From: Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 22:31:48 +0800
To: Adam Back <petro@playboy.com
Subject: Re: charity at the point of a gun (Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <v04011709b26cfc756e2d@[206.189.103.230]>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981110235838.007dd830@205.83.192.13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:27 AM 11/10/98 GMT, Adam Back wrote:
>
>Christopher Petro writes:
>> 	In other words Jim, Fuck You. I, and I'd bet most people here,
>> including Mr. May, are perfectly willing, and hell even eager to pay their
>> share, to assume their social responcibility, they just get very, very
>> angry at having to pay OTHER peoples social responcibility, and get very,
>> very angry at having to pay for other shit (Senate Luncheons and Swimming
>> Pools, the Militaries greatly inflated budget, all the waste that is todays
>> federal government).
--interrupt--

I would question, sagely (IMHO), 

do not confuse the military budget- you know, the Military budget- with the
NSA portion of the military budget- last I heard they were getting about
1/3rd. Meanwhile, the lowly Military- Navy at least, is operating at 3 or 4
X the prior tempo with a significantly reduced portion of that military
budget.

Gee, is the current administration trying to reduce military infrastructure
by wearing it out- and not purchasing repair parts or replacements???

Or all the dollars going towards the DNA database, Echelon, and ???

--resume usual conversation--


>What is annoying is "charity" (social security) at the point of a gun.
>Our "conscience" is being decided by government which is acting as a
>broker for those lobby for their "need" and for your assets to be
>stolen and redistributed to them.
>
>What people aren't willing to pay for shouldn't happen.  Period.  If
>that means people starve well those complaining loudest had better
>dig deeper into their pockets.
>
>Anything else is socialism tending to facism, as Hayek argues in The
>Road to Serfdom.
>
>> >No state can govern those who don't wish to be governed, violence or no.
>> 
>> 	Yes, but a state can kill those who don't wish to be governed. Can
>> and does routinely.
>
>That's what's so interesting about cyberspace, once the payment
>systems get there -- government thugs can't beat up, murder, or
>incarcerate anonymous nyms.  _Then_ Jim's "No state can govern those
>who don't wish to be governed" starts to become true.
>
>Adam
>
>
>

	If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention 
	of doing you good, you should run for your life.
				-stolen from a cypherpunk sig