Re: A possible solution

[jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)]

At 5:35 PM 11/28/94, Aron Freed wrote:
>Ok. You all have basically defeated the stiffer fines issue.
>
>The one issue remaining is do we want to live a life of anarchy.

That depends on what you mean by "anarchy." I'm sure there are a few
anarchists on the list, but they probably don't mean the same thing as you
do by "anarchy".

> Do we
>want to live in total isolation? Do we want to be completely paranoid and
>be always looking over our shoulder?

Many of us already are.  Except the kind of rules you are describing would
increase our paranoia, not lessen it. The people we're already looking over
our shoulder for are the people who would be enforcing the rules you are
proposing.

>You tell me how we solve that
>problem.

I still don't understand what "that problem" is. How does the existence of
cryptography (which is of course what started this discussion. fittingly,
since we're on cypherpunks here) make anyone live in total isolation, or be
completely paranoid, or be always looking over his shoulder?  I don't
understand how strong cryptography does any of those things.  What exactly
is this "problem" that you see, and how is it related to cryptography?

>I for one do not want to touch "1984" territory, but I don't
>want to live in an anarchy either.

About half the people I talk to think we're already "touching" _1984_
territory, and about the other half think we're already living in an
"anarchy", so appearantly it's in the eye of the beholder. They mean
"anarchy" in a negative sense of course, the same as you. I wouldn't mind
living in an anarchy if it's the kind Mikhail Bakunin or Emma Goldman or
Alexander Berkman or Petr Kropotkin advocated.   You might pick up a book
by any of those authors at your local public library, you might be
surprised.