From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
To: CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com
Message Hash: f9ea6bb6db9032c51f4d8fbbb0fb33a95ec3f87d1f1d71402b9f683b269d460c
Message ID: <199310250215.AA03602@panix.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-25 02:18:39 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 19:18:39 PDT
From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 19:18:39 PDT
To: CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com
Subject: Re: Net Regulation
Message-ID: <199310250215.AA03602@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
B >From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
B >I mostly agree
B >with your statements and wish you wouldn't weaken them with
B >worthless supporting claims.
I'm glad.
B >The permanent tourists, of course. The state is, when all is
B >boiled down, an instrument of force and it functions most
B >"effectively" when it limits itself to that. I guarantee you that
B >if the US wanted to crack down on this stuff that it would be
B >gone. This year, a third of the prison population is from
B >drug-related "crimes"; if they got a bee in their bonnets, you
B >and I and a whole lot of other people could take their places.
B >(Not, mind you, that I think this'll happen. But it *could*.)
Permanent Tourists are outside US jurisdiction. You could grab a very few
but only a few. You couldn't affect the non-US persons earning their
dough on the nets at all. That's the point of the nets that "foreigners"
can be Americans and Americans can be "foreigners" without any loss of
income. Once developed, the ability to work from anywhere to anywhere is
powerful. It makes one much harder to control. Consider, small
cash-intensive businesses located *in* the US report less than half of
their income to the government (according to IRS studies). That is among
people completely subject to US jurisdiction.
B >Yes, that could be prevented, but it won't be prevented by what
B >the cypherpunks are doing. Sooner or later, the bodies would have
B >to meet the bullets. That's the way of the world, alas.
Actually, such problems are rare in the OECD countries. Most enforcement
here is indirect. People obey because of fear not direct application of
force. Reduce the fear and you reduce the obedience. The threat we
represent is a bit to abstract to sell the government on an all-out
campaign against us that would be difficult and expensive. I don't think
the Feds would "go to the mattresses" to fight us.
Duncan Frissell
If the KGB and the Stasi couldn't prevail against the winds of
institutional "rightsizing", what chance does one aging dyke have?
--- WinQwk 2.0b#1165
Return to October 1993
Return to “Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>”