From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:48:42 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cyhpherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Silence is not assent (re the Vulis nonsense)
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-961206204826Z-9897@INET-05-IMC.itg.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	Dale Thorn

If you could analogize the list to a human society, then you might
understand that a pattern of decadence can set in here as it does in
the more visible society, as is run from Washington DC, etc.

It is my hope to make a contribution here (as in the more visible
society)
to fight off some of that decadence, even when I get beat up on for it.
.................................................


There is a huge the difference between a society of people relating to
each other based on principles of coercion vs an extemporaneous society
of individuals who make their own decisions (daily) about when/where/how
long they will associate with another.

The society run by Washington,D.C. expects that people will have no
choice but to fly in formation in the direction set by the leader who
represents the majority (sort of).

The virtual "society" of the cpunks is only based on their interest in
opening up their mail and reading a few messages here & there according
to their mood of the day or the moment.   

It is true that formal societies, like the one which was initially
intended by The Founders (of the US), often run afoul of the original
purpose for which it was begun.   They decay for many reasons.   This is
precisely one of the elements in the background of the cpunks thinking
("the founders" and others) about societies and the "ties that bind"
(supposedly) us to each other:  the interest in being released from that
supposition that we are bound to each other and are obligated to
maintain a relationship of some kind (as determined by the PC moral
'authorities').

The concepts are too involved to discuss the details on this list, but
the fact that individuals do not maintain a steady and predictable
course throughout their lifetime, or the lifetime of the projects which
they begin, is the very reason why your attempts at "fighting off the
decadence" are doomed:  the objects of your attention may not hang
around on the list long enough to be reformed.   

Remember the purpose of the list is discussion & information, not moral
rehabilitation (except as it clears the intellectual air regarding
privacy & potential crimes to humanity).  It could happen that some
decadent subscriber would "see the light" and behave themselves, but if
it does I expect it would be an indirect side-effect and the result of
their own desire to change their style & manners.

   ..
Blanc

>
>