From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:19:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Subject: Re: Rotenberg as the Uber Enemy
In-Reply-To: <199706010352.UAA26328@fat.doobie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970601124448.809C-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> > 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. 

Theoretical truth.

>   Your choice is to not work, not go on welfare, not drive, not get a
> telephone, not be born in a hospital...ad infinitum.

Yes, however, this ignores the fact that in a less restrictive society 
not so many of these actions would involve releasing personal 
information, also, in a police state such as we see today, it is, in many 
cases, mandatory to provide *TRUE* details on request by certain people. 
Of course the right to free speech implies the right to lie, and further 
by providing false details I take no act of agression against anyone, 
therefore, in an anarchist or NAP derived minarchist system it would not 
be a crime to give false details.

>   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.

Then change that identity, or have a false one attached to those prints.

I am not talking about privacy under a totalitarian state, I am talking 
about privacy in an anarchy, or possibly a minarchist state.

> >  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."

Currently yes, in an anarchist system the road system would be 
privatised, it would be the job of the owners of each part of the system 
to decide whether they wanted to require licences or not, if they asked 
for personal information before granting a licence, and you did not want 
to give it, lie... If you don`t like having to do this, build your own 
roads. Anarchist societies are not utopian societies, freedom doesn`t 
come cheap, and under any free system life is a lot harder.  

If one large corporate entity were to own the entire road system, and 
were to run it as it is currently run, as you describe above, then you 
would have a choice, build your own roads, buy the current ones, drive, 
or don`t drive. Sure it is a choice between a small red hot poker up the 
ass and a large one, but that`s just the way it is. The right to live in 
a free society does not imply the right to live happily. 

>   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.

The first is of course an act of trespass, the second, although an 
unpleasant act is no crime, we must be careful about calling the right to 
absolute freedom of speech "theoretical", this is a dangerous step indeed.

If the parents don`t like this they can get a clue and defend their 
children from the real threat: the child molester. Treating speech in 
this way, ie. saying that it is wrong (a violation of the NAP) to tell 
the convicted child molester the information about the children, is a 
form of material determinism.

>   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.

No, their ringing of my doorbell at 4am would be an act of trespass, if 
they trespassed on my land and upset me they can expect me to react in 
kind. 

Telephoning me at 4am is a different matter, as it is not an act of 
trespass, therefore, we use technological means to combat such 
anti-social behaviour.

>   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?

I too enjoy your posts, but I must stick to my own position, I am maybe 
guilty of being excessively idealistic, but I believe this is the only 
way to have a strong and morally right set of laws.

<theory>
The guy that rings my doorbell at 4am trespasses onto my land to ring 
that doorbell, he makes use of my doorbell, he uses my electricity, and 
stands on my front doorstep.
</theory>

Practically speaking though, I would not mind any of this if he were to 
do it at a sociable hour, is there such a thing as an enforcable social 
contract that says salesmen may only ring doorbells at sociable hours? 
(whatever they are).
 
I don`t believe there is any such thing as an implicit contract in this 
sense, the next bit is important though: EVEN IF the salesman arrives at 
a sociable hour and rings my doorbell, he has STILL commited an act of 
trespass against me, it is simply the case that because he has had the 
courtesy to arrive at a reasonable time I have chosen to take no 
defensive action. What if he arrives at a reasonable time, and acts 
courteously towards me, and I shoot him dead on the spot? It`s certainly 
an extreme action, and this is what makes a lot of people react in horror 
when they fully understand the NAP, but I don`t believe it would be wrong 
per se. Certainly I would regard anyone reacting as such as a loon, but 
the salesman CHOSE to commit the act of trespass, he certainly wouldn`t 
have imagined I might kill him for it, but he was not forced to take that 
act.


>   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.	

Any action against cyberpromo is an act of agression, but I won`t get 
into a flame war with anyone over this, least of all you TM/CJP, as I 
believe we are essentially of the same persuation, and I wouldn`t like to 
see an unproductive and unpleasant pissing contest over it.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"