Forwarded by permission.
Spike wrote me:
mike, do go ahead and post my comments if you wish. add a line
explaining
that i use all lower case when replying offlist to anyone, but that you
have my permission to post the private reply. my download conked
early too, but i had heard quite enough by that time. spike
"Michael M. Butler" wrote:
> The chicken-egg problem is indeed crucial. I'm going over Brin's book
> with a fine toothed comb right now to see how or whether he handles it
> there. If he handwaves on that, we need to call him on it, specifically.
>
> At the moment, I'm moderately pro-crypto, reluctantly pro-transparency
> and strongly pro-victimless-law-rollback. I want the last first. I'm not
> sure I'm going to get it from Dubya, but we'll just have to do what we
> can.
>
> My copy of the radio show pooped out at around 24 minutes, right when he
> was talking about "satiability". Did you get the whole thing?
>
> Sorry I missed the schmooze. OK if I post this on the list, including
> your comments below?
>
> Mike
>
> Spike Jones wrote:
> >
> > > > > http://www.changesurfer.com/eventhorizon/shows/2000.html
> > > > > ---------------
> > > >
> > > > I just listened to the Brin interview. Everything I ever said about
> > > > transparency and Brin's book, I now totally repent. Do forgive me,
> > > > I repudiate everything, I now think the opposite. spike
> >
> > "Michael M. Butler" wrote:
> >
> > > Spike: was this sarcasm? Or did you really change your mind? From what,
> > > to what? Semicluelessly yours, Mike
> >
> > no, im never sarcastic onlist. the meaning is too easily lost. as you might
> > recall ive been a huge transparency advocate, and was enthusiastic about
> > brins book transparent society. now im rethinking a lotta my positions.
> > after listening to the brin interview, its clear to me that he doesnt get it
> > and isnt anything close to my definition of a libertarian. hes just a plain
> > liberAL. {8-[
> >
> > anyways, my notion was that increased transparency would be a
> > vehicle to move society toward more libertarian notions. if we cant hide,
> > then we need to legalize a lotta the things we do that we can easily
> > get away with, and not only legalize, but accept as ok behaviors,
> > such as all victimless "crimes".
> >
> > after discussing it with a number of like minded people at the latest
> > nanoschmooze last week, im now realizing society has a chicken
> > and egg problem. i was convinced we need transparency to
> > catalyze freedom. but we need freedom to make us comfortable
> > with transparency. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:39 MDT