From: jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 11:50:26 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FCC Regulation (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199408271701.KAA13117@servo.qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <9408280840.AA05683@ininx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Phil Karn writes

> In these proceedings it became clear that the hams themselves are the
> real problem. Some hams still want a big benevolent FCC to protect
> them from people who personally offend them, and many of these people
> have a following. Although this phenomenon is by no means
> qualitatively unique to ham radio, it does seem to have grown
> quantitatively beyond anything seen elsewhere.

There are plenty of other examples, though, whether quantitatively
beyond or not.  Consider calls for government censorship, for instance.
The entire War On Drugs is mostly just an effort by one segment of the
general population to impose their idea of virtue upon others who
personally offend them with their drug use, and to use big benevolent
government for the purpose.  Much of the current battle against tobacco
smoking is another case.  Who's behind the current US FDA drive against
purveyors of nutritional supplements?  I believe that they're being
driven in large measure by forces outside of government who, for one
reason or another, are offended by such supplements.  Substantial stuff,
by any reasonable quantitative measure.  

> It really gives one pause. Is government really the enemy of personal
> freedoms, or does it merely reflect an intolerant and unenlightened
> general population?

Excellent question.  Answering it the wrong way leads to tremendous
energy misdirected to trying to influence politicians and bureaucrats,
even when they are effectively representing their constituencies in the
general population.  It's like shooting the messenger because he bears
bad news.  Protesting intrusive government instead of popular gratuitous
acceptance of government benefits is like putting the cart before the
horse.  The pessimism about the prospects for ``legal hacking'' that has
been expressed on this list ultimately results from a general population
too ready to wield government against those they find offensive, folks
who are not going let mere legal formality stand between them and their
objective.

> It's easy to make a government that responds to
> the will and whim of the majority, but how can one create a government
> that rises above the petty illiberalism of the people it governs to
> protect the rights of the individual?

Democratic political government is like a cancer, and it has now become
well entrenched.  It used to be that you could point to the tyrant, and
if he got too obnoxious, shoot him.  Now that the tyrant is the
majority, the option for the rest of us is solar exodus, with strong
crypto to help in the rear-guard action.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLmBMGsDhz44ugybJAQEbJAQA0/ju2njqmJtFsBlo+wCcoJ2Aw1dtpvwm
pEi4m1RpRkU/7pVopw9xk/cTzAiM1IxzVMIIItbVv5RXVBCv24VZ7+XExWM9N1HK
tU8OyGk8mUOFNgazHxPRyyGqFOqDZa9ors9gyVNK/JMdj5hWjIPsrd8XuQ+iGO9m
OBUhHSsyi1Q=
=obEz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----