From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:00:11 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration
Message-ID: <199702020201.UAA00977@einstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Hi,

It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should
not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a
free and open society must tolerate any action.

This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY
ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no
means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy.
It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open
society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting 
individualy or in concert.

I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and
equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an
environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which
economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order
and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of
the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a
'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST
protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is
worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of
all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government'
and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is
not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a
class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a
democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of
the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with
enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a
contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total
of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state').

I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence
which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold
that our current system of legal representation is inherently  flawed and
prevents equal representation under the law.


                                                      Jim Choate
                                                      CyberTects
                                                      ravage@ssz.com