From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 04:40:36 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
Message-ID: <199602070326.VAA03478@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:43 EDT
> From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
> 
> >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.
> -------------------
> 	So you don't believe in self-defense, or the defense of another? While
> I'm not as sure as Jim whether such a system would just be used by the good
> guys, if someone has taken action to seriously violate the rights of another
> I can see the death penalty as being appropriate.
> 	-Allen
> 
What is described is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination. It
is a pre-meditated act which causes any plea of self-defence to fail.

If it is wrong for an individual to kill another except in immediate
self-defence then it is wrong for any group of people to kill another
individual or group unless there is an immediate threat to the group.
Capital punishment by governments is wrong under any conditions. If you
seriously believe it is ethical for a government to kill another then please
answer me a simple question.

How many people have to decide that another should be killed for it to be
ethical? In short, how many people does it take to decide it is a legitimate
act to take your own life?

                                                  Jim Choate