Re: bumper stickers

[tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)]

On Jan 03, 1996 22:25:26, 'liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray)' wrote: 
 
 
><snip> 
> 
>>     -- Any political analysis that fits on a bumper sticker is wrong.  
> 
> 
>My bumper sticker says, "Politicians and diapers need to be changed -- 
>often for the same reason." Politicians keep on proving this analysis 
>RIGHT, much as I *wish* it were wrong. 
>JMR 
>Regards, Jim Ray 
>http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray 
>"Hooters GUYS? Washington -- GET A GRIP!" 
> 
 
I am not sure if I understand the political argument that J. Ray believes
is so "RIGHT" that he wishes to post it to the cypherpunks list. I infer
that the answer he is implying is that they are both "full of shit." I have
no problem with humorous bumper stickers. I frequently use parodies of
bubble-brained "progressivism" as my .sig files (e.g. "Visualize whirled
peas" or "Give pizza chants" but I do not confuse them with detailed
social, political, mathematical, philosophical, or especially economic
analysis. 
 
J.Ray may wish to comment on the anality of politicians; that is an opinion
over which I have no desire to comment. But to seriously maintain that one
needs to replace an elected official based on the presumed state of his
bowels, to post this info publically, and to insist that the analysis is
"RIGHT" is rather an example of what I meant. 
 
One might define cypherpunks in three areas: 
 
a) they write code, *code* and CODE; 
b) they are concerned about anonymity; 
c) they are concerned about privacy. 
 
The code they write is based on algorythms. They are short, terse, and
elegant. The code that the algorythmicly-oriented cypherpunks have written
is wonderful and a major contribution to human freedom. They write far
better code than I have ever written or will ever be likely to write. 
 
And you can put elegant mathematical equations on bumper stickers. They can
fit and they are true. The best example might be "E = MC^2". 
 
Unfortunately, the other two issues are not subject to the same type of
solutions as is encryption code. The time one spends working on the elegant
algorythms is time not spent on broader issues of political science,
sociology, economics, history, etc. Unfortunately, many do not realize this
and so treat complex social issues as if they can be decided with the same
type of elegant algorthym as the code. They can not. The English language
does not have the compact elegance of C++. Nor is the range of human
problems and interrelationships anywhere near as narrow as that of the
average instruction set of a CPU. So attempts at solving complex social
problems in the same way are *always* wrong, as witness J.Ray's original
post to the group. 
 
I do not mean to suggest that every algo-oriented individual must, of
necessity, miss the larger social issues. Einstein, for example, came up
with a mean critique of E. Mach, but only because Uncle AL put a lot of
post-1905 time studying complex aspects of philosophy. His critique, by the
by, did not fit on a bumber sticker. 
 
     -- tallpaul 
     -- Gun control means being able to hit your target!