From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 14:17:17 +0800
To: Hallam-Baker <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Noise: Re: Those Evil Republicans
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960624201317.0092cd94@popserver.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:49 PM 6/24/96 -0400, Hallam-Baker wrote:

>If you had heard the whole speech rather than only the portion reported on CNN

I read the reporting and excerpts in the Saturday Times.  

>you would know that you have entirely distored the meaning. The point being
>made was that cyberspace is being promoted as a panacea for all ills, many of
>which it is creating rather than curing. 

I wasn't aware of any ills being created by cyberspace.  For one thing, it
hasn't been around (as a big thing) long enough.  The only impact it has had
so far is to reduce TV watching and improve writing ability (from a very low
base level) among its heavy users.  That's a good thing.  Any effects of
disintermediation or shrinking of institutions (governments and
corporations) as we discuss on this list haven't really happened yet.

>Cyberspace is not a replacement for an
>ecconomic policy, Newts idea of giving laptops to homeless people is not a
>solution for poverty. Actually I think that this is quite obvious from the
>quote you give.

I assume that Clinton's statement was aimed at the neo-Luddites in the
AFSCME.  There are probably quite a few.  Actually freedom of communications
or free exchange of bits (cyberspace) and by analogy the free exchange of
goods and services *are* an economic policy though of course a controversial
one.

>Given the experience of derregulating Savings and Loans institutions I don't
>think the country could survive another round of deregulation. As Reagan said
>"Gentlemen we've hit the jackpot" - and of course they had, S&L was not a
>fiasco for certain people, just for the poor taxpayers.

Yes the great inventor of deposit insurance FDR has a lot to answer for.
But for his intervention, we taxpayers wouldn't have owed a dime for the S&L
collapse.

I expect quite a bit more de facto dereg as people become harder to control.
A mere desire to regulate others unaccompanied by the ability to do so is so
much noise. 

>> In the same speech in which he talked about people hunting ducks with rifles.

>Damned unsporting eh? Isn't the NRA weapon of choice a surface to air missile?

The NRA suggests shotguns.  A rifle is much more sporting than a shotgun for
assassinating quackers.  Hard to hit them with rifles (even harder with SAMs).

DCF

"If the Internet is so easy to control, how come my sysop can't even control
his little piece of it?"