On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 02:09:29 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

>  On Thursday, November 7, 2019, 04:49:59 PM PST, Punk - Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
> 
>  On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:40:15 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I just did a search of my AP essay.  I didn't find a reference to Chuck Hamill's essay, "From Crossbows to Cryptography" in it.   https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/from-crossbows-to-cryptography.pdfWhat is going on?  
>
>
> >    AHHH that's the title. I've been looking for that supreme piece of garbage but couldn't find it because I thought the title had the word "arrow" in it. Haha.
>
>   >  Alternatively, that supreme piece of garbage is just one more piece of decent governmetn diversion. It fuels the incredibly stupid and self-evidently false idea that 'technology' favors freedom.
>
> We don't say that 'technology' ALWAYS 'favors freedom', in any particular case.


   > I don't know who you mean by "we". I was commenting on what that guy hamill says. Quoting him : 

I would say, the people who generally claim what Hamill claimed, that generally, technology favors freedom,  But not in every case.


   > "In fact, technology represents one of the most promising avenues available for recapturing our freedoms from those who have stolen them."

    >That's a pretty bold, pretty false, and unfounded, statement. 

At that time, 1987, you might have made that claim, and it would have sounded credible.  But little more than 7 years later, Jim Bell invented the idea of "Assassination Politics", which at least CLAIMED to offer a system that would totally get rid of everything we generally call a "government".

I'd say that Chuck Hamill turned out to be quite right, except that nobody yet has actually tried to implement an AP system.

    "By its very nature, it favors the bright (who can put it to use) over the dull (who cannot). It favors the adaptable (who are quick to see the merit of the new) over the sluggish (who cling to time-tested ways). And what two better words are there to describe government
bureaucracy than “dull” and “sluggish”? "


    And that, again, is just crazily stupid. The idea that government is 'dull' and 'sluggish' and doesn't use 'technology' to more perfectly enslave its subjects is so incredibly detached from reality....that I have to wonder if the author can be THAT retarded.

I think you are ignoring the issue of statistics.  Nobody is claiming that government can NEVER use technology for such purposes, but generally it is indeed 'dull' and 'sluggist'. 



>>That claim sounds like a strawman, which I have found is typically the most common example of false argumentation. 

>    I'm quoting. Where's the strawman? 

You quoted, and then you misinterpreted.

>>Government can employ technology for those purposes, and you can then notice that, but that doesn't mean that the net effect of technology favors non-freedom.

 >   Except it does. Technology favors non-freedom. That is my postion and I can easily argue it. And half the argument is simply looking around at what's happening. We live in a fuckign global police-surveillance state. Thanks to cheap microelectronics.

Technology CAN 'favor non-freedom'.   But that doesn't mean it does so in each and every case.



> Further, 'Government' buys technology using money robbed from the public, robbery that I have long argued would be prevented using an implementation of the AP system. 


    Government develops 'technology' in partnership with the corrupt-to-the-core, pseudo-private sector.

Again, you are abusing statistics.  Quantify your claims.  Percentages.  You won't be able to do that.

 >And that's one of the main reasons why 'technology' works AGAINST freedom. Technical development requires technical infrastructure, and that infrastructure is in the hands of govcorp.

I keep saying that occasionally, that is true.  But not in every case, or even most cases.


 >   The problem looks rather simple, and I say this as an open sympathizer to the assassination program. For example, in order for AP to work 'we' need good anonimity. And as 'we' know, good anonimity is nowhere to be found. And that's because the whole telecomms infrastructure is controlled by the enemy, aka govcorp.

To say, "the WHOLE telecomms infrastructure is yet another strawman of yours.

 >   AP might work IF the technical requirements, like secure communications, were there. So how are you going to 'bootstrap' AP? Yes, in an 'AP world' there may be secure communications. But you can't get to an AP world without secure communications...And today, of course we don't have them.

This matter has never been competently discussed, at least not on the CP list.  In the mid-1990's, I think people simply couldn't imagine that an AP-type system could be constructed.  Now, we've seen TOR, Bitcoin, and Ethereum/Augur. I'm not referring to them as if they currently could be used to implement AP.  But they show how the tools akin to them could be constructed.