On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 01:51:48 -0000 xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:20:15 -0000 > > xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > I think, though I'm not completely sure, that there was a > > rather widespread opposition to the clipper chip, including > > opposition among more 'respectable' members of the > > establishment. The same members of the establishment that > > today fully backdoor their own chips, like intel and amd. > > Not that I recall. Outside of computer and crypto-nerd rings, few had > even heard about it. This was the '90s. Ma and Pa weren't on the > internet yet. No one really knew what the fuck the internet was.
I didn't mean joe six pack, sorry. I meant opposition inside 'the industry' At any rate, even if intel and co. didn't oppose the clipper chip at that time, at least they hadn't put their own version in their processors. Now they have. > > There was very little coverage in the media. I don't recall many > senators opposing it. But nonetheless, you can throw PGP in there too. > > If the state had its way, there would still be a crypto export ban, > and you've have mandatory key escrow. Key escrow like you have now in apple, amd, intel etc systyems? > > > > Yes, bitcoin is interesting, but if so called regulators > > wanted to damage it, they could do so in a few days. > > That's hardly the point. The question wasn't what technical/code type > things are invulnerable to the state. The question was, what sort of > crypto/techie stuff has encroached on traditional state power, or > limited its reach. I'm not sure when it was stipulated that was The Question, but it's kinda obvious that a system that can be destroyed in a few days hasn't limited state power to any meaningful degree. > > I'd also offer that in Real Soon Now, you'll see small towns adopt > crowdfunding in lieu of taxation. That will spread, and probably quite > quickly. lol... > > The point is, there are all sorts of things that are eroding state > power, or have the ability to do so, right now. I don't see the state power being eroded, at all. As to things having the 'ability' to do so, of course. Since the danw of history. > > > That's pretty much a tautology. But reality includes > > people, who are supposed to be moral agents and can choose to > > behave in different ways. > > Well, now we get into the whole free will thing. You started the topic =) > Sure. We have free > will, or at least if we don't, I'm apparently not free to believe > otherwise. But there are limits to it. True. My point however was that stating "this is reality" doesn't say much. > > The social milieu is much like a river. You can swim in it, and to a > degree you can control your direction, but you will always be moving > with the current. If you're an extraordinary swimmer, maybe you can > make progress against the current. These are the <insert your favorite > inspirational social reformers here>. > > A white male living in 1740 quite literally was not AS FREE as you or > I in terms of his beliefs about race, slavery, God, and so on. Social > pressure. Not sure what you mean. > > Could he CHOOSE to marry a freed black woman? Yeah. In theory, but you > have to accept he'd be an incredible anomaly. > > Now, not so much. So? > > > > > >> And reality IS that every social animal has a pecking order.. an > >> alpha/beta dynamic. Humans are not exempt from this, and it > >> manifests for us, in various forms, and governments and our > >> institutions are among them. It's why the most driven, "alpha" > >> sociopaths rise to power, and the whiny betas piss and moan about > >> it, and don't. > > > > > > So you think there are no honest people - people who seem > > honest are actually cowards? > > No, I'm not sure where you're getting that from with that. My point > here is simply that there are underlying dynamics that we usually > explain away, but which we don't actually understand. So, in the > above, I'm trying to suggest that your average person NEEDS authority > to bow to. They really do need it. Without it, they are like a dog > that loses the leader of its pack. I don't know, I mean, I see stray dogs all the time. They don't belong to any pack. And then there are dogs that have 'owners'. Those don't belong to packs either...they belong to their masters... > It is a frightening situation, and > fills them with anxiety. The primary characteristic of a leader, in > humans, is when the shit is hitting the fan and most people are > unsure of what to do, and pissing themselves.. the leader says, I > KNOW WHAT TO DO. He's quick. He's certain. He's "strong." That is > comforting to people. Hence, Trump, by the way. ...trump is a 'leader'? More than half the electorate hates him actually... > > And my point in all this is to show that, its not a problem with > institutions, religions, politics, "the elite" or any of that stuff. > All of those things are SYMPTOMS of the real problem. > > The real problem, being, we act like what we are: primates. I'm not really following. No doubt we can find more than a few instances of people acting like animals, but what of it? It's also true that people can act in rational ways, and that's what supposedly make them human. > > > > > I'd point out that yes, the current system is a horrid mess, > > but if we assume it's the result of real, unchangeable > > 'human nature' that 'just exists', then any action is pointless, > > unless we want to join 'their' side of the game. > > No, not at all. Evolve, and encourage others to do so as well. Look, > gravity exists. A downward pull to the earth exists. It's > unchangeable. Period. But it can be USED, and overcome. That takes > insight into those dynamics though. > > A great part of our social dynamics is rooted in our primate past. We > can't escape it, OK. So, that's the end of it, no? That's 'hard science', reality and whatnot. > but we can acknowledge it, acknowledge its pull.. > like gravity. And we can begin to understand it, and understand how > to overcome it. I don't know. I don't go around robbing and killing people, like, say, state agents do. Do you act like a primate? > > At an individual level, it simply entails thinking at a "higher" level > than the ego. At that ability will come and go, depending on stress > level, hormones, concentration, all sorts of shit. But the more you > do it, the more you cease to think in the ordinary primate ways, and > begin to think in new ways. I don't think I have the problem of acting like a primate. But thanks for the (unneeded and unasked) advice anyway... > > > >