bloodlust or game-theory? (was Re: Alex le Heux)

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Zooko Journeyman <zooko@xs4all.nl> writes:
> [...]
>
> P.P.S.  No really-- I'm _not_ a cypherpunk, because cypherpunks 
> appear to be overwhelmed with blind, self-destructive 
> bloodlust since 1996 or so.  I'm just here to try talking some
> sense into the salvageable ones.

Cypherpunks are individuals.

Pick 10 cypherpunks, you'll get 10 different views.

Don't see the need to disclaim non-cypherpunk status due to
`bloodlust'...  Are you anticipating that the list readership will be
collectively locked up for non-government approved thoughts?

Are you sure that having a 10 mile crater where there used to be a
bunch of power-crazed beaurocrats wouldn't be a net improvement :-)?

It's not as if anyone is planning to nuke them anyway, it's just
invective.  There might be some danger of some of us writing a bit of
crypto code, or saying some negative things about politicians.  No
laws against either of those (yet).

On AP/betting pools etc., politics and governments are all about
force.  Why should governments have a monopoly on force?  People
applaud SAS/CIA assassinations as humanitarian efforts.  What's the
difference?

A lot of the systematic torture, intimidation, carried out by 3rd
world dictatorships is done at the hands of CIA trained government
employees.

If you find your own government not extreme enough to feel comfortable
evaluating net benefits to human happiness in removal of corrupt
government officials, perhaps you would be happier evaluating societal
benefits of theoretically removing some 3rd world countries more
corrupt officials.

It's not bloodlust, it's game theory...

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`