From: pmetzger@lehman.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 93 17:28:28 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
Message-ID: <9309130022.AA21166@kublai.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Anonymous says:
> Bullshit. Privacy is not inherently subversive at all. If you
> take the time to browse back through the Bill of Rights, you might
> recognize this paragraph -
>  
>                      ARTICLE IV
>  
>     The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
> houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
> seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
> upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
> particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
> things to be seized.

I'll point out something about the history of that line most people
forget.

Our fine nation was founded by drug smugglers. The drug in question
was Rum, admittedly, but none the less, the point remains -- the
revolutionary war was financed by big time criminals like John Hancock
who made their money in smuggling contraband and other similar acts.
They made sure that the constitution they got was supportive of their
particular business interests. History teachers don't like pointing
this sort of thing out, but its none the less true. 

Our founders wanted a government that is very close in size to what
minarchist libertarians think of as being the "right size" -- there
was a scandal early on when the white house staff was expanded to four
people -- so it shouldn't be suprising that a correct reading of the
constitution leads to certain unpleasant conclusions for statists.

Perry

PS Thomas Jefferson once fretted heavily over whether a constitutional
amendment was needed to make the Louisiana Purchase. Think of that
image in your mind the next time you hear a congressman propose some
new program that is plainly not authorized in the enumerated powers
section of the constitution.

(By the way, if your history teacher fed you the bull that the "escape
clause" means congress can pass any law it likes, I suggest looking up
the legal doctrine that the "exception proves the rule", and check out
the history of FDRs administration, paying special attention to
the early constutional battles like the so called Scheckter "Sick
Chicken" case and to the phrase "Court Packing".)