From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:41:42 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: "Fascism _is_ corporatism"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970605121403.1309F-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <v03102803afbd24ebf92a@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:14 PM -0700 6/5/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
...
>Mr. Gates Goes to Washington
>by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
...
>        This Billionaire Boys' Club was especially keen on praising two
>   bills that would generally relax export rules. "We clearly support the
>   House and the Senate bills that are on the Hill in their original
>   form. Getting reform done now is a huge priority for all of us," said
>   one. "There are bills in the House and the Senate that are totally
>   acceptable, and if those bills are passed they'd solve the problem,"
>   another added.
>
>        But perhaps Bill Gates should have spent less time writing BASIC
>   interpreters and more time in civics classes, because these bills are
>   far from perfect. In fact, they may be downright dangerous.


The problem with SAFE is that it is a bill favoring industry while hurting
citizens.

Unfortunately, the process of "corporate-friendly lawmaking" is nothing
new, with examples of giveaways and special favors given to corporations
going back into the last century.

The problem is made worse by the "camouflage" words like "Center for
Democracy andTechnology" in the names of leading advocates of bills like
SAFE. Their names make them appear to be civil rights groups, but their
actions and funding make them just industry lobbying groups.

The crapola we just heard from PGP Inc. about how it was able to
export--with the critical detail that it was only for certain favored large
corporations left until the bottom of the announcement--shows that
lawmaking is just corporate favoritism.

As Mussolini so accurately said, "Fascism _is_ corporatism."

I'm not an anti-capitalist. Far from it. But I don't believe Microsoft or
Intel or any other company can ever have special rights or privileges the
rest of us don't have. On the flip side, I don't believe such corporations
can have any restrictions placed on them. A law saying Intel has no First
Amendment rights would be wrong (just as laws about who companies can or
cannot hire are unconstitutional, in my view).

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."