cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-01-26 - Re: “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail”

Header Data

From: hallam@w3.org
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 69bf471e6f6f0d40161eb0bd6cf512f57e04af19c378d96db176e0953f323d34
Message ID: <9601261803.AA04117@zorch.w3.org>
Reply To: <199601252139.QAA16761@jekyll.piermont.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-26 19:58:16 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 03:58:16 +0800

Raw message

From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 03:58:16 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"
In-Reply-To: <199601252139.QAA16761@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <9601261803.AA04117@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Perry writes,

>I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
>be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
>steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
>for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
>government, too.

This statement commits the logical falacy of type incompatibility. Sets of 
objects are not the same as objects. Organisations of people have different 
characteristics to people. To accord the same rights to idividuals is to ignore 
the different chaqracteristics of the organisation over the group. In most cases 
we would ascribe fewer individual liberties to groups than to individuals. The 
individual may have freedom of speech but the government official does not. It 
is generally undesirable for military personel to enter into party politics, 
thus it is generally undesirable for such people to take part in party political 
broadcasts.

On the other hand there are casses in which we would wish to give the government 
more power than the individual. We give the government the right to raise 
taxation for example.

Thus Perry is not only a funny sort of person, he is also entirely negating the 
argument that Mill puts forward in "on Liberty", namely that the interests of 
the government and people are not as opposed as might appear, that it is 
possible to divide liberties into those which the state must excercise in order 
to protect the liberty of the population in general and those which the 
individual needs to protect themselves from government and other interference.

If we take Perry's argument seriously we effectively deny the legitimacy of any 
government. This is not good for Perry's argument for it is clearly legitamate 
to read the mail of a party which is illegitamte [an evil oppressor of the 
people, restraint on the exploitation of ecconomic power, restraint on free 
capitalism, tool of the borgeoise classes, people of all lands untie! you have 
nothing to lose but your chains...]


		Phill

Thread