On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:37:54 -0500
   
 >   well, tyrannicide is a moral obligation. And the right to defend oneself from govcorp is the obvious extention of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. And so, killing govcorp agents (unless let's say, they surrender) is legitimate.
   
>    Using 'crowdfunding', anonymous comms and virtual 'money' to coordinate defensive actions against govcorp would be typically cypherpunk, obviously. Though my personal view is that there's no way govcorp would allow THEIR 'technology' to be used against them.

Is that an argument that we, the public, shouldn't even try?


>    On the other hand, Jim's 'political theory' is clearly nonsense with little connection to liberal anarchy. He  has never studied the topic, despite claiming he's a 'libertarian' and now an 'anarchist', because he 'invented'...nothing and has 'solved'...nothing. Political assassination and 'dark markets' are certainly not 'his' ideas so his claim to 'intellectual property' is bullshit...ignoring for a second that 'intellectual property' itself is bullshit.

First off, my impression is that at least a large minority, and quite possibly a majority, of people who call themselves "anarchists" are merely big-government-loving leftists, but have become 'politically-homeless' (at least by label) because Communism and Socialism have failed so miserably over the last 30, and even the last 100 years.  That sounds like a major internal contradiction, and it certainly is, but that isn't a contradiction I am somehow responsible for.  

Secondly, I strongly suspect that a huge majority of so-called "anarchists" have never even heard of David Friedman's "Hard Problem",    https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem/       The idea that it would be extremely difficult for a society based on anarchism and/or libertarianism principles to defend itself against external attack by more-conventional regions.  (the ones which have governments which can tax their citizens.)  So, very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work.......

At least, not until I invented my AP idea, which will allow people in anarchic regions to take down the governments (and militaries, and nuclear bombs)  that are in other, conventional-government nations.  Not that the citizens of those other nations won't want to help getting rid of "their own" governments, too!

Tim May, and others, seem to have invented the concept of the "murder market", certainly a concept worthy of debate.  But their market amounted to "anonymous person A anonymously hiring anonymous per son B to kill named person C".  

I was the person who, unaware of their discussions (except, very indirectly) added the concepts currently known as "crowdfunding" and "crowdsourcing" to the mix, long before those terms had been invented:

   "Thousands or millions of anonymous persons A1, A2, A3, etc offering to hire anyone in the world B1, B2, B3, etc, to kill named person C, and offering to pay in a form that cannot be used to identify either the A's or the B's, and yet be able to prove to the public that the person who eventually got the reward was the same person who correctly 'predicted" C's date (or circumstances, etc) of death. "

Other than to simply deny this, can you actually explain why you think this won't work?   Particularly since the tools to accomplish it are not, as they were in 1995, unknown today.