cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1998-01-11 - Re: Freedom, Starvation, and Uncoerced Relationships

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5ddbfb10d062cb5649cebe7f51bd45469416bcf309e14efd9f949173f009cda4
Message ID: <Hui5ie51w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <v03102800b0dd76ca993a@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-01-11 05:00:32 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:00:32 +0800

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:00:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Freedom, Starvation, and Uncoerced Relationships
In-Reply-To: <v03102800b0dd76ca993a@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Hui5ie51w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> >> Why there is even discussion on this point on a list whose membership is
> >> composed mainly of market anarchists is beyond me,
> >
> >Since when has a crypto anarchist been a market anarchist?
>
> And how else could it be?

Evidently some folks on this list do feel that it's possible for the gubmint
to curtail our liberties in some ways and not in others.  Phooey.

> (And most employers will value work output--profits--over lesser
> considerations. So, even though a boss has every "right" to demand that
> employees where dunce caps to work, for example, few will. Those who do
> will lose their employees and go out of business. Sounds fair to me.)

Likewise an employer that discriminates, e.g., redheads of lefties will
lose to its competitors who will hire the valuable employees that this
moron rejected.

> >So allowing someone to stave to death because thay have the wrong collour
> >of skin, or unwilling to get up close and personal with the boss, is not a
> >form of harm.
>
> I "allow people to starve to death" each and every day because they are not
> doing something I want. Think about it. Every time I elect not to send
> money to starving Bengalis or Hutus or Ugabugus I am "allowing them to
> starve," quite literally.
>
> So?

So the United Nations of some other body will take your wealth and
redistribute it to the starving Bengalis whose religion tells them
to have 19 children.

> If an employer chooses not to hire certain types of persons this is really
> no different from my choosing not to marry certain types of persons (and I
> can imagine I could save a woman from "starving" by simply flying to Bangla
> Desh, finding a starving woman, marrying her, and then supporting her. So?).

Should women be allowed to allow men to go horny by refusing to have sex
with certain classes of people?  Can a white woman be sued for consistently
refusing to sleep with black men?

> Freedom means freedom. That some people will not have as much food as they
> would like to have in a free society is no reason to discard freedom.
>
> More to the point, crypto anarchy means taking such decisions about whether
> to discard freedom or not out of the hands of others.

On the internet nobody knows that you're a protected minority.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Thread