Re: Cypherpunks as Philosopher Kings [was permanent invasion of privacy]

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

attila@primenet.com wrote:
>         Currently, I am not sure what the charter of cypherpunks
>     really stands for, if anything.  As it stands, the list has
>     a far more erudite group than the list it probably should be.
>     certainly more privacy and social engineering issues resulting
>     from the deprivation of privacy than code.

I note that the cypherpunks subscriptions are down to 1262 as of 18 Dec.,
compared to 1299 on 30 Nov., 1353 on 04 Nov., and 1361 on 12 Oct.

[snip]

>     However, if the Libertarian Party can not field a better candidate
>     than Harry Brown, anarchy, or a premature dictatorship, it will be.
>     The US is in the last laugh of the oligarchy at this point in time.

Is there an assumption that we really have politics as usual, nowadays in
the U.S.?  Or could it be that there has been a fundamental change, where
the leadership has been decapitated via assassinations, both literal and
of character?

[mo' snip]

>     out of curiosity I was poking around a bit; he apparently has
>     legislative backers. I would be surprised if the bill made it out
>     a subcommittee hearing. however, his theory melds nicely with the
>     intentions of superbitch;

> ::Before we go licensing parents, we ought to license people who
> ::want to be Big Brothers......

Out of curiosity, I asked around myself, beginning with some entrepreneurs
who made it up the hard way.  I expected the same as c-punks, i.e.,
"the hell with those bastards", etc.  No such luck.  The White Folk here
in Orange County (those who are doing well, which is most of them) think
this is a great idea.