Re: law as enemy: was Re: Jim Bell reference

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

Antonomasia wrote: 
> Paul Bradley wrote: 
> Ant>                 Makes me think the issue is the preservation of many
> Ant> thousands of _unathorised_ taps.  What else could explain that viewpoint?
> 
> PB> Don`t cloud the issue: The simple fact is strong encryption can and will
> PB> obstruct law enforcement agencies in their "fight" against terrorism,
> PB> child pornography, drugs etc... good.

  You are both right. 
  Strong crypto will obstruct LEA's from doing the *millions* of
unauthorized taps on communications in their "holy war" against 
?crime?.

> Strong widespread crypto will cut down on much crime in the form of
> electronic theft, blackmail etc.  I expect some obstruction of law
> enforcement, but not enough to outweigh the benefits.

  Strong crypto will merely shift the nature of crimes being commited
from LEA-originated to criminal-originated, which is the way God has
planned it to be from the beginning.
  If we are going to play good-guy/bad-guy, there ought to be a real
difference between the two. Kids on a playground know that much.

>  Despite the
> occasionally glaring failures of a legal system it is still overall
> of use to the public.

  Attitudes like this are the cause of the erosion of our freedom and
privacy. 
  "Give me compromise of freedom or give me death." <WRONG> 
  "It is better for ten innocent men to be convicted than for one
guilty child molester to go free." <WRONG>
  Why do we never hear anyone saying "Sure, the legal system just
fucked me silly and unjustly ruined my life, but it is 'still overall
of use to the public'."? The reason is that a roll of the dice isn't
good enough when it comes to *ourself* receiving justice.
  Anyone who is comfortable for a roll of dice to decide the justice
received by *the other guy* is a fool and your enemy.

> PB> Would you then say their actions were wrong? As for child molestation,
> PB> this is a clear cut case, most libertarians follow the basic rule that a
> PB> crime has to be a direct act of agression, and infringe the rights of
> PB> another person, therefore child molestation clearly comes into this
> PB> category, distributing pictures of children being molested, raped,
> PB> buggered, tortured and killed is clearly not a crime. Please clarify your
> PB> position on this.
> 
> Such photography would suggest at least cooperation with
> those you'd regard as criminals.

  Bullshit. The current hot-ticket item in Canada is video of the girls
being tortured, raped and murdered by Paul Bernardo. These videos are
coming from the people involved in his prosecution and imprisonment.
  Are the TV networks cooperating with criminals by profiting from the
pictures of the OKC bombing, etc? Their extensive coverage certainly
makes such actions a good public forum for the potential terrorist.

> PB> law
> PB> enforcement should be routinely obstructed as often as possible.
> 
> Are you going to post your home address and holiday plans on the list
> so we give you the chance to gloat over failing law enforcement ?

  I have no doubt that Paul would love to do so, if it weren't for the
fact that he would be subjected to imprisonment and lawsuits if he took
action to protect his home and property from intruders during his 
absence and some ignorant thief got himself hurt or killed.

  Legislators and LEA's bemoan the fact that the constitution ties
their hands in fighting crime, but the fact is that they are creating
a mountain of new crimes through legislation and stings instead of
putting their effort into dealing with real, existing crime.
  Miscarriage of justice is the rule of the day in the current legal
system. The fact that the reins of power and control of the media is
not in the hands of the poor, minorities, and social outcasts means
that those who are busy participating in and/or supporting the gross
miscarriages of justice are those who paint the system's public face.

> There's probably not much point in pursuing this discussion.

  Not as long as you willing to settle for corruption of justice and
the compromise of freedom being justifiable as being of "overall of
use to the public."
  I don't choose to sell my weapons and walk around with a "kick me"
sign on my back, trusting in strangers to defend my life and liberty.
I resent those who choose to do so intimating that I am some kind of
lunatic/radical for choosing to take personal responsibility for
defending my life, liberty and beliefs.

  I am not against joining with others in forming organizations which
are of mutual benefit to all. I am merely against these organizations
being in the hands of self-serving criminals who want control over
all of my movement and communication in order to guard their usurped
power.
  I am willing to defend myself, my neighbors, my country. I am not
willing to defend a corrupt system which imperils the freedom and
privacy of myself and my fellow citizens.

TruthMonger