🚀 go-pugleaf

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>You won't get off the hook by minimizing your support of the fascism you call
>"regulation for the common good".  BTW, that's literal fascism, as in what
>was practiced by Mussolini and Hitler, not just a trite epithet.  Individual
>Liberty IS the common good.
 
 No, a balance between individual liberty and common responsibility is
 the common good. You make the mistake that the opposite of of an evil
 extreme must be good. Teh oppositie of almost any extreme is another
 evil extreme.

>}
>}Unfortunately you guys do use them all the time it seems. And you will
>}eventually get yourselves a dictator elected to protecrt you from your
>}indiscriminate use of them in the cause of liberty.

>Shall we call this ignorance or bigotry?  Assuming the former, allow me to
>inform you that we know why there's so much firearms violence here, it's
>because of the black market drug price support program (a.k.a. "War on Drugs"),
>the income tax, inflation, the abhominable public schools, and the very same
>regulations you meekly find not one fault with.

Bigotry? Against whom? Ignorance? Of what? All countries have
regulations, all countries have taxes (most higher than the USA) all
have drug problems, etc. All do not have your gun death rate. I thought
that guns in the hands of private citizens was supposed to produce good
govenment and a good society. So why is your worse?



>All it takes is for the majority to vote away their rights in exchange for
>"privileges" which centralize power, which will then be exercised upon them
>in turn.

Yes and what do you do then? Start a civil war?  And at what stage in
the process do you advocate starting that war? Do you advocate civil
war to all who fear the tyranny of the left if Clinton wins or the
tyranny of the right if Bush wins?

>It's far easier for tyranny to establish itself if its victims are unarmed
>than if they aren't.  Switzerland has machine guns in most homes, and is
>quite free and stable. 

and so are most of the European countries-which are not armed. 
You would incidentally be
horrified at the lack of personal freedom in Switzerland (in 
comparison with the USA) and the heavy hand of government there in many
areas.


To get back on topic, the banning of encryption is almost certainly
doomed to failure. Its regulation is almost certainly going to happen. (
After all Even private corporations like RSA heavily regulate your use
of public key systems already). The knee jerk reaction against all
regulation as the introduction of  tyranny in the USA will simply
ensure that the regulations will be silly when they come, simply because
people in the know, like you refuse to discuss them. It may be that
Dennings proposal is unworkable and silly as well ( as I suspect) but
the discussion has to try to balance the various needs of society to
find a workable and not too intrusive a proposal( and on balance it may
be that no restrictions is the best).