🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1cs7qlINN29t@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
}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.

"Common responsibility", better known as collective responsibility, is
a concept fundamentally flawed on both practical and theoretical grounds.  I
maintain that maximal individual liberty is the common good.  Nor am I as
reactionary as you imply by claiming I merely reverse the positions I
oppose to come up with my own.

}>}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?

Bigotry against us resident of the USA.  Your claim is as ignorant or bigoted
as one that Canadians seem to drink all the time, so they must be alcoholics.
Hong Kong has very low taxes and regulations, and doesn't have much of a
problem with unemployed people turning to crack to pass their time away,
then shooting others to rob them of money for more.  Furthermore, the
Netherlands has effectively no prohibition of drugs, and leads the world in
low addiction and violent crime rates.

The main factor making our firearms violence rates to high in some places
are people turning to crack dealing out of desperation with ghetto poverty.

Black markets in criminalized vices are inimical to good government and good 
society.

}>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?

When freedom of speech is no longer permitted, then revolution is justified,
but hopefully unnecessary.  I'm sorely tempted to answer yes to your last
question, for both alternatives, but can't.

}>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.

Stable?  Like the Baltic Republics?  Where Gorbachev had the police killing
innocents after confiscating their registered guns?  Like Yugoslavia?  Poland,
where people who challenge heads of state in elections get imprisoned for it?
Sweden?  Where a sea change away from welfare-statism is underway in reaction
against having about half the workforce be paid with the taxes paid by the
other half?  Like Germany, which recently suffered 4% inflation, and neo-Nazis
riot against the welfare programs for immigrants, and which deports foreigners
to keep its unemployment rate down?  Like Canada, where separatism rides high?

Switzerland has citizen's vetoes.  They have the highest degree of consent
by the governed in the world.

}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).

You're apparently ignorant of any distinction between command-and-control
regulation from the "public sector" and contractual terms in the "private
sector".  You don't have to deal with RSA if you don't consent to it.  If
you refuse to deal with the government, it deals with you.

It's not only tyrrannical, it's uneconomical as well, a fact which has been
established by economics much more than is necessary to overcome such shallow
denials as yours.

Society isn't a primary which has needs.  Society consists of the interactions
of individuals, and as such has no needs which aren't individual needs.  Needs
aren't additive.

Furthermore, there is not one "benefit" to be had from regulation of crypto-
graphy.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire