Tim May wrote:
>At 8:17 AM -0700 7/10/00, Patrick Henry wrote:
>>This is a true test of the survivability of a minarchist society.
>No, because no "government laws" are involved in _any_ of the
>discussions of how to handle the list.
>Would you make the parallel constructions as easily:
>"The success of my party next Saturday will be a test of the
>survivability of a minarchist society."
What could be done differently, in the absence of government laws, relative to
cleaning up the list? Would you cut spammers' hands off? That doesn't sound
very libertarian.
I did not imply that failing to fix our list problem condemns all minarchist
societies. However, I think our list is a microcosm of minarchist societies
generally, thanks to your persistence at repelling moderation. I could imagine
far worse, automated spam attacks, so severe that simple filtering at the user
level would be insufficient to alleviate the damage. Do we then need some sort
of collective or centralized planning (perish the thought)?
It seems like all oppressive governments develop in this fashion:
1. There's a threat (starvation, the King, Hitler, racial inequality).
2. There's a call for a collective action.
3. Members produce a response which overcomes the threat.
4. The power structures created to deal with the threat remain in place and
eventually become oppressive.
So, how do we nullify the spam threat without creating a moderated or centrally
filtered list? What if the spam message count reached 50,000 messages per day?
Then what?
--PH
_____________________________________________
Get Your Free Email from http://www.hotml.com
