also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and anarcho capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any any any structure impossing its structure on the people and fucking capitalism is a structure so anarco capitalists should rename themselves the dude talks about that the community the community would not allow this or that if someone stole your tv the community would not allow you to just go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need an intermediary ... but this is monolithic thinking ... which is a pit in theories ... they strangle themselves with coffinesque solutions instead of being base theory ++++++++++ so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform these actions are getting off on https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other drug jim so you dont have to listen to everything so some people get off on the murder but we have to already know that the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all of this On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
jim bell:
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
This video might help set the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy '
- - Intelemetry
I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/m urphy/murphy17.html I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites.
I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach.
I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc).
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable.
I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union.
The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state.
My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status quo.
I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda.
But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of governments. http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-millio n-people-over-the-last-century.html Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government employees?
The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite!
" Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites."
Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should disregard those governments' official desires. Jim Bell
There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC:
https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter
^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNe8EAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+BowL+wYLaykOTh79cRFz50tduoKv eMY6e9jifMCiUrXbr45PLMLqvWiVQtOAjfyfM+EsVW4Cd1FcMaY1HUl95ldjNOjU JRTkLsgMSBubfnGMF9p1kRs2Tx3SIJ8MYmErcY+r6eE4YHkDyZqiEeCNUmSbEBGe mDnlIRXUZjPUYs8V4r718oI1UOgwVD6eu4iG+Kvg22Dwn3iSlAmMfjqr4rMyeFhb UkGXyXCgYTJVP91dtXAR5J4UwmJcm3MSDJg/f0us7xV+YXdtaeiwrxPyP5fd1N3P 8tqlJ5fAN/nWfONeTtpXHWzghT/KOKFcwC3lO2CCjistsD7JKGkulIE1vdFbjW58 vP8uXi2esbKOekJdiP2bf+zjVm97Iisn8washQ0WXtyzzixIdl29hnC7G45hfyfO IIAIVAbGBtWdNJPzMqRHFzzZPHPLk3Zbc4gV47iYhw/zBELXS7emIw1QGf9kkTKR ITrGXWmvmKNK87XIkyJJqT3+/hG38D3wOH8PpcE5fw== =KPje -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.