🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct29.151126.22114@cs.ruu.nl> in sci.crypt
piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) writes:

>GM> "Those who give up a little liberty to obtain safety deserve neither
>GM> liberty nor safety."

>There are plenty of example where everyone gives up a little liberty in
>order to obtain more safety. E.g in traffic:

>Traffic lights, speed limits, driving to the right (or left in appropriate
>countries).

>I would say that you can only get safety by sacrificing some liberty.

I think there is a misunderstanding of the word "liberty" here.  It
does not mean the right to behave in any way at any time.  Rather, it
means that you may in behave any way you wish short of violating the
rights of others.  (Consider the previous sentence carefully, and avoid
getting trapped in Russell's Paradox while you interpret my words.)

In the case of traffic laws, there are two questions: (a) who owns the
road and (b) whether you should be allowed to violate the owner's
rights while you use the road.

Note that the owner of the road is entitled to ignore traffic lights on
the road!   To not allow this violates the owenr's rights, and this is
where liberty and its violation are relevant.

In the case of a State-owned road, we need consider carefully the
rights of all people who collectively own the road (if such ownership
is meaningful at all).  *Somebody* owns the road;  the owner makes
the rules.

This is cross-posted to alt.individualism, because it is relevant
there.  But it is also relevant to sci.crypt, because cryptography is
an arena where many people are ignoring the rights of others, and even
arguing that these rights should be violated with wild abandon.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.com>
also: dhesi@rahul.net