RE: Milgram & Authority

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Duncan Frissell writes:

>Never be afraid to jinx sideways to throw them off your tail.  Practice
>violating small orders so that when it really counts, you'll be able to
>violate big orders smoothly without even having to think about it.
>
>Not to attack others facing a different world but how many jews could have
>saved themselves during the 1930s by choosing to become illegal aliens in
>the US or the UK.
>
>Practice disobedience.

I heard a hilarious version of this, perhaps on another list a while back.

Someone who had an office with several chairs for visitors in it was faced
with people asking where they should sit.

Visitor: "Where should I sit?"

Office owner: "There." (points)

visitor sits down...

Office owner: "Sit over there." (points to another chair)

visitor complies...

Office owner: "No, go sit over there," (etc.)


The point being that people who ask to be ordered around, when the
situation doesn't warrant it (sometimes it may be appropriate/polite to ask
where to sit, for example), deserve to be shown the folly of their ways.

With regard to Hal's earlier point about the implications of cryptography,
I don't worry much about it. Sure, the path we take in history will
undoubtedly mean some folks who would have lived will now die....such is
the nature of nearly all choices.

(By not studying medicine and becoming an itinerant doctor in Africa, I
have undoubtedly "killed" hundreds or even thousands of people living on
the bare margin of survival who might likely have lived had one additional
doctor been available. And so on.)

Protecting my own privacy, my own financial dealings, using the currency of
the form I wish to use (rather than which the State tries to compell me to
use), and using other things on the Cypherpunks agenda can hardly be
considered in the same class as coercing by physical force, murdering
others, etc. I know Hal was not comparing use of crypto to coercion, but it
needs to be said that what we are doing is fully moral by my standards.

As to the Milgram case, I have no sympathies for the "traumatized." They
knew they were subjects in an experiment, and were probably being paid for
the experience. Besides, being one of the subjects I would think would be
quite a memorable experience. In any case, since they actually harmed no
one, but only were given a glimpse into their own psyches, what's the
damage? (That they "felt" damaged is not enough, else every psychotherapist
who aroused unwelcome memories and every party to a conversation who caused
uncomfortable feelings would be similarly open to such claims of damage.)

(Of course, the reality is that in today's world, Milgram's experiment
would probably be labeled as torture--of the test subjects told to pull the
levers--and he and his institution would be sued for multiple millions of
dollars. One more reason for data havens, medical havens, and such.)

If we go down the path of worrying about "psychic pain" inflicted on
others, then how can we operate in a world of failed marriages and
relationships, of hurt feelings, and of other such psychic damages?

Emotional and psychological assault is part of the world, and is not at all
the same as physical assault. We're losing track of this lately.

--Tim May

..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."