Re: CIA & FBI, a marriage made in ___?

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

> 
> 
> From: Black Unicorn
> 
> (from an earlier post)
> In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should
> try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution.
> 
> (from the above named post)
> Yes, I'm tired of the issue [of the political aspects of crypto] being 
> framed as a crime problem that needs political attention through law 
> enforcement when in actuality it is a
> question of regulation and domestic policy.
> ......................................................
> 
> I'm not seeing the consistency in embracing the concepts of the law, 
> while questioning the regulation of crypto through law enforcement.
> 
> It all rather looks the same to me: political attention-> law 
> enforcement-> regulation-> domestic policy.
> 
> ??

The hinge question is what I, or you, mean by "concepts of law."

In the first post, a cypherpunk was dismissing the importance of the 
constitution as valueless to his quest, because current law meant nothing 
to him and was an authority he did not respect.  (I'm extracting from 
memory, if the poster would care to comment...?)  My point was that one 
should never dismiss the constitution, and that the framers had some 
heads between them.  The concepts of law I refer to are the original 
frameworks embodied in the constitution.  In reality I have a great deal 
of respect for the concepts and the notions and the genius I see in the 
document that is the Constitution of the United States.  Just the 
process, the intellectual endeavor of that, of developing a stable structure
restraining the various powers from dominating still gives me chills.
Call me a fanatic.

The question of its application to current events is another matter. 

Was the separation of power just to keep the infighting to a low level, 
or was it to keep any one power from growing too large?

Therein lies the answer you seek.

If the current structure of government is proper true to the 
constitution, and more importantly the goal of a stable government with 
co-equal branches, then respecting those "concepts of law" is to embrace 
centralism, regulation of markets, export restrictions and an ever 
growing executive branch.

If the current structure of government is improper, and goes beyond the 
bounds of power the framers intended, then respecting those "concepts of 
law" is to reject the current state of affairs.

It all depends on the ground you start from, I start from the latter, and 
not the former.  In my framework, I feel it is consistent to embrace the 
constitution and its doctrine while still resisting regulation.

You'll note my quote in the first post:

"In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should
try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution."

Perspective is key.

> 
> Blanc
> 

-uni- (Dark)