From: "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 06:18:46 +0800
To: Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon@citenet.net>
Subject: Re: U.S. State Dept criticizes Chinese net-censorship
In-Reply-To: <9603091820.AB14468@cti02.citenet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9603091324.A17367-0100000@netcom19>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Sat, 9 Mar 1996, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com> wrote to Declan:
> 
> >IF you hold to the premise that self-censorship is based in a 
> >large part on witholding your natural inclination and/or reaction
> >, then yes the argument can be made that self-censorship occurs 
> >all the time. However, I would submit that J.F.A. is correct and
> >that your position is but a subset of the original statement.
> 
> One problem that arise in all of the discussion around this theme 
> is that peoples have very different ideas of the terms "self-
> interest" and "selfishness".  The collectivists and mystics have 
> made us accept the basic premise that selfishness means "acting
> in a way harmfull to others".  They just trained us to blank out
> the fact that, as rational animals who love life, our best inte-
> rest might very well coincide with the one of our neighboor.

Well, I'll accept the premise at face value for the moment - as per our 
discussion. The argument points out the blatant spin control exercised on 
the language by those who would "manage" our daily affairs. Orwell was 
correct in his "Newsspeek".

What I can't understand is why it is so difficult for some people to 
understand the difference between discipline and control. Discipline to 
time proven principles of social behavior begets freedom and allows one 
to control themselves rather than the state making it their pervue.

Self-mastery does at least two things (germain to this discussion). 
First, it promotes and awareness in an individual that they can not make 
it alone - thus addressing the social nature of Man. It engenders a 
desire to render service to one's neighbor as it is intuitively 
understood that benefit to one's self is derived from the benefit enjoyed 
by one's neighbor. There is another topical digression I wont go into here.

Second, it reduces the need for governmental control and regulation, 
because order is kept by all, rather than enforced by the few within the 
community. Thus it reduces government pervue to those problems and issues 
that requires a much larger scale of economy than can be achieved 
effectively by the local enclave. The Interstate highway system, 
communication infrastructure, trading policies and national defense are 
items that can be justified at this level of view.

While a bit utopic in view, such a system properly employed would not 
require cryptography to handle communications as the trust would exist in 
the confidential delivery of such communique. However, this world being 
what it is promotes the use of trusted agents for delivery because of 
Man's selfish tendencies...

> 
> Man, after being a rational animal is also a social animal.

The first I would dispute, the second is apparent... :-)

> 
> There is plenty of crypto relevency in this discussion and it lies
> in the basic view of Man of the individuals in such discussion.
> 
> Is Man an intrinsical blood thirsty beast that either kills or cry
> or is Man a rational animal that can enjoy life in a peaceful and
> constructive and exciting way?
> 
> The one who have the first opinion wants more govt, more laws and 
> GKE.  The others wants freedom.
> 
> JFA

I would answer the question this way: Look at a child when it is a 
newborn. It is innocent, completely dependant, and loves unconditionally 
(relatively so). By age 5, at least half the learning this person will do 
in their life time has been accomplished. IT is at this stage that one 
can look at predict the behavior for some time to come (assuming nothing 
drastic changes in the child's next few years of life). Over time they 
loose that natural curiosity and innocence that in large part drove them 
to explore. They form opinions right or wrong about issues both tangible 
and intangible.

In my estimation, the nature of man is clearly delineated by the behavior 
displayed when he first comes into this world: curious, selfish, loving, 
and needy for social contact. All attributes of his character can be 
defined and shaped by these things, the experiences in life and the 
examples set for him by those who are his mentors. If man turns 
predatory, it is because he found that set of behaviors best suit his 
needs of the moment - otherwise he would seek other ways of fullfilling 
those needs. Hence - we are not rational creatures.

...Paul