On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 23:17:22 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/09/18 19:23, juan wrote:
OK Peter. Now if you don't mind tell me (or 'us') about your views on liberal anarchy?
Not relevant here, but fundamentally - old hippy, still.
Not relevant here? This seems to be the cypherpunks mailing list and cypherpunks are asupposed to be crypto anarchists? See for instance Tim May's signature which you can find in some 1000 messages in the original mailing list. "Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments." "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." See that bit about "collapse of governments" ? Not only that, but you've been spewing highly toxic state propaganda so that's a second reason to 'wonder' about your views.
Not an anarchist, there are obvious individual and collective benefits to having some sort of state.
No there aren't. There are obvious benefits for the criminals who call themselves the government and their cronies.
Used to be a libertarian minimalist (that probably means something completely different to US persons; I mean wanting a minimal state, but neither US style left-wing nor right-wing libertarianism).
That remark makes little sense. The theory of a 'minimal' state that allegedly protects natural rights is not left-wing nor right-wing, and it has nothing to do with any particular country either. The theory is of course contradictory nonsense and it has been historically promoted by people belonging to the 'liberal' school of thought. In reality most of those 'liberals' never took seriously their own premises, but a few did and came to the obvious liberal conclusion that no state is legitimate and that anarchy is the only legitimate political system.
So we have to balance the benefits of having a state with the disbenefits of corruption, pigeon-holing, etc. In general it seems better to have a state, especially if it's the right state, or not too wrong - those benefits are powerful things.
So you are a social engineer apointed by...yourself...and you are going to 'balance' organized crime also known as your state with its alleged 'collective' 'benefits'...those 'benefits' being determined by your own criminal state.
So nowadays I'd go with liberal, in the sense that the state should not stop people from doing things unless there is a very good reason to. But note, these categorising words mean very different things to US and UK people.
I used liberal in its original sense. So it's not a US/UK thing. Hell the word liberal obviously comes from latin and it's used in many european languages with roughly the same meaning.
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - Jefferson got that much right. A bit like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Sadly, the pursuit of happiness doesn't seem to be an inalienable right any more.
So, jefferson and his accomplices created a state whose purpose was to protect their 'right' to the ownnership of slaves. Is that the sort of political system you advocate?
"Democracy is the worst type of state, apart from everything else we have tried." On one hand, Trump and Brexit - on the other, ?hope. On the gripping hand ...
not sure what you mean - who is Thope? Thorpe?
And I haven't touched on what to do when people's rights conflict with other people's rights .. or with the "rights" of the state, only properly there ain't no such thing; the state has no rights, only people can have rights.
Oh so you are an anarchist after all? Or else if you acknowledge that the criminals who call themselves the state have no right to do what they do, then how do you justify the state's existence?
The people of a state can en masse have rights, but not the state itself - something which is too often forgotten by employees of the state.
-- Peter Fairbrother