1994-05-26 - Re: Unicorn vs. tmp@netcom

Header Data

From: jpp@jpplap.markv.com (Jay Prime Positive)
To: Cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 9a19c96ba7b4d9333fc9da546412f9bca05ef1d674f690281fb2a29bafff1947
Message ID: <m0q6gea-0003paC@jpplap>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9405261102.A4118-0100000@io.org>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-26 15:45:14 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 26 May 94 08:45:14 PDT

Raw message

From: jpp@jpplap.markv.com (Jay Prime Positive)
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 08:45:14 PDT
To: Cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Unicorn vs. tmp@netcom
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9405261102.A4118-0100000@io.org>
Message-ID: <m0q6gea-0003paC@jpplap>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

  Well there is a distinction to be made between the law, and the
government.  Today, the government claims a (virtual) monopoly on the
law*.  Thus resort to the law today must almost always also be a
resort to governemt.  So, we cannot tell from outside if Unicorn's
'master' is government, or law.  Perhaps we should ask him?

  On the other hand, I certainly agree that 'kicking folks when they
are down' is not nice.  Especially if it is done in a premeditated
manner.  But you didn't sugest that -- did you?

  Btw, is cyber1@io.org by any chance another nym for tmp@netcom.com?

  * Footnote: Arbitration services are almost a seperate law, but
generaly their 'teeth' come ultimately from government monopoly on
force.  It is posible to imagin arbitration services with shaper

  I supose that criminal organizations which chalange the government's
monopoly on force could provide an example of alternative law.  Hmm.
Didn't you mention something about that kind of law being cheaper to