From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:03:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811081809.MAA05525@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 00:18:26 -0500
> From: Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu>
> Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)

> You missed my point.  What I'm trying to point out is that no government
> (or any other body, for that matter) can prevent someone from doing
> something.

Of that we agree. Which is why I will continue to believe the issues we deal
with are not government problems but people problems.

> All the state can do (and does, if you look closely) is
> offer to punish anyone who disobeys it.  It doesn't matter whether that
> state is protecting individual rights or not --it can only punish, not
> prevent.

Well to be even more exact, they offer a guarantee of retribution if they
can catch or prove somebody broke a law.

Of course we could posit a government that pairs everyone up in groups of
two (a perpetual no-lone zone), the ultimate police state.

> I'm explaining why it is impossible for the state to protect individual
> rights.

I suspect we're playing word games here with 'protect'. I am not refering to
what my neighbor does to me when he gets pissed off that my stereo is too
loud. That obviously the government (local, state, or federal) can do
nothing about a priori. Where the governemnt (at all levels) *CAN* in fact
protect individual rights is the way they create the laws they enforce on
all citizens (eg tax laws or dope-smoking laws). Those most certainly can be
crafted to prevent abuse of civil liberties. Our own Constitution is a
perfect example. The problem is the *people* who we elect believe they are
above it and instead of asking "Do the laws we pass conform to the letter
and intent of the Constitution?" instead state "It's a flexible document
that is hard to interpet because of wording and changes in society". They
want an out to not have to play by the rules. Nothing more and nothing less.

> I offer two mechanisms by which the state *could* _protect_
> individual rights, and then point out why they are impossible.  It is
> something of a strawman argument, but if you disagree, I'm willing to
> tear down any mechanism you might propose. :)

See above. It isn't the rules that matter, it's the respect the arbiters of
the rules have *for* the rules that matter. With that clearly in mind *any*
mechanism is doomed to fail from the beginning.

> > > All any state can do is threaten to "retaliate" against (why not just
> > > say "attack") people who disobey its edicts.  In order for this threat
> > > to be credible, the state must wield sufficient power to kill any
> > > individual (or group of individuals) who would stand against it.  If it
> > > does not have this power, it cannot govern.
> > 
> > This is a quaint and completely artificial distinction.
> 
> Is it really?  Then could you please explain to me exactly why I would
> have to pay taxes (or otherwise make submission) to a state which did
> *not* have the power to kill me? 

So you wouldn't have to stand there and watch your house burn to the slab.
So you would have help finding the perpetrator who raped your daughter last
night. So when you drive down the street it isn't a whole filled muddy tract
through a economicaly impoverished wasteland. So when you write a check you
know there is something behind it that is trustworthy. So when you have that
wrech late some rainy night there is an ambulance and a hospital to take you
to.

As to your (and others) particular focus on taxes, all it would take to
resolve that issue is a single law:

No citizen may have their home, personal property, or their liberty
infringed or removed because of tardy taxes. Of course I'd add a section in
there that would direct the tax accessor of the appropriate local to send a
note to all relevant services to refuse to provide services to you. I'd even
them impound vehicles that were operated on public streets without the
appropriate licenses.

Don't want to let your house burn down, fine. Let the fucker burn to the
slab. Your daughter gets raped, fine. You figure out who did it on your own.
Don't want to pay vehicle and related taxes, fine don't drive your vehicle
on public streets.

Just face it. It isn't the threat of violence that pisses you off. It's that
you have social responsibilities to those around you. Taxes represent a
responsibility that you don't want and to hell with the consequences.

> this in a physical sense, not a legal one-- then what is to stop me or
> anyone else from telling it to fuck off?  Such a state cannot govern
> those who do not wish to be governed, and so would not be a government.

No state can govern those who don't wish to be governed, violence or no.

[I've deleted a great gob of this since it's the same just rehashed in
different sentences.]

And to answer a specific question, I'm familiar with Dawkins work.

> When two bears approach the same berry bush, they do not immediately
> start fighting over it.

What time of year is it? If we're talking in the spring when they're just
out of hibernation they will begin to attack immediately. If it is two males
in rut in the fall they will attack immediately. If you examine the way
Alaskan Browns share the Salmon runs in the spring you will find ample
evidence why Dawkins example isn't worth the paper it's writ on.

>  Instead, they each stick to one side of the
> bush, and do not disturb one another.

Malarcky. I'm familiar with the way bears and other mammals work and this is
gibberish. Unless the bears are related one of them will be finding another
bush pronto.

> pretty good at attacking things.  It would be pretty easy for a
> exceptional bear to break this rule, and become dominant over the other
> bears, if what you say is true.

Except your forgetting the nature of bears. Except in heat bears are
solitary animals. They don't like groups and avoid them. They defend their
territory to whatever level of force is required. In most cases (Alaskan
Brown are a well studied example you can find tons of literature on) they
will not even approach each other closer than several hundred feet. So the
question of them sharing a berry bush is a contrived example that is
irrelevant and doesn't occur in nature outside of family groups that are
transient and only last 1-2 years depending on the type of bear and the food
supply.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------