From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 12:04:14 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
Message-ID: <199602110333.VAA00832@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From jimbell@pacifier.com Sat Feb 10 20:31:23 1996
> Message-Id: <m0tlQnv-00092TC@pacifier.com>
> X-Sender: jimbell@pacifier.com
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:41:30 -0800
> To: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
> From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
> Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> 
> 
> At 08:13 PM 2/6/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> >Forwarded message:
> 
> >If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply
> >because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and
> >moraly or ethicaly undefensible.
> 
> That's a misleading statement:  You said, "simply because..."    As should 
> be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone 
> killed "simply because"  of the fact I "don't agree with them."  It is their 
> ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what  justifies my seeking 
> their deaths, should I choose to do so.
> 

But it is not clear at all. Exactly how do their actions violate your
rights? Are these the rights that you believe that you possess or the ones
that are recognized? Do the actions have to effect you directly and
immediately or must you merely percieve a threat? All of these issues are
unclear in your presentation. And for the final one, doesn't your putting a
contract out on them violate their rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of
hapiness)? The only answer to this is 'yes', meaning that to be ethical you
must put a contract out on yourself. Because your own actions violate 
somebodies rights. This catch-22 situation regarding deadly force is why
anarchy does not work. A perhaps less different example might be: If you
dislike bigots then you are a bigot. In short, you can't help but become
what you hate the most. It pays not to hate or be quick to use violence
since they are so strongly related.

It is not yours, the governments, or anyone elses right to decide who lives
and dies. You have a double standard.

> 
> >Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or
> >another.
> 
> That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time.  I'm amazed 
> that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list.  While I don't know 
> precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really 
> is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a 
> REALLY weird definition of that.
> 

Then Lincoln had a equaly weird view: Government of the people, by the
people, for the people. Perhaps this failure to recognize a basic premise of
representative democracy explains your apparent dichotomy in the concepts of
rights. In effect, your rights and their rights. When in fact there is no
difference.

I would suggest you read the Declaration of Indipendance and the Gettysburg
Address (again) to get a better perspective on what and who is supposed to
run this government and how. We have had a basic inversion of how our
government is supposed to work. In short, if there is a question the federal
government is supposed to bow to the will of the people and the states.
Currently the states and people bow to the federal government.

Somehow, I think that this is where  your argument fails, and it fails 
> miserably.
> 
> 
> >By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to
> >protect us against.
> 
> Sorry, I disagree.  Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type" 
> total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people actually 
> believe in that.

Might does not make right. Ethical cohesion does not rest on numerical
values. In case you have missed my comments before. I am not non-violent. I
do not support the use of violence in any format except in direct and
immediate self-defence. In which case make the beggars eyes bleed, no defeat
and no surrender. This means that if you walk outside and see a person
breaking in your car that in and of itself is not sufficient motive for
deadly force unless they attack you. I do believe (contrary to yourself I
would guess) that if you were walking down the street and somebody suddenly
grabbed you that would be sufficient motive to kill them in self-defence. In
cases like this there simply isn't enough time to evaluate the extent of the
threat, it is clear there is an apparent threat though. In short if your
person is violated physicaly without your premeditated permission then deadly
force is justified. I also believe that you are ethicaly justified in
stopping a person from assaulting or killing a 3rd party for the simple
reason that it could be you next. However, once that immediate threat is
over (for example a 4th party knocks the gun out of the muggers hand and
knocks them on the ground) then use of deadly force is not justified.

> Most people seem to think that they are entitled to 
> protect themselves from violations of rights.  The fact that these 
> violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most 
> irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it.  Anybody who feels entitled to 
> use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting 
> to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in 
> itself, a violation of my rights.
> 

Rights as you use them are only relevant between a government and a citizen.
I as an individual person am not forced to provide you with a forum for free
speech or any other rights guaranteed in the constitution. Apparently you,
as many people do, confuse the rights that are yours in regards the
government with privileges and contractual obligations which govern
interpersonal actions. The local grocery store is not mentioned in the
Constitution. They are under no obligation to provide protection for your
life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Your basic argument rests on a straw
man premise, namely that rights guaranteed you by government are guaranteed
you by any and every other possible entity. This is clearly wrong.

It is not ethical to kill another simply for being a burglar. How much must
they steal before you are ethicaly justified in killing them? A $1,000
dollar stereo? Perhaps a $.20 pencil off your desk? Does this not justify
your employer killing you for using their machines for your own use,it is
theft of services after all (and you are on their property). If you have
sufficient force detain them. The legal system will take them from there
(assuming of course we revamp it with the other laws we discuss so heatedly
on here). What I propose is a simple and humane system. If a person commits
a crime which leads to the death or injury another they spend the remainder
of their life in a solitary cell with no chance of parole. In other cases
what should occur is they must work a regular job and provide restitution
for an extended period (ie $100/mo. to you for 30 years). Should they fail
to abide by this or they commit another crime then off they go for 20 years
or so, again with no chance of parole. I also strongly object to plea
bargaining. The whole concept of sending somebody to jail for 2-3 years is
silly and counter-productive. It leads to nothing but professional criminals,
in effect state run training grounds for the criminaly inclined. While in
jail they should be forced to live in work camps and not prisons as we
currently know them (unless they fall into the above 'harm another'
category). What should occur is that they are forced to live a relatively
normal lifestyle. In short, they work 8 hours a day and must pay for their
housing, food, etc. from their earning. What needs to occur is to train
persons to make a living and gain some success at managing a day to day
lifestyle. Our currrent system treats criminals as animals, which does
nothing to prevent further violence on their part, it only increases any
sense of isolation they may have.

> Are you a statist?
> 

No, as I have said on many occassions, I am a strict Constitutionalist.


                                               Jim Choate