words have value, for good or ill

[Zooko Journeyman <zooko@xs4all.nl>]

 Anonymous wrote:
>
> >There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially
> >among members whose positions are otherwise indefensible.  It's
> >surprising in a way because this fallacy is more common among
> >statists.
> >
> >There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be
> >illegal.  We see this all the time.  People think of the government
> >as their way of expressing moral values.  Drugs are wrong, so they
> >must be made illegal.  Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it
> >also must be illegal.  We have countless bad laws based on this false
> >premise.
> >
> >On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal,
> >it must be moral.  Someone is attacked for posting some vicious,
> >hateful, immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was
> >legal, because of freedom of speech and the First Amendment.  Their
> >critic must be opposed to free speech if he objects to their words.


I didn't write this, but I wish I had.  It is exactly correct,
and well-done.  If I had written I would've attached a nym in 
an attempt to accrue some reputation capital.  (The author 
should e-mail me so I can credit her repcap account. :-) )



 Monty Cantsin wrote:
>
> >Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game.  It
> >leads to the false reasoning of the statists.  We must remember that
> >there is a clear distinction between morality and legality.
> 
> This is a good thing to remember.  However, what you seem to be
> calling immoral is holding a belief with which you disagree.


Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not 
of thoughts.  Words are actions in my book.  (ObDcashPunks: 
Note that the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you 
this cash token.  Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action 
of giving the person the cash token.  :-) )


> What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should
> refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world
> because they are immoral.


I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that
the meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it 
because it should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated 
from cypherpunks discourse.


The rightness of one's actions is independent from the legality
of those actions.  (Except, of course, that it is sometimes 
wise to avoid doing something illegal out of pragmatic concern
for consequences.)


If a cypherpunk is accused by her fellows of a wrong act, it is
completely irrelevant and out of character for her to reply by
stating that the act is legal.



This is a such an obvious truth that I'm surprised no-one, 
including myself, has brought it up before Anonymous did.


Regards,

Zooko

---
Software engineer for hire.  http://www.xs4all.nl/~zooko/resume.html