From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:33:11 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
Message-ID: <199704050332.TAA14134@fat.doobie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> At 6:05 PM -0500 4/4/97, Mark M. wrote:
> 
> >  I don't know any anarchists who oppose
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >contract law or argue that anyone has this right.  The cryptography employee
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >who releases trade secrets or sabotages products is violating the company's
> >property rights; whether it is moral or not is irrelevant.  Again, I don't
> >think you will find any anarchists who would dispute this.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *
  {* TCM's emphasis}
> 
> Count me as one who thinks things are not this easy. Ultimately, all
> decisions to obey or ignore or sabotage contractual relationships is a
> personal one.

  I agree. Obviously Mark doesn't know enough anarchists.
  Pardon me for beating my Hitler analogies to death, but when 
Hitler was Fuhrer, the trains ran on time. I have no problem 
with those who supported him for this reason. However, as his
administrative policies began to increasingly infringe on the
lives of others, it was up to each participant in his ruling
party to decide for themselves what was an acceptable level
of power/control over the citizens, and what was not.
  My own rule of thumb is to consider whether I would consider
laws or regulations affecting the behavior and rights of 
others to be an infringement if they were applied to my own
behavior and rights.

> This issue has come up before. One name for the debate is "lifeboat
> ethics." Suppose Alice has a contract not to trespass against the property
> of others in the marina she belongs to. One night she falls off her boat as
> she's leaving the marina. She can either _honor_ her contract, and drown.
> Or she can grab onto Bob's boat and pull herself to safety, even though
> she's just without any doubt vioated her contract.
> 
> As I mentioned a few days ago, there are _some_ anarchists, notably Murray
> Rothbard, who argued that Alice must choose death over violation of a
> contract. Most anarchists I know think him crazy.

  I fully support Rothbard's right to choose death, but do not 
consider him as having any say in Alice's decision.
 
> >Cryptography professionals have the *ability* to follow their consciences,
> >but that does not excuse them from punishment resulting in infringing on
> >their employer's rights or violating the terms of their employment.
> 
> I've never argued that those who get caught breaking a contract shouldn't
> face the consequences--providing others in the society honor the contract!

  This begs the question of who is to decide whether or not 
society is honoring their part of the contract.
  Arguing that society/civilization is doing a fairly decent job
"for the most part" does not negate the fact that if an individual
is taking it up the ass, he or she will not be inclined to take it
sitting down.
  Native Americans are the prime example of a group who were 
subjected to severe penalties for failing to "honor the contract"
while their oppressors felt free to dishonor the contract at
will by virtue of superior firepower.

  Individuals have the freedom to sabatoge systems which they
see as injust and oppressive. To suggest that the average person
will abuse that right, and thus has no conscience, is to suggest
that the average person has less right than corporations to decide
what is right and wrong.
  It is my own belief that fears surrounding employees making 
morally based decisions of this nature are a result of the
knowledge that many corporate entities fall short of meeting
even rudimentary standards of moral values.

TruthMonger