Re: words have value, for good or ill

Zooko Journeyman <zooko@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of
>thoughts.  Words are actions in my book.  (ObDcashPunks: Note that
>the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token.
>Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the
>cash token.  :-) )

It looks like we lost some context across the Atlantic.

In the United States when we are discussing free speech there are
usually some common assumptions that are used to simplify the
discussion.  Usually when free speech is being discussed, we do not
mean contracts, coercive threats, or copyrighted works.  Strictly
speaking, of course, those are speech, but that usually isn't what is
meant over here. (1)

The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has
been writing.  To keep things simple, let's consider the statement
"McVeigh did the right thing."  It is not a contract.  It is not a
threat.  It is not copyrighted.

It is simply a belief which Tim May considered and posted to the list.
I think we've fairly settled that it is not immoral to have this
thought.  So the question really is, if you have such a thought, is it
immoral to express it?

It's hard for me to see how.  If the belief is correct, then other
people certainly will benefit from hearing it.  If the belief is not
correct, then other people may be able to enlighten you.  In either
case, it is preferable that the belief be expressed.

>> What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should
>> refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world
>> because they are immoral.
>
>I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the
>meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it
>should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks
>discourse.

I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing.  My dictionary defines
"eradicate" in two ways:

1. to destroy utterly

2. to erase or remove

I don't believe the meme should be "destroyed" and I'm not sure I'm
comfortable with the means that would be required to do this.  Nor do
I see it as desirable to erase or remove posts which have already been
made, if it were even possible.

If you don't like somebody's ideas, I would suggest that you don't
read their messages.  If you don't want to see a particular idea,
perhaps you could hire somebody to remove the posts from your mail
queue that contain it.  If you don't like other people hearing certain
ideas, I recommend you get used to it.

(1) It is interesting to consider a world in which these exceptions
are not made.

If there were no coercive enforcement mechanisms for contracts, then
this exception would not have to exist.  The idea of doing business
solely on the basis of reputation is not only fascinating, but not
very unlike much of the world today.

There are two ways in which threats can be no ops.  One is if the
person being threatened is just a public key whose identity is simply
unknown.  A threat in that case is irrelevant.  The second is if the
person being threatened can adequately protect him or herself in which
case the threat is dangerous to the threatener.

And "intellectual property" is somewhat peculiar and implies a
centralized enforcement mechanism.  If we are to have "intellectual
property" in a worldwide networked environment, it implies a de facto
world government.  The alternative may be preferable.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No. 2]
94C43229A76383D818D39952F7A41ACA0394C6FE
4E027939BD9DC5F3EACD8C2EE96F6030C214D1C6
-E5C E5C
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

At 12:59 PM -0700 12/4/97, Monty Cantsin wrote:

>It looks like we lost some context across the Atlantic.
>
>In the United States when we are discussing free speech there are
>usually some common assumptions that are used to simplify the
>discussion.  Usually when free speech is being discussed, we do not
>mean contracts, coercive threats, or copyrighted works.  Strictly
>speaking, of course, those are speech, but that usually isn't what is
>meant over here. (1)
>
>The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has
>been writing.  To keep things simple, let's consider the statement
>"McVeigh did the right thing."  It is not a contract.  It is not a
>threat.  It is not copyrighted.
>
>It is simply a belief which Tim May considered and posted to the list.
>I think we've fairly settled that it is not immoral to have this
>thought.  So the question really is, if you have such a thought, is it
>immoral to express it?

Indeed, my original point was not that others should support what I was
saying for "free speech" reasons. Whether they agree with me or not is
unimportant.

I repudiated the notion that I should "apologize" or "withdraw" my
statements. "Anonymous" had attempted to shame me into apologizing or
withdrawing my statments, and I refused to.

And whether Bryce agrees with Anonymous or not is of little concern to me.
I simply _assume_ that many people will have many views on this list. I
don't apologize because someone was bothered by my views.


>If you don't like somebody's ideas, I would suggest that you don't
>read their messages.  If you don't want to see a particular idea,
>perhaps you could hire somebody to remove the posts from your mail
>queue that contain it.  If you don't like other people hearing certain
>ideas, I recommend you get used to it.
>

Sounds good to me.

Over the several years of this list, there has generally been very little
of the "Joe should apologize and withdraw his remarks" kind of
argumentation. For good reason. Most people are too smart to be affected by
this lame sort of argument.

Look around. How often do people change or alter their views because
someone says "You should be ashamed of yourself"? Not often. To withdraw an
opinion because Anonymous or Bryce thinks an opinion is wrong or immoral is
a sign of cowardice and lack of confidence.

To compound the debating style errors made by Anonymous and his
supporter(s), Anonymous also misrepresented my views about McVeigh and OKC.
In a series of posts a few months or so ago, I made my position clear: that
I could "understand" McVeigh's actions, in the same way one can understand
someone snapping under pressure. I also pooh-poohed the "human tragedy"
aspects of the OKC story in the same way any warrior must pooh-pooh
specific cases where innocents, alleged or real, die in battles. Finally, I
was not involved in the bombing of the Murrah building, and had no causal
link to it, and did not do it, and probably won't be bombing any buildings
in the foreseeable future. So any attempt to somehow link me to this
bombing, or to claim that my failure to declare McVeigh to be Satan
Herself, etc.. consitutes complicity is magical thinking at its worst.

This same kind of leap in logic occurred in the "I won't weep if D.C. is
nuked" ---> "Tim is planning to nuke D.C." logical leap.

Complete nonsense, compounded by the "If you don't plan to nuke D.C., then
denounce your earlier views and apologize to the list" crap.

Methinks Anonymous and Zooko are steeped in the "self-criticism" style of
Maoist ideological purification.

Personally, I hope to see D.C. purified in a 30 megaton burst of cleansing
fusion. Think of how may problems it would solve. The leech state of
burrowcrats and a million welfare addicts all wiped out. Imperial capitals
need to be sacked for the subjugated serfs to breathe freely.

(The museum stuff in D.C. is is mostly either not all that important or is
already adequately preserved in other ways. We'll get by with the copies
archived in Seattle and environs, in the "other" Washington, ironically
enough.)

So sue me.

--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: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."