This may be a semantic point, but it should be made.... David Koontz sez: "Avoiding the appearance of endorsing the violent overthrow of government is prudent policy..." Um...I think I know what you mean, but isn't it better to just say outright that violence really is not the way to reform government at all, save in truly historical, exceptional cases (American Revolution, French Revolution...) I am no code cruncher but it seems to me that the relevant "precedents" for a "Cypherpunk Revolution" would be the Russian democracy movement, where the power of ideas toppled the oppressive regime with a minimum of bloodshed, while the world watched.... The way Mr Koontz puts it is awfully ambiguous and open to be read as a *very* cynical and disingenuous kind of "waffle". Point: Violence is abhorrent to civilized conduct, undermines social cohesion, and is generally justifiable only as a defensive measure. Arent we concerned with the state of affairs today precisely because individuals no longer have a sense of these kind of boundaries? So it is important to emphasis that violence is part of the problem, and not to be sloppy and suggest (inferentially) that it could be part of the solution. IMHO.