From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 03:22:26 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Net and Terrorism
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960705153701.0082c960@popserver.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:33 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

>My article made my points, so I won't rewrite it here. You are of course
>not required to agree. You are free to live in crowded cites--near "soft
>targets." You are welcome to lobby for world peace and for economic changes
>to lessen terrorism.
>
>(I think this is mostly hopeless. No matter how "nice" conditions get, for
>game-theoretic reasons there will be some groups seeking changes.)

I am not sure who is right in this debate.  I know that the "why can't we
all just get along?" crowd is asking a stupid question.  There are lots of
reasons people can't get along and there have been enough "top-down" imposed
social changes this century to suggest that "changing society" won't
preserve the peace.

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.

Those of us in the Techno-Libertarian Panglossian Community argue that it is
at least possible that the spread of markets will serve to bend the world's
population to bourgeois values before nanotech gives everyone the power to
destroy the world.

Note that markets (like networks) can expand faster than outside observers
can believe once a critical mass of participants is achieved.  We see that
happening all around the world in the case of both markets and networks.
Even hard cases like Africa and the Middle East will find themselves swept
up in a short time (by historical standards).  It's hard to get people who
are making lots of dough to strap dynamite to their bodies and go blow up a bus.

Then Larry said:

>>because it is a fact of life, is erroneous in my view. it is a common
>>libertarian argument that goes, "criminality is everywhere, so why try
>>to stop it?"  a rather juvenile ideology.  

In all my years of reading and listening to libertarian agitprop, I've never
heard this argument.

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.)

Kids sent to day care centers operated by the federal government or schools
operated by local governments are going to be in a bad way in any case
whether or not they are blown up or shot (as in Stockton and Scotland).  I
*love* the Volvo ads which feature mom driving her kids to school in a Volvo
with all of its safety features and then turing the kids over to the
government for indoctrination.  Much better she should drive them to private
schools in a Chevy 
Corvair.  They'll live longer (certainly in the spiritual sense of "live").

DCF