From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 94 14:20:48 PDT
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: CONTROL FREAKS
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9409091434.A20129-0100000@crl2.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Where do I begin?  Jim Choate has now retreated into subjectivism
rather than

Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore
economics.  Answer my questions.  How long did the "Thousand Year
Reich" last?  What totalitarian states can you name that have had
any legs at all?  There are none.

    I take it you don't take the comparison between the
    Roman circuses where prisoners and other misfits (ie
    Christians) were fed to the lions and and the Tutonic
    cirucses of the 30's and 40's (ie prison or relocation
    camps) where the criminal and other misfits (ie Jewish)
    were fed to the masochistic 'system' as comparable? The
    Warsaw Ghetto was not a form of 'circus' then?

No, of course not.  The Roman circuses were public spectacles.
They were a form of entertainment (like professional sports
today).  Their propose was to distract the populace, not to
eliminate enemies of the state.  That's what Crucifixion and
other types of execution were for.  Often, the participants were
pros, free men who did it for gold and glory.  Hell, Rome wasn't
even a totalitarian state.  Where do you get these ideas?  The
Nazis were another matter, but they still didn't make the cut.
Show me your successful totalitarian states.

    'They' are the persons with money and influence and have
    also made it in their best interest to sustain the
    status quo. Just take a look at the Federal Reserve and
    how they manage the money in this country. Take a look
    at the special interest political groups who make it
    their job to get law-makers to look at it 'their' way.

I've looked.  I repeat, who are "they"?  You know, like some
names.  They can't be too powerful, since social/cultural/legal
non-compliance is a growth industry.  God, what the hell are
you so afraid of?

    Just exactly whose reality are we talking about ruling
    here?...  people do not analyze their choices the same
    way  you analyze some physical problem like building a
    bridge....

But that's the point.  Economics *is* like building a bridge.
You can't spend money you don't have.  You can't create wealth by
printing money.  There are rules, and no amount of subjectivism
or Roadrunner logic will exempt totalitarian states from them.
But if you disagree, please prove me wrong by naming the states
that have "created their own reality."  I bet you can't.

When I alluded that "they" weren't spending *my* money you wrote:

    I can assure you that the folks out there will spend
    their money if it is clear that they will make more of
    it in the long run. While it is true that public monies
    are the easiest to spend because of its anonymity it is
    not the only resource that is there. Consider
    under-the-table bribes and such.

I give up, I don't have a clue what you're taking about.  Do you?
If so, please elucidate.

Apparently, my comment about *structuring your life* so that you
could ignore the control freaks went right over your head at the
speed of light.

FLAME ALERT:  All Cypherpunks who disdain flamish exchanges
should tune out now.  I'm feeling peevish today and this sort of
mindless drivel pisses me off.  I have decided, therefore, to
amuse myself by fucking with Mr. Choate's head for the remainder
of this post.

    I am afraid [we know that, the question is why you are
    afraid?] that if you ignore a control freak  you build
    the perfect environ [I'm sure you don't mean "environ,"
    a verb.  Perhaps "environment" or "environs" would be more
    suitable.  Sloppy thinking; sloppy language.] for their
    growth. We are  not talking about roses [now you've
    gotten SOMETHING right] here but rather ideas, a
    decidedly different animal.  [Neither roses nor ideas
    are animals, Mr. Choate.  Can you say mixed metaphor?]
    Ideas can grow long after the original thinker is gone.
    [Yes, but what has that got to do with our discussion.
    Focus, Mr. Choate.] To ignore rather than [to?] confront
    and expose [them?] is the best way possible [possible is
    redundundundant, Mr. Choate] to get what you  don't
    want.  [Interesting use of the negative in your sentence
    construction, but you never addressed my thesis, to wit:
    it is possible to structure your life so that you can
    ignore would-be controllers.  There is no substitute for
    critical thinking, Mr. Choate.]

Love and kisses,


 S a n d y

      "Who promises to go back on his medication tomorrow."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~