(Apologies for rehashing this, but it seems a good time to make another
   pass at consensus.)
   This is how I always thought about the Cypherpunks charter:
   Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech
   includes the freedom to have secure private speech, and to explore how
   this can be accomplished.  In support of this, to understand
   implications of technology-enabled free speech and the technical,
   commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech.
   While the Cypherpunk Manifesto focuses mainly on predicting how the
   then-new ideas might play out, it is very thin on clarity of what
   should happen and what roles those present should play.  I think that
   was intentional and strategic.  It was also written at the beginning of
   a period of serious conflicts about using encryption at all, public
   knowledge of encryption and secure methods, export, government access
   and control boundary exploration, etc.
   What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political
   systems or plotting their demise or constantly going on about insane
   nonsense.
   What is your concise summary of Cypherpunks?  Can you justify it?  What
   does the above get wrong and why?
   [1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
   [2] [2]http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
   Recent commentary repeated for coherency, entertainment, and to
   forestall the need for certain predictable responses:
   Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or
   all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
   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.
   Some discussion of "* anarchy" isn't really anarchy, it is just maybe
   anarchy to someone fixated on a fixed definition of their favorite
   system.  Or a signal by someone suggesting such a departure.  Any real
   political anarchy has been a failure.
   The philosophokiddie cypherpunks are thoroughly punked and parodied in
   Mr. Robot:
   [3]http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-creator-of-mr-robot-explains-it
   s-hacktivist-and-cult-roots
   sdw

References

   1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
   2. http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
   3. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-creator-of-mr-robot-explains-its-hacktivist-and-cult-roots