4.12.1. "Why take a "no compromise" stance?" - Compromise often ends up in the death of a thousand cuts. Better to just take a rejectionist stance. - The National Rifle Association (NRA) learned this lesson the hard way. EFF may eventually learn it; right now they appear to be in the "coopted by the power center" mode, luxuriating in their inside-the-Beltway access to the Veep, their flights on Air Force One, and their general schmoozing with the movers and shakers...getting along by going along. - Let's not compromise on basic issues. Treat censorship as a problem to be routed around (as John Gilmore suggests), not as something that needs to be compromised on. (This is directed at rumblings about how the Net needs to "police itself," by the "reasonable" censorship of offensive posts, by the "moderation" of newsgroups, etc. What should concern us is the accomodation of this view by well-meaning civil liberties groups, which are apparently willing to play a role in this "self-policing" system. No thanks.) - (And since people often misunderstand this point, I'm not saying private companies can't set whatever policies they wish, that moderated newsgroups can't be formed, etc. Private arrangements are just that. The issue is when censorship is forced on those who have no other obligations. Government usually does this, often aided and abetted by corporations and lobbying groups. This is what we need to fight. Fight by routing around, via technology.) 4.12.2. The inherent evils of democracy - To be blunt about it, I've come to despise the modern version of democracy we have. Every issue is framed in terms of popular sentiment, in terms of how the public would vote. Mob rule at its worst. - Should people be allowed to wear blue jeans? Put it to a vote. Can employers have a policy on blue jeans? Pass a law. Should health care be provided to all? Put it to a vote. And so on, whittling away basic freedoms and rights. A travesty. The tyranny of the majority. - De Toqueville warned of this when he said that the American experiment in democracy would last only until citizens discovered they could pick the pockets of their neighbors at the ballot box. - But maybe we can stop this nonsense. I support strong crypto (and its eventual form, crypto anarchy) because it undermines this form of democracy. It takes some (and perhaps many) transactions out of the realm of popularity contests, beyond the reach of will of the herd. (No, I am not arguing there will be a complete phase change. As the saying goes, "You can't eat cyberspace." But a lot of consulting, technical work, programming, etc., can in fact be done with crypto anarchic methods, with the money gained transferred in a variety of ways into the "real world." More on this elsewhere.) + Crypto anarchy effectively allows people to pick and choose which laws they support, at least in cyberspatial contexts. It empowers people to break the local bonds of their majoritarian normative systems and decide for themselves which laws are moral and which are bullshit. - I happen to have faith that most people will settle on a relatively small number of laws that they'll (mostly) support, a kind of Schelling point in legal space. 4.12.3. "Is the Cypherpunks agenda _too extreme_?" - Bear in mind that most of the "Cypherpunks agenda," to the extent we can identify it, is likely to provoke ordinary citizens into _outrage_. Talk of anonymous mail, digital money, money laundering, information markets, data havens, undermining authority, transnationalism, and all the rest (insert your favorite idea) is not exactly mainstream. 4.12.4. "Crypto Anarchy sounds too wild for me." - I accept that many people will find the implications of crypto anarchy (which follows in turn from the existence of strong cryptography, via the Crypto Anarchy Principle) to be more than they can accept. - This is OK (not that you need my OK!). The house of Cypherpunks has many rooms.
Next Page: 5. Cryptology
Previous Page: 4.11 Crypto Anarchy
By Tim May, see README
HTML by Jonathan Rochkind