Ted

     On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 22:31 +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
     > If you say anarchy is part of cypherpunkism (if that's a thing) I
     > simply disagree with you.
     You're wrong as a matter of historic fact.
     Are you one of the people that was too afraid to be on the al-qaeda
     list
     or something?

   At first I frowned and wondered why. Then I thought it was likely a
   joke and if it wasn't then what's the problem with al-qaeda? Also a
   distinct lack of right-to-left garbage spewing at me.
   Of course putting things into the people's hands (truly and
   irrevocably) is something that's very cypherpunk. In that sense it's
   also very anarchist, as permission from anyone is not required to take
   that power.
   Yet I'd maintain that laws a very much part of every software ever
   written. Bitcoin is a system mired in laws really, the amount of
   restriction on what you can and what you can't is precise and
   unforgiving. There's no space for seperatists as the blockchain forces
   the richest (iow: the biggest miner) to win any contest of what set of
   rules is the set of rules.
   As it has been stated "The code is the law". Yet the code is to be
   agreed upon, lest splintering of code recreates law differences as it
   does in nations.
   2013/10/2 Juan Garofalo <[1]juan.g71@gmail.com>

     I think you need to research the ABC of political theory before
     saying anything about anarchy. Your belief that anarchy is chaos is
     as unfounded as it is laughable.

   Anarchy as a word does not mean a thing. It's the people in it that
   shape it. This is as much as risk as it is a feature. From chaos men
   makes shapes, structures. These structures must, by the very absence of
   it, reimplement what otherwise a government does. Of course the extends
   and all will depend upon the people.
   Economically I can fairly say that every function will be taken over by
   the group that can do the task as financially efficient as possible.
   Combining that with the historic fact that kingdoms and empires, due to
   people's ignorance, are the easiest structures to conjure. And that
   ease makes it have a good return.
   So. My thinking is that anarchy that remains anarchy is in fact quite
   chaotic, as no real leaders are permitted to arise. Of course it's
   possible to have discussions together, to rule as a non-forcible
   collective. That's a very unstable situation however. Just like chaos.
   Now if you'd be so kind to tell me why your tone was so insulting and
   the reasons for thinking the way you do, then perhaps this can become
   an interesting conversation.

References

   1. mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com