On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams" <s...@lig.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Prove that isn't true.
> > You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However
> > since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you
> > can't do it.
>
> I did prove it: History is packed full of evidence. By induction,
> proof.
What you call 'history' is just official propaganda / group
dellusions.
>
> >
> > And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of
> > stuff that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can
> > write.
> >
> > And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton
> > supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing
> > list. The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of
> > touch with reality (i.e. crazy)
>
> Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms? Do you
> understand it?
May's manifesto is more like a bunch of wrong predictions. But
anyway one of the ideas is to prevent the state from collecting
taxes and regulating markets. An obviously 'anarchist' goal.
Other things like a market for hitmen goes even beyond what's
usually understood by anarchy, but it's not a government
friendly idea either.
Et cetera.
What is your point? Are you going to argue that crypto anarchy
is not anarchy?
>
> What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply?
Crypto-anarchy, as its name suggests, implies anarchy. I could
leave it at that, but I'll kindly add that 'anarchy' in turn
implies voluntary social organization. Among other things.
> Are
> you sure that everyone else agrees? The people who think that
> "anarchy" in "crypto-anarchy" means "*" aren't really thinking too
> hard.
That would be your case precisely? Crypto-anarchy doesn't mean
crypto-anything, it means crypto...ANARCHY.
That's why your laudatory comments about the *fascist* United
**States** are so unrelated to crypto-ANARCHY.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
>
> Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?
Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.
> Did
> you understand it?
Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to
believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in.
> What about the point I just made about adapting
> and adopting solutions to emerging changes?
...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian
governments can also adapt to change.
>
> Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the
> implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them. Even in May's
> quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a
> system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility. I think the
> attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other
> security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free
> speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so
> be it.
Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.
> All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think
> that makes the US any close to collapse?
No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to
collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include
you)
>
> Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems
> should adapt and flourish. Do you disagree with that?
I agree that morally good stuff is good...
>
> >> Especially prove that it isn't true for
> >> Americans. The US government kept functioning normally even
> >> through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all
> >> kinds of corruption, etc. Here, I'm not talking about
> >> exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it
> >> into power, they are limited and don't last. Point out a better
> >> system. (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our
> >> political system as of Brexit. ;-) )
> >>
> >> I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the
> >> exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is
> >> overblown in some key ways. We have evidence that certain things
> >> work and certain things don't. There is a big interplay with
> >> culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it
> >> could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we
> >> have open debate to try to fix that. We regularly fix things that
> >> aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable.
> >> It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'. It is more
> >> like "we have this cool open source government project, why not
> >> fork it and see if it works for you better than that old
> >> governmentware you're running". We are tired of being asked to
> >> fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on
> >> running VMS and Windows. Or your cousin's obsolete system because
> >> you can't support them well. Or whatever. If you can make it
> >> work, then do it. Otherwise, upgrade.
> >>
> >> sdw
> >>
> >>>> sdw
> >>>>
> >>
> sdw
>
