[79276] in Cypherpunks
Re: Rejecting Dialog with Government Vermin
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim May)
Tue Apr 29 21:28:52 1997
X-Real-To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <v03007804af8c176fcdca@[168.161.105.191]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 17:45:16 -0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
At 2:03 PM -0800 4/29/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Nah, I like being in DC -- though I agree that it's one of the cities most
>likely to be taken out by a nuke in the next few decades. Until then, I'd
>rate the city itself as surprisingly livable, much more so than New York; I
That's damning with faint praise indeed. I grew up outside D.C., in
suburban Virginia. Outside the crater wall, but still inside the pit, if
you catch my drift.
The "unlivability" for me, confirmed on return visits, is that it's a
wholly artificial city, a seat of imperial power built solely as a haven
for bureaucrats and suckers of pork. Outside of the Northwest region, the
rest of the city is a welfare/ghetto/slum/crime mess...as I'm sure anyone
who's been there will agree. The suburbs are hot and muggy in the summer,
and monotonously suburban and flat.
>Think of it this way: there are tactical and strategic decisions.
>Strategically, I would like the Federal government to evolve into a form
>that's consistent with the principles of individual freedom, peace, and
>limited government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. That means the
>Federal government would have no role regulating speech online, or
>restricting encryption, or funding Net-infrastructure, or ensuring
>universal service, or banning spam, or setting domain name rules, or what
>have you.
These are all essentially the guarantees provided in the Constitution, esp.
the Bill of Rights. Legislation qua legislation never makes these basic
rights any stronger, only confuses them and weakens them. Congress could
vanish for 10 years (and maybe it will if my buddy Abu can get that tramp
steamer up the Potomac) and the basic principles of freedom you list would
remain, and remain in a stronger form.
>To reach that goal, tactical decisions to work with friendly legislators
>are sometimes necessary. Rep. Rick White (R-Microsoft) is far from sterling
I repeat: legislators only make things worse.
You mention White. A better example of the problem is Patrick Leahy. Many
of the Beltway rights groups sing his praises...and yet he's a statist
piece of scum who I wouldn't spit on if I met him in a dark alley.
The National Rifle Association tried this "tactical negotiation" stratagem,
and watch rights erode with evey legislative act. Their "allies" would
supposedly help them, while slipping in clauses very much the equivalent to
the "use crypto in connection with a crime" clause now in the supposed
"Pro-CODE" bill, and then when _other_ laws were passed these little
clauses ended up doing more damage than the original bill!
That "Pro-CODE" Bill is a case in point. The authors ought to be taken out
and shot. (I mean this in a rhetorical way, though, as I have said, I won't
cry any tears if a Ryder truck takes out those vipers nests and their
accomplices.)
The motto of the Crypto Rejectionist Alliance: No compromises, only actions.
--Tim May
There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net 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."
