Jim, others: Archives were discussed in the list awhile ago, a few times. Riad had some, and so did another source.
I have a copy here: https://www.petascale.org/cypherpunks/ (a few different versions) The "to do" item is to slurp the archives so they are all findable among the other archives at https://lists.cpunks.org .. I will eventually do this. I looked at the Yahoo! Groups archives mentioned in this list a couple of weeks ago, and they seemed to be the same thing: just a long-time "subscriber" to the list. If anyone thinks they have unique content not listed above, we can try to hustle up a method to get a copy. Best, Greg On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:50:25AM +0000, jim bell wrote: > On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 06:21:01 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:30:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote: > > My comments follow: > > On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:45:00 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness > ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> ----- > > > > From: Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 > > Subject: Re: [WAR] ... > > List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org> > > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: > > > How about we implement a working AP system? > > > > As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally > > flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in > > the long term. > > How did you come to that conclusion? I have long believed (probably as early > as 1995, though somebody seems to have LOST the archives!!!) that except for > a relatively short transition period (maybe a couple of years?) there will > eventually be formed a set of courts, at least vaguely similar to today's > courts, but VOLUNTARY to both the "plaintiff" and "defendant". > Why? The alleged 'perp' might arguably be innocent,. Or, he knows he's > guilty, but he believes that death should not be his punishment. (and maybe > he's right?) Or, the public who is willing to donate to see evil people > dead knows that the facts are often not clear, Or, maybe one person is > clearly guilty, but others who are not known are likely to exist. > The jury system may not be perfect, but it is probably the best system > devised by man to learn the truth..,.IF it is actually allowed to function > properly, > If you don't understand this concept, you must not actually have thought > about the implications of an AP-type system. _I_ did!!! Long before I > published Part 1, I worked through the implications, probably far better than > most people on the CP list ever attempted. I feel certain that discussion of > my AP essay on the CP list eventually included these possibilities. But now, > SOMEBODY has LOST the archive! Or, maybe it has been deliberately tampered > with by somebody or somebodies. > > > Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher > > level of education and discourse. > > > > "When all you have is a hammer ..." > > > > > > In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down > > "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of > > power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent > > "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and > > certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best > > a hammer to completely destroy society. > > > > > > I support anarchism, not chaos. > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > > > >While it may seem to be over 23 years 'too late', I will indeed answer > > >this last line of comment, assuming that I did not do so in September > > >1996:. > > >>From above, "I support anarchism, not chaos." > > > > >To equate "anarchy" with "chaos" is the classic error. In my AP > > I agree with that. > > >That was not my question though. Yes the colloquial use of the term > "anarchy" is generally chaos, thus my use of the term "anarchism" > etc. > > Well, people can and do misuse terminology. Yes, I believe that a large > fraction of people who call themselves 'anarchists', or who are called by > others 'anarchists', are merely died-in-the-wool Communists, Socialists, or > leftists whose favorite ideology miserably failed over the period of 1917 > through 2019. > > > >What I am equating is as follows: AP, with a very great potential for > chaos, and if not chaos per se, for a significant increase in fear in > the average dissident. > YIKES! > I suppose it doesn't occur to you. Why do we NEED "dissidents"? And by > "dissidents", I mean a person to openly and publicly opposes some existing > system. TODAY'S society needs "dissidents", because policies adopted by > GOVERNMENTS need (with the existing system) to be publicly opposed, in order > to force change. And that means public protests, including on the streets, > What other tools do most people recognize? > In an AP world, "protesting", in the classical sense, isn't necessary. If > the government has a policy you don't like, donate to a fund to see your > un-favorite politician DEAD DEAD DEAD. And you will be able to do so > ANONYMOUSLY!!! Did you simply forget that straightforward concept? Will > that necessarily result in a dead politician? No, but it will most likely be > a politician who has resigned, or who changes the hated policies he > previously had supported. > WHY DID I BOTHER to write AP, when people misunderstand it so? I thought it > was all quite clear! You are apparently stuck in the 1994 world pre-AP. > You assume that AP changes NOTHING. In contrast, I claim it changes just > about EVERYTHING. > As I said in AP Part 2: "Just how would this change politics in > America? It would take far less time to answer, "What would remain the same?" > No longer would we be electing people who will turn around and tax us to > death, regulate us to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us > when we oppose their wishes." > Do you REALLY not understand this? > > >And I further note, that dissidents are the exact folks actual > anarchists ought be supporting - at least it should not be > objectionable to support dissidents who diss: > The work that used to be done by "dissidents" will be done by AP. Nobody > will need to stand up, raise their fist, march in the street, or protest. > > > - peacefully > > - who protest peacefully > And oftentimes, "peacefully" doesn't work. > > > - who peacefully conscientiously object to some arbitrary rights > suppressing statute law and therefore choose to not obey that law > when "failing to obey that law" harms no one > > Why do you keep forgetting what AP is DESIGNED to do? > > > > The issue I am raising here is the threshold issue - the marginal > dissident is the dissident who is on the border line being: > > - actually acting (doing something) in pursuance of his dissidence > (opposition to systemic problems/ corruption etc), vs > > > - not doing anything in pursuance of his dissidence, due to fear > > How much "fear" will he have, to donate a few dollars to see crooked > politicians dead? > > > >And the inescapable question which presents itself is, will AP move > the line of marginal dissidents, way back to an extreme position, > where only extremely dissident and extremely courageous dissidents > DARE TO ACT in pursuance of their contrary positions and views in > relation to the dominant structures present in society at that point > in time? > > I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. But unfortunately, if > you really don't understand how AP will work, none of your hypotheticals will > likely be relevant. > > > >Again, we cannot escape the natural human desire, or at least > tendency, to immediately establish hierarchies of authority, > capacity, authority, will and any other vector we analyse, where none > presently exists. > I realize that you may think this is true, but that is clearly because you > DON'T UNDERSTAND AP! NOT AT ALL!!! > > >Put another way, notwithstanding what most say: > > > "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy." > > People used to say, "Nature abhors a vacuum"But it wasn't true. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics) > > > > >"Humans desire the sense of stability that externalization of > authority provides to their feels." > > One major problem with your idea is that, the reality is that most people > grow up under such heirarchical power structures. Raise people under such > circumstances, and they LEARN to live with that system. But that does not > mean that this is a rule that cannot be changed. > > > "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under > attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy." > So what's your point? > > > >And this is why we use the word "revolution" (or even evolution) when > discussing any concept which might upturn the entire present systems > of hierarchy (power) - there is nothing but a revolving from one > system of hiearchy to some other system of hiearchy. > > I think you don't understand David Friedman's "The Hard Problem" from his > book, "The Machinery of Freedom". Yes, in a pre-AP world, nobody (else) > could figure out how to get rid of heirarchical power structures. Even I > didn't figure it out, until January 1995. But then I did. > > > >Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this > tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely > unavoidable. > "Nature abhors a vacuum". > Prior to January 1995, nobody else knew how to do that. Not since then. > > > >No matter how utopian the socialist Marxist collective, no matter how > anarchic and free of statutes, no matter how blank the slate we can > achieve with our glorious resent due to $FUNKY_ANARCHY_SYSTEM_XYZ, > humans will, absolutely, immediately go about creating new > hierarchies! > > Which is pretty much a perfect statement of David Friedman's "Hard Proble". > You haven't learned. > > > I am emphasizing this point, because this point seems to be lost on a > lot of actual (or at least self proclaimed) anarchists. > > > >We anarchists most often fail to grapple with basic human nature. > > Many "we anarchists" clearly don't understand my AP essay. > > >We tend almost ubiquitously to being technocrats, presuming our > wonderful system > > >- social system > > >- non-system system > > >- computer crypto overlay funk > > >- digital next gen fiat 2 point 0 > > >- AP or any other system etc > > > >will somehow, if instituded widely and in short order, somehow > magically cause existing present-day humans to live in freedom, free > of fear, and allowing one another (our neighbours) to be in peace. > > There's nothing "magic" about it, although it might seem that way to people > who don't understand AP. > > > >This is a fallacy of the first order no less! > > I'm amazed you don't understand AP. I'd tell you to "read the archives", > but SOMEBODY FUCKING LOST IT!! > > >Humans crave hiearchy and will FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH to claim their > own version of utopian hierarchy! > > <sigh> > > > >The things we can hope for: > > I hope you actually do the mental work to understand how AP is supposed to > function. I did. And unlike you, I had nobody else around to help me, or > explain it to me. > > > - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive > revolution > > I suppose you are assuming that there is some clear distinction between these > alternatives, or which is which. I've long argued that AP, once operating > smoothly, will not shed a lot of blood. The reason is that if 'the bad guys' > know that it is virtually 100% certain they will be targeted, they will > realize that they will have no alternatives other than:1. Die.2. Resign. > Can you explain what third alternative they have to choose? > > > > - a revolution to a new hiearchy which is a little more sane than > the present hierarchy > > I think that many people who actually UNDERSTAND AP think of it as being a > major improvement on any proposed alternative, and certainly over the status > quo. . > > > - a new system which somehow achieves a greater level of > "inculcation with the average human" of a valueing of fundamental > human rights and a knowledge of what freedom actually means, to > live freedom on a day to day basis > > Put people in a system which destroys heirarchical power structures, and I am > quite confident people will adjust and adapt. Why do you think they won't? > > >Such peaceful revolution may be not possible, I really have no idea. > > I do "have an idea". And I wrote it into my AP essay 1995-96. > https://cryptome.org/ap.htm > > Have more respect for people who actually take major risks to bring you > freedom. > > >I am hopeful of the following basic premise being true though - that > a system providing a useful level of privacy and anonymity for free > speech will help to move the courage line for marginal dissidents, in > the direction of "more folks experience more courage to speak their > own truths". > > Wake up! WAKE UP! "Dissidents" are not necessary!!! (with apologies to > late Portland Oregon retailer Tom Peterson. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUKjbUrxXE "Wake up! Wake up!" > DONORS are necessary. Dissidents are not. > > > essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled: In part > > 5: > > > > "Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear > > that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this > > objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in > > real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim > > to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite > > remember: > > "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of > > AP quote------- > > Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one > > who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area > > in the 1990-1994 time frame. > > The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is > > well-described by the term "statism". But we, the Cypherpunks, should > > understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to > > intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, > > similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the > > various forms of 'digital cash'. That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and > > some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the > > implications of an AP-driven society. > > > >"I continue to see that those with the power to print unlimited fiats, > shall have the upper hand against all dissidents, anarchists, and > peaceful protesters." > > If you know who they are, target them. If you don't know who they are, > offer rewards anonymously to find out who they are and where they live and > work., Then target them. Then watch them run. > > >As a consequence of my own thinking on this," > > Which, sadly, cannot be very consequential. > > > and this which I see, it > appears to me inescapable that there is zero certainty, and great > uncertainty, that AP shall usher in anything other than the > unleashing of a great evil.? > > Given your clear lack of understanding, I am not surprised you say that. > > >When unleashed, the list of those who dedicate their lives to > opposing powerful evil in a way which draws the interest of those who > print the fiats, is the immediate list for those printing the fiats > to target/ game/ dispense with in short order: > > How will the "good guys" be identified if they don't need to stand up and > protest? > > > Richard Stallman > > Julian Assange > > Jim Bell > > Jacob Applebaum > > Andrew Breitbart > > Dmitry Sklyarov > > Aaron Swartz > > John Young > > Zenaan Harkness > > Juan > > and an endless list more > > > >Jim, were AP in play, and you invented some concept of similar > notoriety which was designed to dish out justice to the elite fiat > printers, why would those elite fiat printers not have, instead of > subjected you to 13 years of jail and illegal appeal behind your back > etc, instead just whopped a few fiat on one of the various AP > markets, and had you, Jim Bell, dispensed with in short order? > > Please learn what AP actually means, and call me back. > > >(And so the final question, why is unleashing such "freedom to pay > for killing other humans", wise?) > > Call me when the existing alternative actually begins to work. It hasn't > yet. > > Jim Bell > > >
