator to whom I sent that last release
(the one interviewing Michael Wilson of 7Pillars). It wasn't one of those
autoresponders -- it just said "Thank you for your views" with bad text
formatting. At least it did get someone's attention. It might be negative
attention, but dammit, if they're going to look Wilson's reputation in the
face and not at least consider that they might be wrong then they've
obviously all been killed and government programmed clones installed in
their place. They're really well educated people, for the most part ---
somewhere along the line they must have gotten that stuff about
"considering that you are incorrect" and the rest. 

While skimming their web pages looking for information, I found one or two
senators and congress reps who actually offer PGP keys on their web pages! 
Senator Leahy, for one, is a vocal proponent of strong crypto. There is
hope! Some of those people do see "the light" on this issue. It's a matter
of getting the heavy-handed ones to just for a second consider the other
side's view. I think this particular release hits hard because shit,
Wilson's the virtual incarnation of Ares, and the warmongers may listen to
him. I think a lot of them know they're being manipulated, but they get
only a limited set of information from the "authoritative" defense and
intelligence people who give them the "secret classified briefings", and
they simply can't confront the spooks because they think they'd get kicked
from their positions of power in a few years. If they have in their
possession a testimony that a defense and intelligence _scholar_ says that
the spooks are wrong, they may be able to start turning the tide. 

Mostly, I just don't want to get nuked. I don't want the people in
Washington to get nuked. I don't want to be ostracized because a
disjointed group I'm associated with has members who support nuking
political opponents. "Nuke DC" is crap. "Ecash Assassination Politics" is
crap. The loss of faith in one's ability to convince other people with
rational discussion is crap. That whole attitude reminds me of the guys in
early grade school who beat up on me because I was a nerd. I refuse to
sink to their level. 

Mark Hedges


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

iQCVAwUBNCGn+hVo2SUWMp6NAQH7lwP/dEWDmzEgx9LEs3m68KGWcKNGVUCSjFjd
qOjkBKQQo9Ib+8CefheigwRPXh8J5s4aBJPDVvJbTnvJJ2F7Olr1VpvmhzDwMt8g
A99iSuvn/Dn7cJUmcc5M9aeVhRtXFcl0LRsfOiHQO4eGXia3fWA6BM1pAybIzHAp
4sj8MyE+ZpM=
=8r8K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 15:16 -0700 9/18/97, Mark Hedges wrote:
>My problem with the "it's hopeless, politicians are idiots" approach is
>the same as my problem with Tim May's approach

Sure, not all DC politicans are idiots. Most are damn smart. All are
cunning. But just because they understand the technology doesn't mean
they're going to vote the right way.

In fact, I could see Tim May arguing if they understand the implications of
crypto, they'll //definitely// vote the wrong way.

>I got a personal reply from a Senator to whom I sent that last release
>(the one interviewing Michael Wilson of 7Pillars). It wasn't one of those
>autoresponders -- it just said "Thank you for your views" with bad text
>formatting. At least it did get someone's attention. It might be negative

Sure, you got //someone's// attention. From an $18,000-a-year
just-out-of-college staffer who lives in a group house in Arlington, VA
with three other people who gets paid to answer phones, open letters,
address envelopes, and reply to email. You think it was "a a personal reply
from a Senator?" Not a chance.

>their place. They're really well educated people, for the most part ---
>somewhere along the line they must have gotten that stuff about
>"considering that you are incorrect" and the rest.

Sure, but educated people still have to pander to get elected, and to get
money to get elected. Civil liberties are anti-majoritarian by their very
nature; they and legislatures are enemies.

>While skimming their web pages looking for information, I found one or two
>senators and congress reps who actually offer PGP keys on their web pages!

So they have well-informed staffers. So what?

>Senator Leahy, for one, is a vocal proponent of strong crypto. There is
>hope! Some of those people do see "the light" on this issue. It's a matter

Senator Leahy is also the fellow who brokered the Digital Telephony deal
that ensures all are phone conversations are readily wiretappable by the
Feds. And his wacky criminal copyright proposals. And what about his crypto
bill that encourages a key escrow infrastructure? With "friends" like him
who "see the light..."

>him. I think a lot of them know they're being manipulated, but they get
>only a limited set of information from the "authoritative" defense and
>intelligence people who give them the "secret classified briefings", and

>they simply can't confront the spooks because they think they'd get kicked
>from their positions of power in a few years. If they have in their
>possession a testimony that a defense and intelligence _scholar_ says that
>the spooks are wrong, they may be able to start turning the tide.

Not quite. Even if they have it, it is (a) difficult to vote against
national security and child porn and (b) even more difficult to get
anywhere in this town if you offend law enforcement, national security, or
the defense communities. Let alone all three.

Besides, they've had the NRC report for a year and a half. It's hardly in
favor of mandatory key escrow rules, and it's co-authored by some spooks.
Think that changed anything? Guess again.

>Mostly, I just don't want to get nuked. I don't want the people in
>Washington to get nuked.

Hear, hear!

Regards,

Declan
Washington, DC

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>In fact, I could see Tim May arguing if they understand the implications of
>crypto, they'll //definitely// vote the wrong way.

Yes, there I was possibly wrong in using M. May as an example in the
"politicians aren't stupid / smart people must do good" line. Still, in
the line of "let's not nuke Washington", it was appropriate.

>Sure, you got //someone's// attention. From an $18,000-a-year

They authorize their junior staffers to use their name? Lame!

>>While skimming their web pages looking for information, I found one or two
>>senators and congress reps who actually offer PGP keys on their web pages!
>
>So they have well-informed staffers. So what?

It indicates they are concerned about the security of their
communications. Now, the trick is to convince them that escrow hampers
security of communications through the single point of failure problem.

"Let's just say we want to avoid any Imperial entanglements."

"Well, uh, that's the real trick, isn't it...and it's gonna cost you
something extra."

>Senator Leahy is also the fellow who brokered the Digital Telephony deal

Ah, more research is necessary. I printed his stuff but haven't read it
yet. There was one, though, who even had a blue ribbon on their web page.
I've forgotten who.

>>possession a testimony that a defense and intelligence _scholar_ says that
>>the spooks are wrong, they may be able to start turning the tide.
>
>Not quite. Even if they have it, it is (a) difficult to vote against
>national security and child porn and (b) even more difficult to get
>anywhere in this town if you offend law enforcement, national security, or
>the defense communities. Let alone all three.

I think a good tactic is to say to them "it's more difficult to vote
against the vast majority of your constituents" and use examples like
public opinion polls (are there any?) and California Legislature's SJR-29
(unanimous memorialization of Clinton and Congress to relax export
controls). 

In related news, Vasconcellos, the author of SJR-29 and SB-1133 (a strong
crypto promotion bill) is to announce soon if he will vie for the
Democratic nominee for California Governor. He'd be up against current Lt. 
Governor Gray Davis, whose views contrast a little with Pete Wilson's but
not too much. 

>Besides, they've had the NRC report for a year and a half. It's hardly in
>favor of mandatory key escrow rules, and it's co-authored by some spooks.
>Think that changed anything? Guess again.

Does anyone know who is behind this crap that the Empire's pushing on the
committees? Louis Freeh is the only name I've heard. I've not heard
Tenet's name mentioned in any of this. It would be interesting to research
the other people involved, to try to find some dirt.

Mark Hedges

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Mark Hedges wrote:

> >Sure, you got //someone's// attention. From an $18,000-a-year
> 
> They authorize their junior staffers to use their name? Lame!

Yeah, well, you probably got a form letter( they have lots of form
letters). If it was an original reply, a middle-level or senior-level
staffer okayed it.

> It indicates they are concerned about the security of their
> communications. Now, the trick is to convince them that escrow hampers
> security of communications through the single point of failure problem.

No, it indicates they want to appear to be friends of the Net so they can
pick up some bucks from lobbyists and high tech firms.

> Ah, more research is necessary. I printed his stuff but haven't read it
> yet. There was one, though, who even had a blue ribbon on their web page.
> I've forgotten who.

Votes count more than 10K GIFs.

> I think a good tactic is to say to them "it's more difficult to vote
> against the vast majority of your constituents" and use examples like
> public opinion polls (are there any?) and California Legislature's SJR-29
> (unanimous memorialization of Clinton and Congress to relax export
> controls). 

As many have pointed out it depends on the way the polls is phrased.
"Should convicted child molesters have unbreakable crypto?" Ban it now! As
for the SJR-29, your do have a good point. The tide is turning. But it'll
take years, and the battle is happening in Congress now. Defeat for
crypto-proponents is at hand...

> Does anyone know who is behind this crap that the Empire's pushing on the
> committees? Louis Freeh is the only name I've heard. I've not heard
> Tenet's name mentioned in any of this. It would be interesting to research
> the other people involved, to try to find some dirt.

The classified briefings include NSA, CIA, DEA, and FBI. Some are
restricted, codeword-only. There are multiple levels. I've been finding
out more but I'm working on a long-term article about this so I won't post
anything now. 

-Declan

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Yeah, well, you probably got a form letter( they have lots of form
>letters). If it was an original reply, a middle-level or senior-level
>staffer okayed it.

I think the latter was the case. I got lots of the form responses. This
came 10 hours later and appeared hastily written. I feel special! Gosh,
democracy really works! (I'm not saying it was a big deal.) 

>No, it indicates they want to appear to be friends of the Net so they can
>pick up some bucks from lobbyists and high tech firms.
>Votes count more than 10K GIFs.

This is why I invited y'all to call me a naive idiot --- it's this cynical
stereotyping of politicians which I think more than anything obstructs
one's own attempts to talk to them and induce change rationally. If you
walk up to some random person in a bar supposing they're probably going to
knock you flat, they probably will. If you walk up to them thinking
they'll provide entertaining discussion on Heidegger, well, wait, umm...
Anyway, you see my point. Of course, you're the guy who talks to the
political community on a regular basis. Maybe they really are all clones
programmed by the government...but I doubt that. It's a novel experience
for me, so perhaps I haven't become jaded (realistic?). 

(Jade is (a) pretty (plant), though.) 

Question yourself, all y'all revolutionaries, what does the hopeless
attitude get you? Adrenalin while you get mad and hop up and down? An
excuse to use your A-K and pop a couple feds before they do the natural
thing and shoot you down? "It was a very good day ... I didn't even have
to use my A-K."

Still, I bet the lobbyists and funders who spent so much time, effort, and
coins on pushing SAFE and the rest of the (even somewhat) pro-crypto bills
are feeling pretty hopeless right now. I don't blame them. I also don't
want to sound sappy like little orphan Annie, shining with hope in the
face of the end of the world, but there's always tomorrow.

>> I think a good tactic is to say to them "it's more difficult to vote
>> against the vast majority of your constituents" and use examples like
>> public opinion polls (are there any?) and California Legislature's SJR-29
>> (unanimous memorialization of Clinton and Congress to relax export
>> controls). 
>
>As many have pointed out it depends on the way the polls is phrased.
>"Should convicted child molesters have unbreakable crypto?" Ban it now! As
>for the SJR-29, your do have a good point. The tide is turning. But it'll
>take years, and the battle is happening in Congress now. Defeat for
>crypto-proponents is at hand...

"Who writes the goddamn polls?" comes to mind. Yes, this is extremely
unfortunate. I have been wondering if the unhealthy and unwholesome spam
might be useful for this --- it would be cheap, and easy to collect survey
information. Alternatively, there might be away to do that from a web
page. Of course, people would have to go read the page. That would take
some advertising. My guess is that banner ads on the Anonymizer probably
are _too_ selectively biased --- we'd need a wide distribution.

There's always spam for sending out "the real dirt" on stuff like Panama,
Grenada, Iraq, CIA & money laundering & crack, the silent black
helicopters, Santa Cruz Island, Waco, Ruby Ridge, illegal wiretaps,
missing submarines, accidentally sold nuclear facilities, the memetics
programming, and how much money gets spent on this stuff, then
justification for either more extensive checks and balances or an
unempowered, minimal government, and finally, a plan for how to collapse
and rebuild the system without people getting hurt. I guess I would
appreciate that more than spam selling spam software.  Still, there's a
question as to whether it would hurt or help "the cause" of informing the
masses what's really going on. "National Security"? Do most people really
have any idea about who and what is to be kept "secure"? 

Has anyone ever taken a poll which has questions stilted both one way and
the other, just to see people say "I want X and not-X"?

(ubergovernment)
>I'm working on a long-term article about this so I won't post
>anything now. 

I look forward to reading that piece.

Mark Hedges

>Mostly, I just don't want to get nuked. I don't want the people in
>Washington to get nuked. I don't want to be ostracized because a
>disjointed group I'm associated with has members who support nuking
>political opponents. "Nuke DC" is crap. "Ecash Assassination Politics" is
>crap. The loss of faith in one's ability to convince other people with
>rational discussion is crap. That whole attitude reminds me of the guys in
>early grade school who beat up on me because I was a nerd. I refuse to
>sink to their level.

I agree that Nuking D.C. would be a shame.  Think of the Smithsonian and
all those national treasures which would be destroyed.

--Steve

At 9:14 pm -0400 on 9/18/97, Steve Schear wrote:


> I agree that Nuking D.C. would be a shame.  Think of the Smithsonian and
> all those national treasures which would be destroyed.

And, of course, it would be a shameful waste of a perfectly good swamp, er,
wetland.

Ooooops!

It *is* already.

Never mind...

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga
(Who wonders if Newt was really serious when he said that *all* the laws,
including the EPA "wetland" confiscation policy, are now applicable to
Congress... :-))

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

At 5:01 PM -0700 9/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>At 15:16 -0700 9/18/97, Mark Hedges wrote:
>>My problem with the "it's hopeless, politicians are idiots" approach is
>>the same as my problem with Tim May's approach
>
>Sure, not all DC politicans are idiots. Most are damn smart. All are
>cunning. But just because they understand the technology doesn't mean
>they're going to vote the right way.
>
>In fact, I could see Tim May arguing if they understand the implications of
>crypto, they'll //definitely// vote the wrong way.

In fact, I _have_ argued exactly this point.

Hoping that if only Congress spends more time learning about an issue, or
that we educate them better, or that smarter people enter politics, is
missing the entire point.  The technologies we are promoting are the tools
to undermine the State, make tax collection harder, and ensure that groups
like White Aryan Resistance and Hamas and so on can thrive and link up
globally, transnationally, and without government interference. In short,
the stuff I've had in my .sig for the past five years.

Democracy is the problem, not the solution. Thus, nothing Congress can do
is good for our goals, except to get the fuck out of the way. And the best
way to do that is for them to be paralyzed and confused. (This is why I
favor feeding them disinformation, and even disrupting their computer and
other systems. Get those burrowcrats spinning in their warrens.)


>>I got a personal reply from a Senator to whom I sent that last release
>>(the one interviewing Michael Wilson of 7Pillars). It wasn't one of those
>>autoresponders -- it just said "Thank you for your views" with bad text
>>formatting. At least it did get someone's attention. It might be negative
>
>Sure, you got //someone's// attention. From an $18,000-a-year
>just-out-of-college staffer who lives in a group house in Arlington, VA
>with three other people who gets paid to answer phones, open letters,
>address envelopes, and reply to email. You think it was "a a personal reply
>from a Senator?" Not a chance.

Declan echoes my cynicism. Oh, and the other thing those junior politician
wannabees do is weigh the pro/con letters. (Which is why the Republican
Right set up huge direct mail campaigns in the late 70s.)

Politics is not the answer.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:
>like White Aryan Resistance and Hamas and so on can thrive and link up

I see, well, whatever. Kinda makes me think maybe I'm wrong and should
vote for cryptofascists. However, I won't, because I don't want the
government looking over my shoulder. I think there are plenty of ways for
people whose agenda is a good, peaceful world to organize against groups
like WAR and CIA and Hamas and the rest, without having to legislate. I
don't understand how you can judge which violent, fascist, oppressive
group is the correct one to support. Did you know there are other groups
who are not violent, fascist, or oppressive? Did you know that
occasionally, violent, oppressive fascists have changed their minds? 

It is doubtful my words are not going to make any difference in the way
you see the world, but I, like you, think escrow/recovery/wiretapping
would not make the world a better place --- kind of like how looking
closely at a particle makes it behave differently than it would otherwise.
I don't think the national security folk have "a good, peaceful world" in
mind for anyone.  They have in mind a world in which a small, exclusive
group of people can use, take from and manipulate the masses. All of these
groups do.

The history of violent revolution, even in the name of the people, is
filled with the leaders of the revolution assuming the same damn
imbalanced positions of power which were there before. They might call it
a President instead of a King, or maybe Prime Minister or Premier. The
Lords might be the Regional Governors, or Senators, or Counsellors. There
might even be different people in those positions from time to time, even
elected by will of the people. But it's not the person --- it's the
position! The position crafts the person into a pre-formed caricature. Its
history, its image...it is the Throne which makes the Pharoah a God, not
the Family, or the Decree. It is the Throne which makes the decisions, and
it follows instincts of self-perpetuation like any other entity. Do you
want to sit on a throne? GAK, GAP, SMACK, CRACK. MEME SCHEME SCHMEME. 
Consider first your true objective and who you bring to war before you aim
and fire the memetic cannon...or the musket.

They all seem to fit into the same category --- Hamas, Infada, the secular
Algerian "Ninjas", the Federal urban assault task forces, DEA thugs who
raid the homes of innocent people, etc.  They're all fighting, and it
seems like people pick up any side of an issue just so they can fight.
Why? 

Consider the addiction to the feeling that comes from getting angry at
those fuckers over there on that other side and how it would feel so good
to blow their heads off. Notice how the feeling moves around your torso. 
Instead of moving it up to your head where it makes your jaw vibrate, try
moving it around...out the center of your chest through your back...up
into wing shapes behind your body. Try a tail, too. We've still got some
neurons for it.

>Democracy is the problem, not the solution. Thus, nothing Congress can do

We don't live in a democracy. Do I get to vote on HR-695? Do you? No. Has
there ever been a democracy? Not really. Do you know what democracy means?
Do you see through the lies they put forth saying that we live in a
"democracy"? Do you actually think we live in anything close to the word?

Rule by the people, of the people, and for the people. If they don't want
rules, so be it. If they want to say, gosh, killing people is lame, send
that guy to jail, so be it. If they want to say, all people shall be named
"BOB" and partake of the Dispensation of Slack, so be it. Thing is, WE THE
PEOPLE have never actually had the opportunity. We've always been too
nervous about getting our heads blown off, because so many humans are
paranoid, power-hungry and trigger-happy, and because the ones in power
positions are almost always paranoid, power-hungry, and trigger-happy, and
now have nukes. 

So you want a massively plural nuclear weapon based power model. You don't
need to promote cryptography in the name of that. It's going to happen
anyway --- it's already here. Missing Israeli subs, black market Soviet
subs with full crews at the collapse, unused nuclear facilities
"accidentally" sold as scrap metal to the private sector, the whole bit.
I hope mutual assured destruction still works. 

Mark Hedges

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Mark Hedges wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:
> >like White Aryan Resistance and Hamas and so on can thrive and link up
> 
> I see, well, whatever. Kinda makes me think maybe I'm wrong and should
> vote for cryptofascists. However, I won't, because I don't want the
> government looking over my shoulder. I think there are plenty of ways for
> people whose agenda is a good, peaceful world to organize against groups
> like WAR and CIA and Hamas and the rest, without having to legislate. I
> don't understand how you can judge which violent, fascist, oppressive
> group is the correct one to support. Did you know there are other groups
> who are not violent, fascist, or oppressive? Did you know that
> occasionally, violent, oppressive fascists have changed their minds? 

...

> I don't think the national security folk have "a good, peaceful world" in
> mind for anyone.  They have in mind a world in which a small, exclusive
> group of people can use, take from and manipulate the masses. All of these
> groups do.

> The history of violent revolution, even in the name of the people, is
> filled with the leaders of the revolution assuming the same damn
> imbalanced positions of power which were there before. They might call it
> a President instead of a King, or maybe Prime Minister or Premier. The

...

> They all seem to fit into the same category --- Hamas, Infada, the secular
> Algerian "Ninjas", the Federal urban assault task forces, DEA thugs who
> raid the homes of innocent people, etc.  They're all fighting, and it
> seems like people pick up any side of an issue just so they can fight.
> Why? 

Let me agree and go further.

I believe in liberty (which encompasses the issues around cryptography) 
because I believe in human dignity.  But that also forces me to believe in
the right to life - Jefferson listed it before liberty in the declaration,
and if you don't have any other reason to agree, just note that dead
people don't have any use for liberty.  People are deprived of property
before liberty, and liberty before life in any system that I would
consider just.  But then I think about what is liberty and justice and
good and evil instead of demonizing whoever is doing something I don't
happen to like at the moment.

I don't defend any of those evils that would be made easier by the
presence of crypto, nor those who would destroy liberty to save it, on
either side of the debate.  You don't destroy something you consider
precious.  I condemn anyone who takes innocent life - be it the FBI at
Waco or McVeigh at OKC.  It is the act that is evil, and the intent or
negligence of the actor that makes it so, not which political side the
actor is on.

If crypto is banned in the US, there will still be some country where it
is legal - you might not like the economy or the climate, but you would
still have crypto and various other liberties.  The generations preceeding
our founders moved here because they didn't have liberty in their
homeland.  The life was harder, but they considered some specific freedoms
more important than the attraction of business in cities.

Even our Declaration of Independence doesn't call for the assasination of
anyone in Parliment or King George (and there were terrorist plots in
english history to do exactly this), but merely separation - in one sense
merely restoring the separation which was the reason their ancestors came
to the new world.

There was another revolution shortly after ours, in France.  But was
France better after the revolution during the reign of terror or during
the reign of Louis? 

>From http://net.fcref.org/comm/nrcomm/1997/nr050597.htm:

A Savoyard who lived through the French Revolution, Joseph de Maistre,
writes:

   "And you, mad philosophes . . . apostles of tolerance and humanity; you
. . . who extol the progress of intelligence and reason: Leave your tombs. 
Walk among the many corpses . . . Your writings are in the pockets of the
tyrants . . . In the name of virtue the most horrible thievery is
committed; in the name of humanity two million men perish; in the name of
liberty a thousand Bastilles are built . . . They left you only a moment,
Diderot, to sign the order for mass drownings."



I have been disturbed about the increasing tone of violence of the various
posts.  Didn't like what happened at Waco?  Then lets be the very
terrorists of the four cypher horsemen and kill even more children.  Don't
like voluntary ratings?  Then suggest posting kiddie porn and labeling it
as G rated.

Maybe China will nuke most of California - it may be an accident at their
new port.  Or one of the cults will release a biological agent.  Or even a
severe earthquake.  Should I shed a tear then? 

Even the French philosophers taught tolerance and humanity and would have
abhored the results.  Since even the intent is now bloodlust, first for
Reno and Freeh, then for everyone in the vacinity of Washington DC, then
for anyone who ever worked for the Feds... then for the liberals who
supported civil but not economic rights, and then the conservatives who
supported economic but not civil rights.  Don't work on better ciphers,
see if you can design a faster guillotine. 

And where does it stop?  When all the cities are burning?  When the people
who don't understand technology or how you have their liberty in mind get
guns and kill anyone they see?  When everything breaks down and you are
starving or dying of a disease you need technology to treat?  When all the
plants making the chips and fiber used for the internet are destroyed?

How many incinerated corpses will you need at your hands and those of your
diciples before you are satisfied that liberty is finally restored?  And
then will you worry about restoring other fundamental rights such as life? 
And if you care nothing for life, why should you expect anyone to respect
liberty? 

Starting a revolution might not be easy, but controlling it is harder and
ending it can be impossible.  And our economy and technology depends on
integration and cooperation to a much higher degree than at any other
time.  I may be able to be an individual on the internet, but I cannot
build a computer starting with sand, copper and steel.

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---