On 9/1/16 4:43 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams" <s...@lig.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms? Do you
>> understand it?
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
>> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
> And here's [3]
> http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html
>
> "We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large,
> faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their
> beneficence"
>
> "We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. "
>
> Again, a typical anarchist position. Governments and businesses
> don't provide service X (they actually destroy X) so we need to
> provide X ourselves.
And a typical American position on every right we've ever won or defended.
>
>> Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?
> Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.
I don't know what that is. I'm sure there are plenty who are uncomfortable
with encryption etc. who think it is nonsense too, but I
think I have a point.
>
>> 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.
Ex-colony, ex-slave, ex-colonial, etc. It's not all pretty, but it is
experience.
>
>
>> 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.
Not as fast or as well. Which totalitarian regimes are comfortable with the
Internet, Facebook, startups, Bitcoin, etc.?
>
>
>
>> 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)
Totalitarian? What's your model of a liberal state?
Since it seems you desire anarchy so much, I'm curious whether you have you
read Lord of the Flies?
>
>
>> 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...
Based on your writing, that's a surprise.
>
>
>>>> 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
>>
sdw
