1997-06-11 - Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)

Header Data

From: tzeruch@ceddec.com
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: 75a0233f39d931c2d8cb7222b62edfc14926049d43ed2cd633f6ec1e2520ed20
Message ID: <97Jun11.164333edt.32257-1@brickwall.ceddec.com>
Reply To: <v03102800afc399044c85@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-11 20:55:04 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:55:04 +0800

Raw message

From: tzeruch@ceddec.com
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:55:04 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime   (Re: My War)
In-Reply-To: <v03102800afc399044c85@[]>
Message-ID: <97Jun11.164333edt.32257-1@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:

> All prohibition of speech should be based on the judgement of whether or
> not specific individiuals (not general groups or socienty at large) can be
> reasonably be deduced to be at immediate risk or be harmed from that speech.

So, if "speech" can cause individuals in X to harm individuals in Y, there
is reason to prohibit it.

> I find lust to be a noble urge.

Then you probably find rape a noble deed.  I do not.  If you are referring
to the acts our net.loon often posts to this list, I hope you enjoy
placing yourself at his level.  My ideas originate above my limbic system.

> What happens when you sell high-power autos to immature consumers which can
> only be used as promoted by traveling at speeds well in excess of safe?

Which is why we have Drivers Licenses, lame as they are.  There should be
far more education - Germany doesn't have the same problems, but their
higher speeds are accompanied by higher thresholds for licensing and a
different driving ethic.

> Following this line of reasoning, isn't it appropriate that any
> attractive/exciting experience which gets the adreneline pumping (with the
> possibility for abuse and injury to third-parties) be regulated?

At least Detroit didn't burn down because the Red Wings won.  I would hope
the police are at least worried about riot control, and last time I
checked, inciting a riot wasn't considered free speech.

> >With guns and explosives, there is greater likelyhood that someone will
> >injure themselves or their own property on a destructive binge.  This type
> >of expression is more benign, though I don't think it represents the
> >better angels of our nature.  But I see no threat to me personally from
> >such people.
> I think some families in Oklahoma City may disagree.

The information on how to do demolition is available from the army, and
the ingredients were commonly available.  As was the truck he used to
transport it.  We can prevent many fires by an outright ban on gasoline. 

What item, if banned, would have prevented the act?

> >But I would not want to have someone leave the two components to a binary
> >nerve gas on a shelf...
> Now you've transgressed from speech to possession.

I thought libertarians thought any mere possession should not be a crime.

> >Something that is in and of itself a turning away from reason and giving
> >in to emotion, and the ultimate destination of that path if it is followed
> >will result in injury to others, especially innocents, is something that
> >should be regulated.
> Regulated or banned?  I find war to be the best such example, but we still
> have massive armies and a military-industrial complex don't we?

Within the edited section, I suggested something to this effect.  The
regulation should be such that they can do whatever act where I will be
safe from them.  If they are willing to spend their days in a "Molester's
Monastery", they can look at whatever they want.  You can drink all you
want, but then you cannot drive a car until you are sober.  Anyone willing
to quarantine themselves should be able to do what they want.  People who
want to go out into public have responsibilities.

> >This form of "information" is an addictive drug, with the side effect is
> >that it destroys others much more than it destroys the abuser,
> Can you back up this assertion with clinical data?

Not off hand.  I also cannot back up the statement that I will die if I
drink a particular poison (since I may have a particular immunity) without
conducting the test.  Can you suggest how we may conduct such a test on
kiddie porn without threatening children?

> >This does not mean that I am any less a civil-cyber-libertarian..
> I believe it means you are a wanna-be Libertarian.

No, I am an autoarchist not an anarchist.  I belive in self-control which
is the difference between liberty an license.  If liberty is given to
barbarians it will be lost for everyone.

I want cryptography available even though it makes child-porn easier to
hide for the same reason I want gasoline available although it makes arson
easier to commit.  But I do not have to be pro-arson to be pro-gasoline.

And I can differentiate between ideas (which are protected free speech),
and things without any such content.