From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:33:04 -0800 (PST)
To: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <199701300232.SAA15330@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:40 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
>jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> wrote in article 
<5ch9f2$cuu@life.ai.mit.edu>...
>
>> Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to 
>> prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see 
>> any recognition of this fact.  
>
>Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility
>or consistency. 

"I love you too!  B^)


Question:  What is a "whacko solution"?  Why do you believe AP qualifies?   
Can you list any other "solutions" which are, indeed, "solutions" which are 
NOT "whacko" by your definition?  (I'm trying to determine whether or not 
you even agree that there is a problem!)

Let me pose an issue here by counterexample:  Suppose there was a 
plantation, containing a master and his slaves.  You are told that the 
slaves are "unhappy". (They're unhappy because they're slaves!!!)  That's a 
"problem."  Okay, let me propose that there are at least two broad 
"solutions" to this "problem":  First, change the working conditions just 
enough to make the slaves acceptably happy.  Or, second, eliminate the 
slavery altogether.

Both are "solutions".  The first, obviously, is only a "solution" from the 
stanpoint of the master.  The second appears to be only a "solution" from 
the standpoint of the slaves, since the master obviously doesn't want to 
lose his slaves!  Could you legitimately call the second solution a "whacko 
solution"? (It would be, from the limited standpoint of the master.) How 
about the first?

That's the problem with using such a poorly-defined term as "whacko" to 
describe anything, particularly when many people don't agree.  And here's a 
question:  What do you mean by "credibility"?  I've explained it in enough 
detail to convince a rather substantial number of intelligent people that it 
is likely to be possible, and to some it sounds like it is desireable.  


>If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out
>on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be 
>dead as a doornail in a week.

A claim which doesn't disprove the functionality of AP one whit.  In fact, 
quite the opposite:  If AP was, indeed, non-functional, then nobody would 
bother with me at all.  The fact that you think they would shows that you 
believe AP threatens SOMEBODY.

This means that your arguments, as minimal as they are, are internally 
contradictory.  They simply don't hold together.






Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com