[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
- To: [email protected]
- From: Anonymous <[email protected]>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 03:54:05 -0500
- Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.Please report problems or inappropriate use to theremailer administrator at <[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
> Since crypto-anarchy & free-market economic anarchy both do away with
> centralized authorities isn't this sort of behaviour what is *expected* of
> members of the community under these systems? Doesn't the fact that there is
> a clear and present danger to both person and community justify these sorts
> of actions?
>
The concept of "Free-Market-Crypto-Anarchy" doesn't jibe with the
"Lynch-Mob Democracy" mentality exhibited by Gates. One of the
fundamental principles of anarchy is a willingness to let others hash
out their own problems, i.e. I will ignore him unless his actions
impact or affect me personally/financially.
It is not as if the Gates were going to be affected by the
"suspects"...they had to go out of their way to interfere with someone
else's pursuit of happiness. That is clearly unacceptable. The last
thing we need is a deputized citizenry...talk about a police state.
(I guess that would be the ultimate form of the "Policeman Inside")