Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)

[dmandl@bear.com]

> From: <jamesd@netcom.com>
> 
> If you claim that Eric does not own the list then you claim that it
> is unjust for him to change the rules without consent.
> 
> If I claim he owns the list then I claim that it perfectly proper
> for him to change the rules without consent, regardless of whether
> or not he has a good, or even sane, reason.

[...]

So what's the point?  Fortunately, Eric and not you is running the list,
and he's a reasonable man.  Yeah, sure, according to the rules of PPL or
Roman Law or mathematics or whatever, he has every right to take unilateral
action and do whatever he wants to with the list.  OK, he's the "owner,"
so?  This is the real world, not an algebra lesson: the whole reason
this discussion is happening is that Eric realizes there are a few hundred
friends (damn, I should have said "comrades") involved here and he would
like to discuss the issue.  This "ownership" thread seems like a gratuitous
exercise in abstract propertarian philosophy.  Man, some people actually
seem EAGER to have Eric make some drastic unilateral move just so they can
bleat "Yes sir, he's the owner, that's his right!  Yes sir, he's the owner,
that's his right!" and have their worldview sanctioned.

Yes, that IS his right, but he's obviously too nice a guy to just do it
tomorrow morning without discussing it first and then inform us all of the
new status of his "property."  So why don't we just discuss his proposal?

I agree with Tim that effortless encryption/signing of email is still a
dream for most of us.  I don't think there should be any "punishment" for
not signing (not even having the non-signer's mail delayed).  I do think
signing should be encouraged.  I think that at some time in the future
(a year?) Eric's proposal may be reasonable, but I don't think it's time
yet.

   --Dave.