From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 04:59:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Net and Terrorism
Message-ID: <ae029904010210045d37@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 3:37 PM 7/5/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:

>On the other hand, I'm not sure that Tim's pessimism is warranted.  This
>argument that cities will become completely unlivable and the only way to
>survive is to move out into less populated areas has been going on in the
>libertarian, survivalist, and right-wing-nut communities since the 1960s.
>The magazines Vonulife and Libertarian Connection used to talk a lot about
>the relative merits of Nomadism or Troglodytism, suitcase nukes, and such.
>
>Those who took the advice and moved into caves in 1969 have sure had an
>uncomfortable 30 years.  Mel Tappan (author of Survival Guns) may have died
>from a heart attack which he could have survived had he not moved into the
>boonies.  I note as well that Tim is not all that far away from civilization
>and its discontents.  North Dakota or Labrador would be better choices if
>separation were really desired.

Duncan, I said no such thing. Puh-leeeese. :-}

What I _said_ was that _my_ response to increasing crime, the growing
threat of serious terrorist actions, and the generally ratcage-like nature
of large urban areas has been to move away from such urban centers.

(Not that towns like Santa Cruz are crime-free. But they are not prime
targets, when more tempting, fatter, softer targets are so nearby.)

I've never said cities are "completely unlivable," just that, for me,
better options exist. And in the vein of Harry Browne's "How I Found
Freedom in an Unfree World," I think a better response to terrorist actions
is not to crack down further on civil liberties, but to decentralize.
Personally, if not nationally. A variant which might be called "How I Found
Security in an Insecure World."


>And back to Tim:
>
>>(And my point about moving out of cities referred to what *I* am doing;
>>others are of course free to mingle in crowded markets, hoping that the
>>bombs won't come that day. Others are free to send their children to day
>>care centers located in likely targets for ZOG's enemies to bomb, and so
>>on.)

Well, there it is. You quote my clarification to Detweiler's
mischaracterizations. I'm not saying that cities are unlivable for all,
just that concentratios draw attackers of various sorts, and I expect such
attacks to increase in the future.

And small cities are not unlivable, either. Last night, for example, I
celebrated the Fourth at a free Beach Boardwalk concert with the Drifters.
Fine music, resonating even in the Rap Generation's skulls, judging by the
wild reaction from tens of thousands of folks crowded on the beach...

(Now _that_ was a "soft target," in which a lobbed grenade could've taken
out 20 or 40 people....Lots of such soft targets, and little that even a
police state can do to stop it. Personal avoidance, by whatever measures
one deems important, are the best bet.)

If there's any meta-point I'm making is that people are best served by
making their own security arrangements, be it home protection, financial
security, health security, or the security from rioters, criminals, and
terrorists being talked about here. Turning over increased powers to a
government to do these things is a recipe for failure, at very high costs
(economic and civil liberties costs).

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."