This is a dynamic growth area so I think its worth checking Wikipedia now and then. Btw I hope you didn't go to Harvard. ________________________________ From: Jeremy Compton <comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 9:06 PM Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA I dont get my education from Wikipedia, l studied a Politics degree for an education in this area. ________________________________ From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of professor rat [pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:00 p.m. To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA Basically democratic-socialism Vs libertarian-socialism. Wikipedia covers both. ________________________________ From: Jeremy Compton <comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 7:30 PM Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA How are you defining you defintions of these differing political theories ________________________________ From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of professor rat [pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 9:28 p.m. To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA The choice today is neocon/Wilson style hegemony or anarchism. And the natural selection of good ideas is increasingly unkind to Fukuyama. ________________________________ From: nativebuddha <nativebuddha@xxxxxxxxx> To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, 19 July 2013 10:27 PM Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA ...and hence the core conflict: are you Hobbesian, Rousseauean or Kantian? Nothing rational about it at all. It's always about what you believe. -Robert On Jul 19, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Gary Wallin <garylwallin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/18/2013 7:59 PM, John Young wrote: >> ...its greatest enemy is its hyper-paranoia. >> >> National security is not about protecting the nation, its aim >> is to generate fear of its inevitable failure. > John, perhaps you are too pessimistic. I don't like the panopticon or the > surveillance state. But with 7 billion people on the planet and the > inglorious history of human nature, parts of the security programs may be > needed. I would prefer that people prevent abuses of the National Security state and surveillance, rather than calling for its abolition. > > Constructive criticism is needed and pointed questions must be raised. But in > the end, it is not the nature of the State that is our primary concern; it is > human nature itself. But both the behavior of both the State and the People > give reasons for great concern. > >