From: Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 07:11:14 -0800 (PST)
To: dthorn@gte.net
Subject: Re: [NOISE]-- [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party
In-Reply-To: <32A3BBD6.1ECA@gte.net>
Message-ID: <199612031405.DAA02486@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 21:34:14 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:

   Bryce wrote:
   > whatever letters you want; you don't have the right to demand
   > that any particular thing be _done_ with those letters once
   > they arrive, in the absence of some contract to the contrary.

   In the interest of reducing the amount of argument, let's speak more
   precisely:  I think people *do* have the right to demand such a thing,

Do you indeed?  OK, I hereby demand that you set up a mailing list on
your computer for discussion of "censorship" on cypherpunks.

Why do I have the right to demand this?

   although they do *not* necessarily have the right to force such a thing.

do not *necessarily*??

Obviously they have no right to use force, since they have no right to
make such a demand in the first place.  But *if* they had such a
right, why on earth would you say they have no right to use force?
(You may not agree that they should be able to use physical force
themselves, but at least they should have a law or something to apply
pressure, right?  What kind of right is it if it has nothing at all
backing it up?)

   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

Yes.  You said so yourself, in this very same post.

   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.

This must be some newspeak interpretation of "understand" of which I
was not previously aware...

   How can I say this better?  Myself and a number of other people would
   really have appreciated it if John had defended himself.  The fact of

He had no need to defend himself.

Any attempt to "defend" himself from people who claim they have a
right to demand the use of his computer (if not *necessarily* to back
up said demand with force) would probably have been wasted effort
anyway.  [Yes, I know you think posting to cypherpunks is not "use" of
John's computer.  Substitute whatever word fits what you think it
*is*, if you must.]

   all these other would-be experts on cyber-rights and morals preaching
   to the list on behalf of Gilmore, and Gilmore being silent, argues
   (not proves, just argues) heavily in favor of Dimitri et al.

So Tim May's silence in response to Vulis's nonsense, while some
others came out in his favour "argues (not proves, just argues)
heavily in favor of Dimitri" too?  Yeah, sure!  Wanna buy a bridge?

-- 
Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz>       ---         PGPmail preferred

	   PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers
    fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33  C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Fortue Examined By INSPECTOR NO. 2-14