From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:09:49 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Rotenberg as the Uber Enemy
Message-ID: <199706010352.UAA26328@fat.doobie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Paul Bradley wrote:
> 
> Sure it is unpleasant to have your privacy violated, but it is your own
> choice whether you allow information to become available or not.

  Theoretical bullshit. 
  Your choice is to not work, not go on welfare, not drive, not get a
telephone, not be born in a hospital...ad infinitum.
  Even then, when you are arrested for trespassing on private land or
misuse of public land for those grubs and worms you ate, the government
will take your fingerprints and attach an identity to them. When you
return to your cave, the postman will be waiting at the entrance to
deliver the "Worms R Us" snailmail spam.

>  All true law within anarchist, and indeed much minarchist belief derives 
> from the non agression principle, by making use of freely available 
> information about you I do not initiate violence against you, therefore I 
> am guilty of no crime.

  Everyone seems to neglect recognizing that most of the proclaimed
"freely available information" is the result of coercion of one kind
or another.
  "If you want a driver's license so that you can earn a decent
living, then you must give us your social security number so that
we can make sure that you get your fair share of junk mail and 
spam. If you drive without a license, men with guns will lock you
in a cage."

  Try dumping your garbage on other people's doorstep and telling
them that you haven't initiated violence against them and are thus
guilty of no crime. Sell "freely available" information about other
people's children to convicted child molesters and then explain the
same thing to the parents.
  Why don't the people who send out spam go out ringing people's
doorbells at 4 a.m. to tell them how to "Make Big $$$"?  It is
because they would be held personally accountable for the effect
their actions have on the lives of others. They can explain until
they are blue in the face about their right to be an asshole who
is intruding in my life but they are unlikely to convince me to
put up with it without acting in a manner they find offensive.

  I enjoy many of the posts on anarchy by Paul and others but I
think most of the concepts are valuable mainly as personal standards
one applies to their own life.
  You can explain to the guy who slashes your tires that you had
a right to ring his doorbell at 4 a.m. to try to sell him your
product but he had no right to slash your tires. You will be right,
but so what?
  If Tim McVeigh beats the rap and returns to society, I'm going to
buy him a computer and an email account and then give the address
to CyberPromo. I am sure he will understand the issues of anarchy
and free enterprise involved, and act in accordance with the
dictates of his own conscience.	

TruthMonger