[79301] in Cypherpunks
Re: Rejecting Dialog with Government Vermin
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Wagner)
Wed Apr 30 06:18:16 1997
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
Date: 30 Apr 1997 02:52:22 -0700
Reply-To: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
In article <19970429183938.08726@bywater.songbird.com>,
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 1997 at 06:03:43PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > 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.
>
> Just curious Declan: If these things are enshrined in the
> Constitution, and they are intrinsically desirable, and our
> forefathers did their level best to institutionalize them and
> presumably strongly believed in them, how is it, do you suppose, that
> we evolved to our present sorry state? And, supposing something
> closer to the libertarian ideal comes to pass, what is to prevent us
> from evolving to another sorry state?
>
> To put a finer point on it, what flaw existed (exists) in the founding
> fathers dream and actualization that prevented it from being a stable
> condition?
Noone said freedom is stable. (Eternal vigilance, and all.)
I say freedom is good, though often not stable.
