Everything is relative - and the quest for purity in a perfect expression of a rights-based policy is not only impossible, but likely to provoke unintended consequences.
Common sense must prevail, not out of context quotations. Thomas Paine would not for a second consider the fact that his concept of liberty might encompass the right to hide torture and rape. That would be unthinkable. True libertarians are PRACTICAL libertarians. Jeff http://jeffharrington.org Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote: > (Forgive the large quoting; this is going into a different thread, and > I wanted to keep the context of the discussion). > > Background: Thomas Paine: "He that would make his own liberty secure, > must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this > duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. " ~ > Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December > 23, 1791 > > Tor is fundamentally about giving people some liberty, specifically > protecting freedom of speech when what you say is at odds with, or > against, the views of the majority and/or the government, and the > right to privacy, given the ease of third parties (ad sites) to track > you, and governments to grab data from these companies. > > On 2/28/07, Thomas M. Jett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote: >> > I'm doing a LOT of trimming on this reply. >> > >> >> Yes, and this is, given the limits of technology, best left to the >> >> realm of The Good Lord to handle ( the rules are in The Bible if >> only >> >> people would abide by them. There is something that the vast >> >> majority >> >> of people fail to take into consideration, and that is the fact that >> >> evil exists in this world. It does, and while we cannot endorse it, >> >> or go along with it, we do have to tolerate it in as much as we >> >> cannot >> >> prevent it without actually hurting ourselves in the process >> >> (reference the quote of Thomas Paine). >> > >> > Please, take a second look at this statement. I'm not taking this out >> > of context. >> I'm taking a second look at it, and a third and forth ect... etc... >> despite the fact that I've been up far too long. >> > >> > Yes, we cannot prevent someone else's ability to make a choice, >> > without that coming back and restricting our choices. Absolutely. >> Agreed >> > >> > You have chosen to say "The Bible has the rules of The Good Lord". >> > That's your choice. >> Yes, that is correct. >> > >> > You are choosing to say all of the following: >> > 1. The God of Abraham is Lord. >> > 2. The God of Abraham is God. >> > 3. The God of Abraham is Good. (Job, Jonah, and Ester come to mind.) >> > 4. The rules given to the generations from Abraham to Moses still >> > apply today. >> > 5. The guidelines and interpretations of those, as expressed by >> > prophets up til about 200 BC (old testament), or up til about 100 AD >> > (new testament), or by male rulers who kicked women out of the ruling >> > class through about 400 AD (Roman catholic church), or ..., are in >> > fact valid and appropriate in 2010 AD. >> Quiet correct, except that you do not take into consideration that >> since the birth of Christ the world is under a new covenant, and the >> old covenant ( the one in effect B.C. while still a good general >> guideline is not literally God's Law. >> > 6. Any advice / prophets / instructions given to anyone else are >> > invalid. (See: Muslim, Taoist, etc). >> While I recognize that these philosophies may have something to >> contribute to understanding human morality and nature, and did the >> pagan Greek's, I do not recognize them as religions. The only >> authority a Christian can recognize is the authority of God. > > First, and minor technical, Muslim is religion. The God of Muslims is > the same God of Abraham. The question is, do you follow the second son > of the second son (Abraham -> Issac -> Jacob), or do you follow the > other family branch. > > Mohammad, as I understand, has the same place in their religion as > Moses or Jesus has in Judaism -- a prophet -- a person, wise, able to > spot and point out problems with the status quo, with some inspiration > from God. (Your definition may vary). > > Second, and major: As soon as you say that "X is the only authority I > can recognize", what happens? And why is this relevant to Tor? > > Look at countries, and governments, historically. > > The authority that I recognize is the constitution of the United > States, plus any government that is upholding that, along with the > common-law rights of the Magna Carta, and the statute rights, by > approved treaty, of the united nation's accord on basic human rights. > I might have the titles of those slightly off, doesn't matter. > > The view that you express has historically lead to governments that > try to restrict people's freedom of speech, as well as governments > that try to track the opposition and eliminate them. > > Both of these are what Tor is (a weak, but first step) protecting > against. > > Do you have the right to say "I only believe in the authority of God, > as redefined by Jesus"? Sure. Do you have the right to say what is, or > is not, God; what is, or is not, God's laws; what is, or is not, a > religion? Sure. > > But you don't have the right to tell others that they are wrong. You > have the right to say that you disagree with them. > > And when governments start saying "You are wrong", that is when we > need Tor to already be in large use. > > Remember: If the only people using Tor are those with something to > hide, then the people using Tor can be easily rounded up, and charged > with "Crimes against the state". > > I have nothing significant to hide; I use the name "Keybounce" all > over the internet. > > But it is precisely because the people who need to hide need noise to > hide in that I use Tor. > > (And I do hide. If you look at the first and last name on this email > account, you'll see that I'm doing a basic "protection against > database join" from companies merging and joining databases into a > large collection. Overall, that's minor.) > > (It is relatively easy for a government sized attack to attack tor. > They have the resources to put in enough nodes to be 10-15% of the > network; they can force ISP's (phone companies and cable companies) to > filter packets and send things that match XXX to them for analysis; > they can track who the major nodes are, and require 100% packet > duplication from them from the ISP's. The solution is to make sure > that the total volume on Tor is really, really large.) > >
