cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-12-04 - Re: [NOISE]– [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: bryce@digicash.com
Message Hash: 5f980e526470d96c5edafcb0f433755ada99575acfb2ca7d1d6b8e02fc22c74b
Message ID: <32A50047.2D13@gte.net>
Reply To: <199612031627.RAA21581@digicash.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-04 04:39:22 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:39:22 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:39:22 -0800 (PST)
To: bryce@digicash.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE]-- [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party
In-Reply-To: <199612031627.RAA21581@digicash.com>
Message-ID: <32A50047.2D13@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bryce wrote:
> > I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not
> > state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to
> > pull the plug or whatever.  I seriously doubt that even the least
> > intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really
> > believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip-
> > ment, morally or otherwise?  You are correct about certain issues being
> > complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore
> > on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here -
> > that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.

> Ah.  Then we are in agreement here.  My "Rule" in the House
> Rules etc. simply stated the obvious fact, for the benefit of
> those who need it stated, of Gilmore's sole authority over the
> physical substrate.  I vaguely recall some subscribers implying
> or stating otherwise during the vanish Vulis fracas.  It would
> not at all surprise me if some people disagreed with this
> simple premise--  they habitually do so with regard to "public"
> establishments like bars and restaurants, and it isn't much of
> a stretch to start thinking of cypherpunks as a similarly
> "public" institution.

*We* are not in agreement.  If you insist on arguing that, I'll have to
resort to the "Spock" clarification (a la Star Trek), that it's not merely
what you say I object to, it's you I object to.

Thread