From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 12:16:01 +0800
To: Snow <snow@crash.suba.com>
Subject: Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
Message-ID: <m0uDvRU-00092AC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 03:32 AM 4/29/96 -0500, Snow wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
 
>> Quite the contrary, I think that a "successful popular uprising" will 
>> require only a very small investment in time and money, in which some of 
>> they key players in government are targeted and the prospect exists for 
>> easily and cheaply getting the rest.  At that point they will resign in droves.
>
>	Damnit, I KNEW I was gonna wind up agreeing with him. ;)

Hey, maybe it's just a fever.  Take a few aspirin, put a cold compress on your head, and lay down.

>> avoid taxation, the vast increase in information communicated by the 
>> Internet is taking a huge amount of power away from the traditional media, 
>> backer of the government in most cases.  In addition, this information flow 
>> is making it ever more difficult to pass abusive laws; if the government 
>
>	On the contrary, just as the increased communications let 
>opponents know about the legislation, it also lets the proponents know, 
>and they supposedly send faxes and email in support. 

This sometimes happens; however, on many of the issues dearest to CP readers (Clipper, etc) there really is no substantial opposition except among those in government.

>> does something stupid in the morning, by noon they are being flooded with 
>> faxes and emails.  And the whole concept of having a "governement" tends to 
>> be based on the assumption that people are incapable of making decisions for 
>> themselves.  That's an increasingly unrealistic position.
>
>	Literacy rates are dropping, the High School Dropout rates are on 
>the rise. Hell, listen to talk radio for a while, and you tell me if 
>these are the people YOU want running the country.

I think there's a problem embedded in your comment.  You mentioned "running 
the country."  That phrase contains within it a view of "the country" in 
which it is controlled by a central control mechanism, for example a 
government.  

To describe the alternative viewpoint, consider the analogy of the food 
distribution system of Manhattan island.  No one individual or group 
controls everything; they all operate separately and with little overall 
communication.  Yet the steaks are served at the best restaurants, the 
grocery stores are stocked with the food people want, etc.  No heirarchical 
government, yet the system works!  

If you ask me if I want uneducated people running the "food distribution 
system," I might be inclined to say no, but if you ask me whether they can 
work as checkers at the local grocery store, I'd say "yes."

Likewise, if you ask me if I want uneducated people "running the country" I 
guess I have no problem with them controlling their proportional amount of 
political influence (BTW, they do this already!) but no more.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com