From: alt@iquest.net (Al Thompson)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 10:28:43 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "bad" government
Message-ID: <m0rZNJT-000E68C@dorite.use.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>
>>From: erc@s116.slcslip.indirect.com (Ed Carp [khijol Sysadmin])
>
>>Governments as a whole are seen to be "bad" because they invariably undermine
>the right of the individual to make choices for themselves.
>
>Quite untrue. It's society which provides you with an environment in which
>you have choices. And its government which orders that society. It's
>because government has served you so well, that you have luxury to
>fantasize you don't need it. You're being duped.
  
Government does indeed "order society."  However, "order" does not
equat to liberty, luxury, or to individual freedom.
 
If strong government resulted in liberty and freedom, then the
most intrusive, all-encompassing governments would result in 
its citizens having the most liberty.  Is this the case?  I would
look at the (former) Soviet Union, Iran, Cuba, East Germany, etc., 
for your answer.
 
Individual liberties do not necessarily result in an "orderly
society."  In fact, an imposed "order" on society, by definition,
must result in limited liberties.
 
Apply this to anonymous remailers, and encrypted personal mail, and you can 
easily see how the government imposing "order" would
result in the end of those activities.

************************************************************
*           Just your basic signature block                *
*                                                          *
*  Al Thompson                                             *
*  Fidonet 1:231/110                                       *
*  alt@iquest.net                                          *
************************************************************