🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov13.075430.8494@cactus.org>, ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:

>  In <1992Nov13.011516.27463@news.eng.convex.com>
>  gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:

> >    What is this "society" you speak so blythely of?

>  The collected body of people who function under The Constitution.

It excludes, for example, any person who does not consent to "function
under The Constitution" and who strives to avoid accepting the
so-called "benefits" of such consent.

>  Well, I'm not really going to get into the semantics of the
>  difference between "society" and "the government".

That may be a serious error.  It may well turn out that the delicate
flower of civilization will survive only because of that part of
society which deliberately and consciously avoids involvement with
government.  Cryptography is an important tool by which these decent,
peace-loving folk can defend themselves from imposition by the
collective.

In <1992Nov13.094243.10343@cactus.org> you say "But what *I* think is
pretty much irrelevant.  The issue is what our legislators think, and
the arguments we can make to support our case."  This suggests that
you are prepared to willfully concede to voters (or their agents)
choices which had previously been yours alone, such as whether to
encrypt your data.  Not all people make this concession.

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar