Cypherpunks defeat?

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

At 10:02 AM -0500 9/24/98, Albert P. Franco, II wrote:

>I think perhaps a tougher question is, "Is there a way, without resorting
>to bloodshed, to regain control of our private property and private lives?"
>That's not a troll! I know that there are a lot people on this list with
>their assault rifles at the ready, that are convinced that only armed
>resistance will work. But. I think that's the "easy" way out. (How) can it
>be done another way?

It's ironic that you would have to ask that question here.

The cypherpunks group was founded on this very premise: that through the
use of cryptography, people would become able to engage in a wide range
of voluntary transactions, outside of the reach of meddling interlopers.

Most cypherpunks have become disillusioned about their dreams, and you
will seldom hear them defend the notion that cryptography offers any kind
of alternative to a society based on coercion.  The past few years have
been hard ones.  The failure of digital cash, the gradual trend towards
a debate over when and how (rather than whether) to regulate domestic
cryptography, widespread abuse of anonymity, all these make the original
cypherpunk goals seem even more distant today than in the past.

Is the cypherpunks dream dead?  Is the movement over?

Maybe it is time to give up.  Throw in the towel, admit that we lost.
Sure, there are still battles to be fought, rear-ground actions where we
can perhaps delay the inevitable outcome.  But the vision has been lost,
and all that is left is the post-mortem analysis of the failed dream.