From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:27:21 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
Message-ID: <199602070213.UAA03036@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 15:43:12 -0800
> From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
> Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I
>   wrong?
> 
> [Part 1]
> I've been following the concepts of digital cash and encryption, since
> I read the article in the August 1992 issue of Scientific American on
> "encrypted signatures."  While I've only followed the Digitaliberty area
> for a few weeks, I can already see a number of points that do (and
> should!) strongly concern the average savvy individual:
> 
> 1.  How can we translate the freedom afforded by the Internet to
> ordinary life?
> 

By realizing that freedom is freedom, the medium is irrelevant.

> 2.  How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital
> cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom?
> 

By making shure they don't have the authority to make the decision in the
first place.

> A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary"
> idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on
> the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_
> announce either that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who
> correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
> rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or
> appointees.  It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public,
> and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital
> cash.
> 

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.

> 
> On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a
> government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck
> of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights
> beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident
> and Waco come to mind.)  In receiving such money and in his various
> acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus,
> presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under
> libertarian principles.
> 

Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or
another.

By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to
protect us against.

                                              Jim Choate
                                              ravage@ssz.com