From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 94 01:14:31 PDT
To: jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)
Subject: Re: Constitution and Contract [Was: CIA & FBI]
In-Reply-To: <9404300742.AA16079@ininx>
Message-ID: <199404300813.AA25162@access1.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> Summary: Unicorn thoughtfully underscores the need for the defense
> afforded by strong cryptography and other means.
> 
> He writes:
> 
> > The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under
> > the Constitution.
> 
> Thank you.  It's good for a freedom-loving person to be reminded of the
> nature of the threat.

Are you being sarcastic here or...?

You seem to think I look upon the above description with fondness and 
adoration.  I do not.


> 
> The appeal of strong cryptography is that it may help to defend against
> those who embrace this deceitful attitude.

Which deceitful attitude, mine or the federal government's?

> > The continued acceptance of the process, the
> > participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the
> > amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of
> > government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, 
> > the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.
> 
> It is for _exactly this reason_ that the freedom-loving person forbears
> from willful participation.

I think that's difficult to do and still live in the United States, or 
most nations.

Regardless of how persuasive I find the argument, you do probably benefit 
from the police, fire, emergency rescue, and national defense services 
provided by the government.  You also probably benefit from what 
deterence the civil litigation and criminal processes affords those who 
would do you ill.

While I don't find this justifies the abridgement of the constitution, I 
do think it stifles the argument that one is not willfully participating 
or partaking of soceital benefit.


> > The United States does not claim its authority to be rooted in divine 
> > grant, nor in pure power over the people, nor in a quest for utopia, but 
> > in consent of the people.
> 
> ...which is fine for a person who consents.  The problem comes when he
> assumes that the authority extends to his neighbor who does not consent.

I think your position is basically "I didn't sign the Constitution, so 
the government has no power over me."  I don't really see a rationale for 
this position, only the position itself.  The clause "but in consent of 
the people" is a collective form of "the people."  I wish it needn't be, but 
it is none-the-less.

> > > 	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
> > > 	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.
> >                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> > A Victorian after my own heart.  I think we disagree, if we differ at 
> > all, in the application of this theory to grants of authority.
> 
> Again, this is no doubt wonderful for a person who grants his authority.
> The trouble begins when he presumes that his neighbor, too, has granted
> his authority.

Again, I don't know where to go with this.  You give me a position, and 
use it to support your position.

I will say that if I believed a soceity could exist without some minority 
oppression I would reject all regulation.

-uni- (Dark)