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: Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Message Hash: 697cbd4309912eadc2cdc0dfaf40efd42e770b8f0c1bb01305091dee420284e8
Message ID: <199612041057.LAA07494@digicash.com>
Reply To: <32A50047.2D13@gte.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-04 10:57:24 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 02:57:24 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 02:57:24 -0800 (PST)
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [NOISE]-- [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party
In-Reply-To: <32A50047.2D13@gte.net>
Message-ID: <199612041057.LAA07494@digicash.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> > > 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.


Um..  Whatever, dude.


Have a nice day.


Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMqVZC0jbHy8sKZitAQFdjQMAhFo4RA1n+O4Giksi+4alHibWZ3euNy9F
NZCh4q7V0KFxV4JScokr1lOYLnudsRaH61gHhyJ38mXXwfgKLbcg0Dd1iY8IiQit
8YvRXTqx+GLZI26aZ5UDL9FriMRbxSnf
=iRix
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread