From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 13:23:25 +0800
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Discussion: The Digital Commerce Clause [Long] [Was: Re: The Commerce Clause and the Crypto Issue]
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-960828022819Z-22262@mail.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>From:	Black Unicorn 
>
>I believe the answer to preserving the purity of digital commerce is to
>form it in such a way so as to make regulation impossible, because in my
>view the constitution no longer provides citizens with the protection or
>freedom to progress.  I feel the same way about privacy.  All the
>constitutional arguments in the world mean little today.  A systematic
>approach which makes violations of personal rights impossible whether
>constitutional or not is the answer.
>.....................................................
>
>
>I, like others on the list, have often misunderstood your references to court
>cases and other legal stuff as indicators that you were being pessimistic,
>discouraging, and presenting obstacles to free-thinking, imaginative ideas.
>
>The way in which you expressed yourself left out your true inclinations on
>the subjects, and it would only be someone who had read a large number of
>your posts who would realize what side of the issues you are really on.
>
>I agree very much with what you say in the above paragraph about the
>constitutional arguments [by jove, I think he's got it :>)]   So many times
>people (especially libertarian types) will present their protests in
>reference to constitutional issues.  Yet there are some contradictions within
>the Constitution, or areas which sound that way, and which are therefore too
>easily misconstrued by present thinkers (judges, lawyers, etc.).
>
>So often the document is referred to like a magic mantra which is going to
>take away the ills and boogeymen by waving it in front of their faces.  But
>the document is not so well read, understood, nor respected by those in
>public office.  It isn't used as a guide to move towards more self-reliance
>rather than less.  I have heard from one political potentiate that his
>opponent (already in office) had not ever even read it.
>
>You can't depend upon adherence to the Constitution to create the reality
>you're after (although, like a dart-shoot, you can always try and it does,
>after all, supply the basics for the established legal procedures and it's
>possible to set the fear of it upon government types by setting their feet to
>its fire -  if you can pay for it).
>
>(This gives me a sense of deja-vu:  I think you and I had a long argument
>about this on the list, once.)
>
>   ..
>Blanc
>
>
>