From: jamesd@echeque.com
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 08:20:17 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
Message-ID: <199602121635.IAA11515@shell1.best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:36 AM 2/12/96 -0500, lmccarth@cs.umass.edu wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm not willing to take [vulnerability of the state] on faith. 

You delete my arguments, and then say:  "I am not willing to take this on
faith", implying that I made no arguments.

> Strata made some good
> observations about the tangible vulnerability of the net-as-we-know-it to
> government intervention.

During the American revolution, the British troops could go where they
pleased, and destroy whatever they wished, but they could not obtain
political control by so doing.

Yes, we are vulnerable, and so are they.  If they used the measures
proposed by Strata, the measures proposed by Jim Bell would gather 
wide support.

Ob Crypto:

They cannot obtain political control by mere acts of destruction, because 
they cannot be sufficiently selective in who they silence.

For destruction to be effective, you must not only harm those who oppose
you, you must refrain from harming those who do not oppose you.  The
destructive acts proposed by Strata conspicuously fail to do this.

Under the extreme conditions that Strata envisages, the measures proposed 
by Jim Bell would be effective in obtaining politically desired consequences,
because they are selective and targeted, and the measures that Strata fears
would be ineffective in obtaining the politically desired consequences, 
because they are unselective and untargeted.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com