From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Message Hash: 9a7af4905acd4f638ca8cb708768220493eae517650aed3a1fd0466efd3c6325
Message ID: <v02140b02aeb30446063a@[192.0.2.1]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-16 05:52:28 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:52:28 -0800 (PST)
From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:52:28 -0800 (PST)
To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Subject: Re: [POLITICS] Re: Members of Parliament Problem
Message-ID: <v02140b02aeb30446063a@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 11:31 PM 11/15/1996, Adam Shostack wrote:
> So, if 'anonymous Senator' came out for legalization, it would
> be declared that it was Kennedy, source of all Liberal Evil. Good
> policy comes from leaders standing up and leading. Since they don't,
> I'm a crypto-anarchist. To try and help the Congress become more
> effective is not in anyones interest, except that class of person who
> makes their living off the workings of government.
> There are lots of variations on the argument that politics is
> from the greek poly, meaning many, and ticks, a small bloodsucking
> animal. My interest in creating new, consensual realities is that I
> don't want to be forced to care about the congress.
I may have misunderstood you, but when you suggested "disallowing"
Congressmen to use anonymity, it did not sound consensual. Even
blood sucking parasites should be allowed to benefit from
cryptoanarchy.
I for one, would be most interested in what Congressmen would have
to say if they knew their words could in no way be traced back to
them. I suspect that there are a lot of basketcases in Congress
and that this would become clear from the horrible things they would
have to say when they were sure nobody was looking.
Peter
Return to November 1996
Return to “ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)”