From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 03:23:42 +0800
To: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Freedom, Starvation, and Uncoerced Relationships
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.980104133448.1037A-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <v03102800b0dd76ca993a@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 6:17 AM -0800 1/10/98, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Paul Bradley wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > My rights to swing my fists end at your noise.  When ever you interact
>> > with other peaple your rights are tempered by there rights.  Even Adam
>> > Smith recognised that its was gorverments dutie to redress the failing of
>> > the market.
>>
>> 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?


>> the NAP and rights of
>> association should clearly define the answer to this question, no
>> agression is involved in the act of firing or declining to hire people
>> based on their colour/nationality or any other factor whatsoever.
>
>Ok a for instence,  if I was your boss and I sated that I would fire you
>unless you would go *u-hum* cave exploring with me[1].  Such situations
>have occured in the past, would you support them.

Employees and employers make agreements all the time. To wear funny
uniforms, to bark when the boss says bark, to write in certain languages,
and so on.

If an employee does not wish to do what an employer instructs, he or she
may leave.

Sounds fair to me.

(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.)



>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?

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?).

These are well-covered issues in many books on libertarianism and freedom.

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.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."