On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:36:18AM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> On 9/15/16 1:12 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:20:31PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> >> On 9/14/16 8:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> >>> Leaking paper is one thing, disassembling the quiet
> >>> handshakes and luncheons of conspiracy is another.
> >> Much of what corporations do is legal, whether you like it or not.
> > Legal, as in compliant with their statutory right to financially pillage
> > and legally bully their way around arbitrary "privilege" monopolies,
> > yes.
> > Lawful, as in compliant with the common man's sense of right and wrong
> > (the "common law" or "community law"),
> > no!
> I think common law could be defined more precisely. There has always
> been a gap between what was considered illegal and what seemed unfair
> to someone.
Very willing to hear your draft of clarification on these terms!
Give a shot, and then perhaps others can tweak your draft.
Also, consider use of the word "moral" if not a more politically correct
"watered down morality" term.
> >> Actual conspiracies are seldom needed
> > A fluffy and largely useless statement.
> > Actual conspiracies are every day occurrences, widespread to the point
> > of being universal.
> > From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
> > [gcide]:
> > Conspire \Con*spire"\, v. t.
> > To plot; to plan; to combine for.
> > [1913 Webster]
> > Angry clouds conspire your overthrow. --Bp. Hall.
> > [1913 Webster]
> In this context, I took that to mean 'illegal conspiracy', which has a
> much more specific meaning. Using the general meaning to justify the
> statement when that statement will be taken as indicating criminal
> conspiracies is misleading.
You keep missing my point.
That which is illegal corporate actions today (pursuing "illegal"
filesharers), is made "legal" by lobbying.
Consistently speaking of what is illegal vs legal by you, is misleading
to the truth of what the community at large accepts as moral behaviour,
whether by individuals or by individuals employed by a corporation.
s/moral/ etc etc /
Your persistent framing of "legal" behaviour, hides the reality of the
endless encroachment, by corporations via their bribery / lobbying
efforts, against our rights.
> >> and usually not worth the
> >> risk.
> > People talk and plot in private, including corporate "leaders".
> And usually there is nothing wrong with that.
People are of course free to conspire in any way they so wish.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
There is nothing inherently wrong with free speech.
Free speech is a foundation of our society.
Let me quote you Stephen:
"In this context, I took that to mean 'illegal plotting' which has a
much more specific meaning ... using the general meaning ... is
What's good for the goosey Stephen, is good for responding to Stephen.
> > --Especially-- corporate leaders.
> > Talking and plotting -is- conspiring.
> But not necessarily illegal conspiracy.
> > Example:
> > To conspire with other self interested corporate executives, to
> > combine bribery capacity (lobbying), to cause -unlawful- laws to be
> > passed by parliament, which institute 10 years jail time punishments
> > for sharing a file by bittorrent;
> > Such punishment being thereafter deemed as "legal" punishment, even
> > though such punishment is not, and would never be, lawful by the
> > moral standards of the community (cruel and unusual punishment,
> > punishment which does not fit the crime, punishment not comparable to
> > punishment for other crimes e.g. rape, murder, tanking the economy
> > ("white collar" crime)).
> I can see that, although it seems weak. And it is rebuttable by the right
That's one of those offensive pro-statist campaigns you keep running
Stephen - "well get started in your counter lobbying campaign then
sonny, that's the -right- thing to do because, you know, we got a
democrassy here y'hear?!"
And anyway, we are directly addressing your own cited foundation for
this part of the conversation, namely "-illegal-" conspiracy.
How is "making lawful activities illegal by bribery lobbying", a weak
part of that conversation, and not a direct response?
The corporations only get away with their offensive behaviour because
they hide behind "laws" - either by outspending their opponents (legal
fees, bribery lobbying money), or by bribery lobbying their pet monopoly
"legal" activity protection rackets!
> > Stephen, you are brainwashed, and purveying your brainwashing upon
> > others.
> > The part of that which I personally, vehemently, object to, is that you
> > do so with an endless air of authority.
> I claim familiarity with certain things, and demand clarity, logic, and
> specifics in any argument. I make little or no claims of
> authority beyond certain first hand knowledge, experience, and conclusions
> after reading authoritative sources. More solidly
> grounded specifics will always have an air of authority over vague hand
> waving and ad hominem attacks. I can't really help that.
You make few direct claims, true.
That's part of the problem.
Your unspoken assumptions speak very loudly. Very often.
Such as for example, presuming something like "legal" behaviour - here,
since it seems to escape you, I'll quote you again:
"Much of what corporations do is legal, whether you like it or not."
Are you, Stephen D Williams, capable of unpacking your own quote here,
to explain to me what I am saying about your statement, why the unspoken
part is objectionable, and perhaps how you ought reword that quote by
If not, then you have become a brick wall, incapable of hearing with
empathy what another says (kudos for your humility with Razer by the
Seriously, what we (you, me, the whole dang world) needs, is a little
empathy from those with capacity to influence others. Empathy so that we
can not only see and hear, but name and restate what "the little people"
think and feel about those things that are so wrong in the world today -
we have to give voice to those being murdered every day by the USA's CIA
and Military programs, pogroms, and all other activities even though,
--especially-- because the USA declares all its actions "legal" !!!
We HAVE to bust this conversation open - we have to be able to
communicate to our so-called "representatives" that the killing has to
stop, the endless encroachment upon our sovereign rights has to not only
stop, but be substantially and significantly unwound!!!
Who is there to lobby and directly cause/ influence an --increase-- in
our sovereign individual rights (in legislation), if not us???
> > And with seemingly endless pro-statist views.
> I'm not all that pro-statist, but I also don't ignore what is working
> or blindly denigrate systems that should and could work better.
So start already.
Name a problem. Clearly.
Promote that solution.
(Something, anything, other than apology for the state!)
> things somewhat broken can be fixed rather than tearing down
> everything that is working out of spite and blind rage.
Please, bring on effective pathways to improving the USA system.
But when all you do is apologise for the existing system and scream
"don't tear it down", you will continue to get a not very positive
> to everything should be considered, but alternatives aren't better
> simply because they are alternative; there has to be some reasoning
> and proof of some kind.
Get over it. We shall continue to name it.
"Nothing can be tried except that it is pre-proven."
You really think that continued repition of that troll tool is gonna fly
> >> Many abuses have come to light, usually with a pretty good downside
> >> for the corporation. Harder to get away with really bad stuff than it
> >> used to be.
> > It's getting easier and easier for corporations to do bad stuff legally.
> > They lobby, they get their pet "laws" (unlawful though they are) passed,
> > and thereafter their crimes falling under those laws are "legal", even
> > though they remain as crimes, and remain immoral.
> Plenty of this has just been exposed in the last few years. Some of
> that will no longer work.
Name ONE example where the sovereign rights of individuals has been
reclaimed at the expense of corporate and government unilateral power
> There are some cases of this still.
Please, we got plenty of time for you to google to your heart's content.
Would love to see something genuinely positive from an individual
sovereignty perspective. Good luck.
> >>>> Ioerror.
> >>>> Institutional assassination
> >>> Precisely. And it's disgusting.
> >> What are the worst things that corporate heads and politicians are
> >> getting away with?
> > Endless encroachment upon our individual sovereign rights with "laws",
> > making their immoral activities and enforcements against our individual
> > sovereign rights, legal.
> >> What's your proposed solution? What's your proposed cypherpunkian
> >> solution?
> > Well, there are possibly the most useful things you've ever said on this
> > list. Good question. There, I said it. You asked a useful question.
> > In the current context, get your torrentz over Tor, I2P, possibly
> > FreeNet, and also sneakernet - network in human space, N2N / neighbour
> > to neighbour your neighbourhood.
> OK, now that you have a secure overlay communications and identity
If presumed fact, that's bullshit.
If hypothetical for discussion ... ok.
> how are you going to manage it and the community of users?
Please suggest back to me, how you think I would normally respond to
this (not the personal shit, the structural/ systemic issues response).
Please demonstrate enough self awareness, and awareness of the views of
others, such that you are actually able to:
- answer your own question
- answer what's wrong with your question
- answer what are the assumptions underlying your question
- answer why those assumptions are fundamentally abhorrent to many of
> Are you going to nullify IP rights? What else?
It is your turn. It is not acceptable for you to essentially say to us:
- existing interests must not be infringed
- acceptable solutions must be evidentially proven prior to launch/use
- and btw, solve all the pro-state "problems" I raise, before you even
consider persisting in your position
Stephen, do you think I, or just about any anarchist (or wanna be) worth
their salt, is NOT going to react to the things you say?
Time for you to pony up.
Add in some empathy.
Base conversations not in state existing system protectiveness, but in
empathy and voicing of the individual in society, his concerns, the
violations of his rights.
Your position may be valid from the pov of your employee and your
But your demands for perfect solutions, your repeated protection of the
state/ existing system, and your persistent demands that others answer
every pro-state objection you raise, don't cut it.
Lift your game, please.
Without speaking from some position of generosity, empathy, sovereign
individual rights, alternative systems, specific actions to improve the
existing system, or something else constructive, I shall give up on you.
The world needs better, but you're becoming way too much hard work.
The alternative, as much as I dislike it, is to join Juan and throw more
mud at you, ridiculing you for your narrow mindedness. I don't like
that. It's only useful if it catalyzes some self awareness or intent to
raise the dialog or awareness in someone being abused by your
assumptions and endless pro-state authoritarian presumptive discourse.
Time to put up or shut up.