From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:57:47 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Put up or shut up!
In-Reply-To: <v03007801ae7e303a52fe@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961007013340.17782J-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 6 Oct 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> I will express my thoughts, my theories, and will develop systems and ideas
> as I see fit. However, I have no intention of putting my future at risk by
> taking steps such as "civil disobedience" or "assassination politics" which
> could very likely result in multimillion dollar fines (hint: such fines
> would have great meaning for me) or seizure of my assets and jail time.
> 
> Your mileage may vary, but this "amateur anarchist" intends to keep on
> doing what he's doing and is not interested in "crossing the line" to the
> point where his assets will be seized.

Interesting that if the transition to crypto anarchy includes any phase
of conflict between the state and the individual, failing to properly
protect those assets may result in their seizure anyhow.  If they are
attachable now, as you seem to suggest, then they are attachable then.

I know that Mr. May has, in past, been a asset protection "naysayer," but
this falls into a general, and disturbing, pattern.

I'll wager, though I have no data to back it up, that most of the people
in this forum who are uncertain about the safety of their assets don't
bother to engage in the most basic of asset preservation tactics, namely:
geographic diversification.

Surprising considering the perfectly legal options which would protect
many of them.

> 
> --Tim May
> 

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