From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:27:54 +0800
To: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Discussion: The Digital Commerce Clause [Long] [Was: Re: The Commerce Clause and the Crypto Issue]
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-960828022819Z-22262@mail.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960828020522.18743A-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Blanc Weber wrote:

> >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 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).

With all the talk of self-enforcing contracts via cryptography, it is a
bit surprising to me that no one has suggested a constitution (which is
basically a unilateral contract) be enforced in such a matter, or in an
indirect way through technology.

I do find it sad that it seems that rights today must be enforced despite,
and not by, trust.

Perhaps soon there will exist institutions which make rights inalienable
in fact, not in theory.

> >Blanc

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li