On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
Prove that isn't true.
You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you can't do it.
I did prove it: History is packed full of evidence. By induction, proof.
What you call 'history' is just official propaganda / group dellusions.
And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of stuff that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can write.
And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing list. The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of touch with reality (i.e. crazy)
Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms? Do you understand it?
May's manifesto is more like a bunch of wrong predictions. But anyway one of the ideas is to prevent the state from collecting taxes and regulating markets. An obviously 'anarchist' goal. Other things like a market for hitmen goes even beyond what's usually understood by anarchy, but it's not a government friendly idea either. Et cetera. What is your point? Are you going to argue that crypto anarchy is not anarchy?
What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply?
Crypto-anarchy, as its name suggests, implies anarchy. I could leave it at that, but I'll kindly add that 'anarchy' in turn implies voluntary social organization. Among other things.
Are you sure that everyone else agrees? The people who think that "anarchy" in "crypto-anarchy" means "*" aren't really thinking too hard.
That would be your case precisely? Crypto-anarchy doesn't mean crypto-anything, it means crypto...ANARCHY. That's why your laudatory comments about the *fascist* United **States** are so unrelated to crypto-ANARCHY.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?
Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.
Did you understand it?
Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in.
What about the point I just made about adapting and adopting solutions to emerging changes?
...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian governments can also adapt to change.
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.
Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.
All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think that makes the US any close to collapse?
No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include you)
Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems should adapt and flourish. Do you disagree with that?
I agree that morally good stuff is good...
Especially prove that it isn't true for Americans. The US government kept functioning normally even through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of corruption, etc. Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are limited and don't last. Point out a better system. (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of Brexit. ;-) )
I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some key ways. We have evidence that certain things work and certain things don't. There is a big interplay with culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we have open debate to try to fix that. We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable. It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'. It is more like "we have this cool open source government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you better than that old governmentware you're running". We are tired of being asked to fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on running VMS and Windows. Or your cousin's obsolete system because you can't support them well. Or whatever. If you can make it work, then do it. Otherwise, upgrade.
sdw
sdw
sdw