Re: Dr. Vulis

[Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>]

Bill Frantz wrote:
> 
> As I put on my flame resistant suit...
> 
> IMHO, most of the posts about John Gilmore's action re: Dr. Vulis are
> seriously miss-analyzing what has happened.  As far as I can tell, John
> instructed his Majordomo to refuse subscription requests to cypherpunks
> from Dr. Vulis.  That is all that John has done.  What John has not done
> is:

Of course John was right to give Vilus the boot. Cypherpunks is a club
and like many private clubs occasionaly finds it necessary to give some
oik the boot.

And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in
terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. Rights
are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society finds
it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were
affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional
liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them.
If libertarians would read "on Liberty" rather than using it like
a magic charm they would know that the main theory it advances is of
the *balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of
individuals. 

The genius of Mills is that he shows that the "rights" of government
stem from its duty to protect the "rights" of the citizens.

Its an imperfect answer because the notiopn of "citizenship" it advances
fails to take any account of foreign relations. Mill's rationale for 
obeying laws breaks down when one crosses national borders for example.

> The best paradigm I can come up with to analyze John's action is my quite
> imperfect understanding of communitarian theory.  In essence,
> communitarians say that there should be a level of social control between
> individual rights and the forceful coercion of the state.  What John has
> done is step forward and excommunicate Dr. Vulis.  He has said to Dr.
> Vulis, "You are no longer a member of the cypherpunks community."

Rather than "should", try the word "is". One of the things the Web 
demonstrates is that there are such communities. I would not state the
action in terms of "excommunication", rather consider that John took
the action on behalf of the community for the good of the community as a 
whole.

> I would love to hear how people feel this action fits in to the
> cryptoanarchy, libertarian utopias we frequently discuss.  E.g. Why is it
> not a perfectly reasonable action for some one to take in an anarchy?

If we could get away from the bleating denials of the need for
government
and instead consider them as a positive force, preventing a power vacum
that 
others would fill a synthesis can be reached. The founders of the
US realised that to pervent tyranny it was necessary to have different 
branches and levels of government. The essential point being however to
prevent power being used.

When a community of people get together they can exercise far more power
than individuals acting alone. Sometimes this power can be for the
common
good, other times it can be the sectarian persuit of one minorities 
interests against another. 



	Phill