From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 04:43:48 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
Message-ID: <199711012037.OAA01218@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:06:10 GMT
> From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
> 
> Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
> > 
> > Exactly what kind of democracy are you speaking of? Sounds like you are
> > lumping them all into one big bucket, 
> 
> I figure it's a reasonable summary of a lot of democracies right now.

What is a reasonable summary? Reasonable to who? What 'lot' of democracies?

> > If so, please be so kind as to demonstrate how a representative,
> > constitutional, and majority democracy are the same? And for the
> > record, we have a constitutional representative democracy.
> 
> Didn't say they were "the same".

No, but you certainly imply it with your broad brush.

> But they do share a characteristic:
> distortions of free market in the form of voting for theft and
> redistribution of other peoples money leading to annoying government
> micro-management, and general do-gooder busy-body-ness, and the many
> laws on thought crimes.

Again, demostrate your assertion(s).

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?

> > Personaly, I figure you must be one of those folks with a cognitive
> > disfunction. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not 
> > understand?
> 
> I understand it, but US politicians either don't, or don't care and
> largely ignore the constitution.  What does it matter whether I
> understand it or not?

If you don't understand it you can't use it, effectively or otherwise.

>  Your constitution says you can own and carry
> guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you
> can not.  Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand
> the constitution?

No, my responce is prove your assertions. Explain to me why you believe
these are valid views and why they provide a more usable environment for
understanding what is going on then others.

> > > The wild west was better than this state of affairs -- people didn't
> > > have the energy or inclination to waste their own resources being nosy
> > > parkers, and those that did were apt to wind up full of lead.
> > 
> > Boy, you history is simply fucked. If you seriosly think the west was like
> > television you should spend more time reading books and period newspapers
> > and less time looking at the boob-tube. 
> 
> I don't own a TV, and so don't watch much (by choice -- it's mostly
> garbage); printed mass media is a bit better, but not that much.

Nice side step.

> > At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders associated
> > with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular entertainment media
> > and spin-doctor culture would have you believe. Get your fucking
> > facts straight.
> 
> I know, that was my point; recall that I said the murder rate was low.

No, you said *nothing* about murder rate. What you did say was that back in
the old days people ran around killing those who bothered them. Which isn't
true either.

> The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their
> neighbours what they could think.

Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997?
Demonstrate your point.