[zen@freedbms.net: Re: [WAR] ...]
----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> ----- From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Subject: Re: [WAR] ... List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
How about we implement a working AP system?
As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term. Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse. "When all you have is a hammer ..." In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society. I support anarchism, not chaos. ----- End forwarded message -----
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:44:36AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
How about we implement a working AP system?
As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.
Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.
"When all you have is a hammer ..."
In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
I support anarchism, not chaos.
Given the nature of Millenial Marxist Morons, the lynching of Jacob Applebaum may well have had a life-ending conclusion rather than the "verbal public" conclusion it had. When the mob gets going, the mob acts reactively, on emotive causes. Those emotive causes are often thrashed up by one or more of: - the mainstream media - the CIA, MI5 and other deep state operatives - young, nihilistic and utterly self righteous virtue signallers - those who may have personal vendetta/ revenge motive And perfect storms rise, where the zeitgeist of the day leaves a Jacob Applebaum on the alter of sacrifice, for the cleansing of "the public"'s burdened Souls. So, were a functional AP market in play, Jacob Applebaum may well no longer be in the land of the living. Likewise, Richard Stallman for his occasional jokes, and clearly stated questions about teenagers and sex, may also no longer be alive today given the perfest storm of morons, unthinkers, and frustrated contributors and employees of the FSF aligned (unknowingly) with a coup de ta power grab. How does an Assassination Market/ Assassination Politics, protect such people? The average human today, ALREADY finds it beyond their courage to speak truth to power, to put rest to broadly accepted lies which have been diligently built up by those in power, over decades, to persist their power and power structures. Would the fear inducement engendered by AP, increase the likelihood of humans speaking truth in the face of their own fear of the mob? Does AP problematically empower the mob?
My comments follow: On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:45:00 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> ----- From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Subject: Re: [WAR] ... List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
How about we implement a working AP system?
As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term. Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse. "When all you have is a hammer ..." In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society. I support anarchism, not chaos. ----- End forwarded message ----- While it may seem to be over 23 years 'too late', I will indeed answer this last line of comment, assuming that I did not do so in September 1996:.
From above, "I support anarchism, not chaos." To equate "anarchy" with "chaos" is the classic error. In my AP essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled: In part 5:
"Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of AP quote------- Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area in the 1990-1994 time frame. The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is well-described by the term "statism". But we, the Cypherpunks, should understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the various forms of 'digital cash'. That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the implications of an AP-driven society. Jim Bell Jim Bell
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:30:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
My comments follow: On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:45:00 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> -----
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Subject: Re: [WAR] ... List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org>
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
How about we implement a working AP system?
As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.
Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.
"When all you have is a hammer ..."
In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
I support anarchism, not chaos.
----- End forwarded message -----
While it may seem to be over 23 years 'too late', I will indeed answer this last line of comment, assuming that I did not do so in September 1996:.
From above, "I support anarchism, not chaos."
To equate "anarchy" with "chaos" is the classic error. In my AP
I agree with that. That was not my question though. Yes the colloquial use of the term "anarchy" is generally chaos, thus my use of the term "anarchism" etc. What I am equating is as follows: AP, with a very great potential for chaos, and if not chaos per se, for a significant increase in fear in the average dissident And I further note, that dissidents are the exact folks actual anarchists ought be supporting - at least it should not be objectionable to support dissidents who diss: - peacefully - who protest peacefully - who peacefully conscientiously object to some arbitrary rights suppressing statute law and therefore choose to not obey that law when "failing to obey that law" harms no one The issue I am raising here is the threshold issue - the marginal dissident is the dissident who is on the border line being: - actually acting (doing something) in pursuance of his dissidence (opposition to systemic problems/ corruption etc), vs - not doing anything in pursuance of his dissidence, due to fear And the inescapable question which presents itself is, will AP move the line of marginal dissidents, way back to an extreme position, where only extremely dissident and extremely courageous dissidents DARE TO ACT in pursuance of their contrary positions and views in relation to the dominant structures present in society at that point in time? Again, we cannot escape the natural human desire, or at least tendency, to immediately establish hierarchies of authority, capacity, authority, will and any other vector we analyse, where none presently exists. Put another way, notwithstanding what most say: "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy." "Humans desire the sense of stability that externalization of authority provides to their feels." "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy." And this is why we use the word "revolution" (or even evolution) when discussing any concept which might upturn the entire present systems of hierarchy (power) - there is nothing but a revolving from one system of hiearchy to some other system of hiearchy. Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely unavoidable. No matter how utopian the socialist Marxist collective, no matter how anarchic and free of statutes, no matter how blank the slate we can achieve with our glorious resent due to $FUNKY_ANARCHY_SYSTEM_XYZ, humans will, absolutely, immediately go about creating new hierarchies! I am emphasizing this point, because this point seems to be lost on a lot of actual (or at least self proclaimed) anarchists. We anarchists most often fail to grapple with basic human nature. We tend almost ubiquitously to being technocrats, presuming our wonderful system - social system - non-system system - computer crypto overlay funk - digital next gen fiat 2 point 0 - AP or any other system etc will somehow, if instituded widely and in short order, somehow magically cause existing present-day humans to live in freedom, free of fear, and allowing one another (our neighbours) to be in peace. This is a fallacy of the first order no less! Humans crave hiearchy and will FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH to claim their own version of utopian hierarchy! The things we can hope for: - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive revolution - a revolution to a new hiearchy which is a little more sane than the present hierarchy - a new system which somehow achieves a greater level of "inculcation with the average human" of a valueing of fundamental human rights and a knowledge of what freedom actually means, to live freedom on a day to day basis Such peaceful revolution may be not possible, I really have no idea. I am hopeful of the following basic premise being true though - that a system providing a useful level of privacy and anonymity for free speech will help to move the courage line for marginal dissidents, in the direction of "more folks experience more courage to speak their own truths".
essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled: In part 5:
"Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of AP quote------- Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area in the 1990-1994 time frame. The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is well-described by the term "statism". But we, the Cypherpunks, should understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the various forms of 'digital cash'. That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the implications of an AP-driven society.
I continue to see that those with the power to print unlimited fiats, shall have the upper hand against all dissidents, anarchists, and peaceful protesters. As a consequence of my own thinking on this, and this which I see, it appears to me inescapable that there is zero certainty, and great uncertainty, that AP shall usher in anything other than the unleashing of a great evil. When unleashed, the list of those who dedicate their lives to opposing powerful evil in a way which draws the interest of those who print the fiats, is the immediate list for those printing the fiats to target/ game/ dispense with in short order: Richard Stallman Julian Assange Jim Bell Jacob Applebaum Andrew Breitbart Dmitry Sklyarov Aaron Swartz John Young Zenaan Harkness Juan and an endless list more Jim, were AP in play, and you invented some concept of similar notoriety which was designed to dish out justice to the elite fiat printers, why would those elite fiat printers not have, instead of subjected you to 13 years of jail and illegal appeal behind your back etc, instead just whopped a few fiat on one of the various AP markets, and had you, Jim Bell, dispensed with in short order? (And so the final question, why is unleashing such "freedom to pay for killing other humans", wise?)
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 06:21:01 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:30:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
My comments follow: On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:45:00 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> -----
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Subject: Re: [WAR] ... List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org>
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
How about we implement a working AP system?
As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.
How did you come to that conclusion? I have long believed (probably as early as 1995, though somebody seems to have LOST the archives!!!) that except for a relatively short transition period (maybe a couple of years?) there will eventually be formed a set of courts, at least vaguely similar to today's courts, but VOLUNTARY to both the "plaintiff" and "defendant". Why? The alleged 'perp' might arguably be innocent,. Or, he knows he's guilty, but he believes that death should not be his punishment. (and maybe he's right?) Or, the public who is willing to donate to see evil people dead knows that the facts are often not clear, Or, maybe one person is clearly guilty, but others who are not known are likely to exist. The jury system may not be perfect, but it is probably the best system devised by man to learn the truth..,.IF it is actually allowed to function properly, If you don't understand this concept, you must not actually have thought about the implications of an AP-type system. _I_ did!!! Long before I published Part 1, I worked through the implications, probably far better than most people on the CP list ever attempted. I feel certain that discussion of my AP essay on the CP list eventually included these possibilities. But now, SOMEBODY has LOST the archive! Or, maybe it has been deliberately tampered with by somebody or somebodies.
Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.
"When all you have is a hammer ..."
In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
I support anarchism, not chaos.
----- End forwarded message -----
While it may seem to be over 23 years 'too late', I will indeed answer this last line of comment, assuming that I did not do so in September 1996:.
From above, "I support anarchism, not chaos."
To equate "anarchy" with "chaos" is the classic error. In my AP
I agree with that.
That was not my question though. Yes the colloquial use of the term "anarchy" is generally chaos, thus my use of the term "anarchism" etc.
What I am equating is as follows: AP, with a very great potential for chaos, and if not chaos per se, for a significant increase in fear in
Well, people can and do misuse terminology. Yes, I believe that a large fraction of people who call themselves 'anarchists', or who are called by others 'anarchists', are merely died-in-the-wool Communists, Socialists, or leftists whose favorite ideology miserably failed over the period of 1917 through 2019. the average dissident. YIKES! I suppose it doesn't occur to you. Why do we NEED "dissidents"? And by "dissidents", I mean a person to openly and publicly opposes some existing system. TODAY'S society needs "dissidents", because policies adopted by GOVERNMENTS need (with the existing system) to be publicly opposed, in order to force change. And that means public protests, including on the streets, What other tools do most people recognize? In an AP world, "protesting", in the classical sense, isn't necessary. If the government has a policy you don't like, donate to a fund to see your un-favorite politician DEAD DEAD DEAD. And you will be able to do so ANONYMOUSLY!!! Did you simply forget that straightforward concept? Will that necessarily result in a dead politician? No, but it will most likely be a politician who has resigned, or who changes the hated policies he previously had supported. WHY DID I BOTHER to write AP, when people misunderstand it so? I thought it was all quite clear! You are apparently stuck in the 1994 world pre-AP. You assume that AP changes NOTHING. In contrast, I claim it changes just about EVERYTHING. As I said in AP Part 2: "Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes." Do you REALLY not understand this?
And I further note, that dissidents are the exact folks actual anarchists ought be supporting - at least it should not be objectionable to support dissidents who diss: The work that used to be done by "dissidents" will be done by AP. Nobody will need to stand up, raise their fist, march in the street, or protest.
> - peacefully
- who protest peacefully And oftentimes, "peacefully" doesn't work.
And the inescapable question which presents itself is, will AP move
Again, we cannot escape the natural human desire, or at least tendency, to immediately establish hierarchies of authority, capacity, authority, will and any other vector we analyse, where none
> - who peacefully conscientiously object to some arbitrary rights suppressing statute law and therefore choose to not obey that law when "failing to obey that law" harms no one Why do you keep forgetting what AP is DESIGNED to do? The issue I am raising here is the threshold issue - the marginal dissident is the dissident who is on the border line being: - actually acting (doing something) in pursuance of his dissidence (opposition to systemic problems/ corruption etc), vs > - not doing anything in pursuance of his dissidence, due to fear How much "fear" will he have, to donate a few dollars to see crooked politicians dead? the line of marginal dissidents, way back to an extreme position, where only extremely dissident and extremely courageous dissidents DARE TO ACT in pursuance of their contrary positions and views in relation to the dominant structures present in society at that point in time? I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. But unfortunately, if you really don't understand how AP will work, none of your hypotheticals will likely be relevant. presently exists. I realize that you may think this is true, but that is clearly because you DON'T UNDERSTAND AP! NOT AT ALL!!!
Put another way, notwithstanding what most say:
> "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy." People used to say, "Nature abhors a vacuum"But it wasn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics) >"Humans desire the sense of stability that externalization of authority provides to their feels." One major problem with your idea is that, the reality is that most people grow up under such heirarchical power structures. Raise people under such circumstances, and they LEARN to live with that system. But that does not mean that this is a rule that cannot be changed. > "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy." So what's your point?
And this is why we use the word "revolution" (or even evolution) when discussing any concept which might upturn the entire present systems of hierarchy (power) - there is nothing but a revolving from one system of hiearchy to some other system of hiearchy.
I think you don't understand David Friedman's "The Hard Problem" from his book, "The Machinery of Freedom". Yes, in a pre-AP world, nobody (else) could figure out how to get rid of heirarchical power structures. Even I didn't figure it out, until January 1995. But then I did.
Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely unavoidable. "Nature abhors a vacuum". Prior to January 1995, nobody else knew how to do that. Not since then.
No matter how utopian the socialist Marxist collective, no matter how anarchic and free of statutes, no matter how blank the slate we can achieve with our glorious resent due to $FUNKY_ANARCHY_SYSTEM_XYZ, humans will, absolutely, immediately go about creating new hierarchies!
Which is pretty much a perfect statement of David Friedman's "Hard Proble". You haven't learned. I am emphasizing this point, because this point seems to be lost on a lot of actual (or at least self proclaimed) anarchists.
We anarchists most often fail to grapple with basic human nature.
Many "we anarchists" clearly don't understand my AP essay.
We tend almost ubiquitously to being technocrats, presuming our wonderful system
>- social system >- non-system system >- computer crypto overlay funk >- digital next gen fiat 2 point 0 >- AP or any other system etc
will somehow, if instituded widely and in short order, somehow magically cause existing present-day humans to live in freedom, free of fear, and allowing one another (our neighbours) to be in peace.
There's nothing "magic" about it, although it might seem that way to people who don't understand AP.
This is a fallacy of the first order no less!
I'm amazed you don't understand AP. I'd tell you to "read the archives", but SOMEBODY FUCKING LOST IT!!
Humans crave hiearchy and will FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH to claim their own version of utopian hierarchy!
<sigh>
The things we can hope for:
I hope you actually do the mental work to understand how AP is supposed to function. I did. And unlike you, I had nobody else around to help me, or explain it to me. > - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive revolution I suppose you are assuming that there is some clear distinction between these alternatives, or which is which. I've long argued that AP, once operating smoothly, will not shed a lot of blood. The reason is that if 'the bad guys' know that it is virtually 100% certain they will be targeted, they will realize that they will have no alternatives other than:1. Die.2. Resign. Can you explain what third alternative they have to choose?
- a revolution to a new hiearchy which is a little more sane than the present hierarchy
I think that many people who actually UNDERSTAND AP think of it as being a major improvement on any proposed alternative, and certainly over the status quo. . > - a new system which somehow achieves a greater level of "inculcation with the average human" of a valueing of fundamental human rights and a knowledge of what freedom actually means, to live freedom on a day to day basis Put people in a system which destroys heirarchical power structures, and I am quite confident people will adjust and adapt. Why do you think they won't?
Such peaceful revolution may be not possible, I really have no idea.
I am hopeful of the following basic premise being true though - that a system providing a useful level of privacy and anonymity for free speech will help to move the courage line for marginal dissidents, in
I do "have an idea". And I wrote it into my AP essay 1995-96. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Have more respect for people who actually take major risks to bring you freedom. the direction of "more folks experience more courage to speak their own truths". Wake up! WAKE UP! "Dissidents" are not necessary!!! (with apologies to late Portland Oregon retailer Tom Peterson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUKjbUrxXE "Wake up! Wake up!" DONORS are necessary. Dissidents are not.
essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled: In part 5:
"Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of AP quote------- Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area in the 1990-1994 time frame. The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is well-described by the term "statism". But we, the Cypherpunks, should understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the various forms of 'digital cash'. That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the implications of an AP-driven society.
"I continue to see that those with the power to print unlimited fiats, shall have the upper hand against all dissidents, anarchists, and peaceful protesters."
If you know who they are, target them. If you don't know who they are, offer rewards anonymously to find out who they are and where they live and work., Then target them. Then watch them run.
As a consequence of my own thinking on this,"
Which, sadly, cannot be very consequential.
and this which I see, it appears to me inescapable that there is zero certainty, and great uncertainty, that AP shall usher in anything other than the unleashing of a great evil.?
When unleashed, the list of those who dedicate their lives to opposing powerful evil in a way which draws the interest of those who
Jim, were AP in play, and you invented some concept of similar notoriety which was designed to dish out justice to the elite fiat
Given your clear lack of understanding, I am not surprised you say that. print the fiats, is the immediate list for those printing the fiats to target/ game/ dispense with in short order: How will the "good guys" be identified if they don't need to stand up and protest? Richard Stallman Julian Assange Jim Bell Jacob Applebaum Andrew Breitbart Dmitry Sklyarov Aaron Swartz John Young Zenaan Harkness Juan and an endless list more printers, why would those elite fiat printers not have, instead of subjected you to 13 years of jail and illegal appeal behind your back etc, instead just whopped a few fiat on one of the various AP markets, and had you, Jim Bell, dispensed with in short order? Please learn what AP actually means, and call me back.
(And so the final question, why is unleashing such "freedom to pay for killing other humans", wise?)
Call me when the existing alternative actually begins to work. It hasn't yet. Jim Bell
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:50:25AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 06:21:01 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
What I am equating is as follows: AP, with a very great potential for chaos, and if not chaos per se, for a significant increase in fear in the average dissident.
YIKES!
I suppose it doesn't occur to you. Why do we NEED "dissidents"?
I think you misundestand my words.
And by "dissidents", I mean a person to openly and publicly opposes some existing system. TODAY'S society needs "dissidents", because policies adopted by GOVERNMENTS need (with the existing system) to be publicly opposed, in order to force change. And that means public protests, including on the streets, What other tools do most people recognize?
So we agree on definition, that's good.
In an AP world, "protesting", in the classical sense, isn't necessary. If the government has a policy you don't like, donate to a fund to see your un-favorite politician DEAD DEAD DEAD. And you will be able to do so ANONYMOUSLY!!! Did you simply forget that straightforward concept? Will that necessarily result in a dead politician? No, but it will most likely be a politician who has resigned, or who changes the hated policies he previously had supported.
What you seem to be missing about what I'm trying to say, is that this same principle applies in inverse - if you're a wealthy oligarch in a post-AP world, and you have a slush fund of billions sloshing around to sure up the edges of your plutocratic, established by individual contracts (in the billions), neo-novo-corporatocracy, you're going to make sure you get in first against folks who stick their head up to high suggesting that you, the oligarch, need to be dead dead dead - you're going to do your damndest to make sure everyone who so much as suggests your corporate contracts "offered generously to the poor" are actually persisting the poor class, is the first to targetted (courtesy the ultra efficient, and therefore economically optimal, AP market) and dead dead dead. That is, dissidents will be dead dead dead. Which means that dissidents may not exist. You seem to presume a certain outcome of the AP arms race. I don't make that same presumption - sure, I allow for it in my thinking, but I also allow for other possible outcomes, like a worse plutocracy than we have today, sured up with an ultra-efficient AP "market"! "It could go either way: more freedom, or more despotism." I don't see why you are having difficulty in seeing the flip side of your own coin! I do not presume to see the future. I do not presume to know which of the two outcomes are more likely. To presume so would be hubris of the first order...
WHY DID I BOTHER to write AP, when people misunderstand it so? I thought it was all quite clear! You are apparently stuck in the 1994 world pre-AP. You assume that AP changes NOTHING. In contrast, I claim it changes just about EVERYTHING.
Any concept is clear, when the outcome appears so certain to you. Is it possible there are alternative outcomes that are not so clear to you, notwithstanding that you happened to be the first to write this concept down in a methodical way? Is it possible that there are elements to a fundamental change to the dynamics of our social hierarchies (such as AP is), could have nuances unforeseen which ultimately result in far reaching negative consequences?
As I said in AP Part 2: "Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes."
Do you REALLY not understand this?
I certainly don't fail to see -your- particular conclusions. It seems to me though that there are systems more complex that you seem to suggest with the words you choose, and answers far less certain than you seem to imply, and quite possibly answers which lie on the opposite end of the vectors you seem to suggest they lie on.
And I further note, that dissidents are the exact folks actual anarchists ought be supporting - at least it should not be objectionable to support dissidents who diss: The work that used to be done by "dissidents" will be done by AP. Nobody will need to stand up, raise their fist, march in the street, or protest.
> - peacefully
- who protest peacefully And oftentimes, "peacefully" doesn't work.
> - who peacefully conscientiously object to some arbitrary rights suppressing statute law and therefore choose to not obey that law when "failing to obey that law" harms no one
Why do you keep forgetting what AP is DESIGNED to do?
Let me unpack your unspoken fallacy (I'll attempt to do so gently): Just because you intend for your design to have a certain outcome, does not give any certainty to that particular outcome, and even less so when we deign to play with fundamental dynamics of human hierarchies. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you may well be wrong in your conclusion regarding the outcome which you (with such apparent certainty) presume. My personal concern level starts going through the roof when you appear to fail to have considered various (perhaps only obvious in hindsight) issues: - the marginal dissident, and the possible effects of AP thereupon - and relatively straightforward statistical math which could be applied to this type of problem - the actual financial power inherent in each of the classes you infer will be at war with one another (say the oligarch and the "not oligarch" classes) - and again, the relevant mathematical analysis of this next part of the problem - the nature of humans to gravitate to, to create, to crave, hierarchy - replacement of the existing societal hiearchy with another somewhat similar, but premised on the broad existence of AP - the gaming nature, intention and actions of the typical sociopathic hierarchy climber, and how his first motive will be to harness AP, to maximise his profit and power - how this may effect the marginal dissident, the speed of wealth accumulation throughout the pyramid, etc - will day to day contracts remain less, or become more, paper and signature based? - how may such contracts change with the existence of AP? - how might such contracts further disempower, rather than empower, the poor class - i.e. those who inevitably end up at the bottom of the pyramid? Dismissing each of the above considerations, does not make those considerations, and the interactions between each subset of considerations, go away. To presume we can safely predict the future in the face of such complexity, is hubris, and nothing but!
The issue I am raising here is the threshold issue - the marginal dissident is the dissident who is on the border line being:
- actually acting (doing something) in pursuance of his dissidence (opposition to systemic problems/ corruption etc), vs
- not doing anything in pursuance of his dissidence, due to fear
How much "fear" will he have, to donate a few dollars to see crooked politicians dead?
Probably no more nor less fear than the oligarch to whom his life, and his children's lives are indebted to for 3 generations, who "just wants just recompense in respect of his post-AP world contracts". When this "contract for 3 full generations employee" is identified by FaceTwattGoogleAI as "possibly developing dissident tendencies, with 73% certainty", dead dead dead dissident. It's that simple. The flip side of your AP coin. Why is this so hard to see - that there are two sides? Your vehemence in support of one side of that coin is one thing, but when flip side (sides) to a concept are habitually not seen (or worse, denied), this gives rise to great concern in some... Juan at least honestly admits that he wants chaos (impliedly "at any cost") due to how bad things have become with our current hierarchy. I am not ready to stand with Juan on his position.
And the inescapable question which presents itself is, will AP move the line of marginal dissidents, way back to an extreme position, where only extremely dissident and extremely courageous dissidents DARE TO ACT in pursuance of their contrary positions and views in relation to the dominant structures present in society at that point in time?
I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. But
I'm saying I don't pretend to be able to predict the future.
unfortunately, if you really don't understand how AP will work, none of your hypotheticals will likely be relevant.
Just because you presume AP will work only, and strictly, in the way you -hope- it will work, does not stop the nefarious from harnessing AP to their own successful financial ends - that's naievety.
Again, we cannot escape the natural human desire, or at least tendency, to immediately establish hierarchies of authority, capacity, authority, will and any other vector we analyse, where none presently exists.
I realize that you may think this is true, but that is clearly because you DON'T UNDERSTAND AP! NOT AT ALL!!!
Your above sentend is not an answer to what I just said. I realise you think it is, but it's actually not. We are talking tangential vectors: - whether or not, or to what extent, I understand AP "as Jim Bell hypothesizes it" - whether or not, or to what extent, humans will recreate similar or dissimilar, hierarchies in the face of the possible collapse of the existing hierarchy if AP were to be manifested - whether or not, or to what extent, there may be considerations as yet unthought of and/or not considered and/or not fully analyzed by Jim Bell in respect of "his" AP concept - whether such considerations may drastically alter the possible outcomes of manifesting AP - to what extent we, or sufficiently capable mathematicians and / or social etc analysts, are able to predict actual outcomes of fundamental systemic changes (as AP would be) It appears to me, that you have not yet considered in your writings the above considerations, in sufficient depth, to give sufficient certainty to the reader that AP "is unlikely to result in literal chaos which fails to stabilize and/ or results in far fewer dissidents in the post-AP future". Just saying "of course it'll be fine, trust me", unfortunately don't make it so.
Put another way, notwithstanding what most say:
> "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy."
People used to say, "Nature abhors a vacuum"But it wasn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)
Yes, absolute "truisms" are always false when analyzed in specific instances, and when a "human interaction meme" is put to the generality of the physics of the entire universe, it may well turn out to be "technically false", or even generally false, but we're in the territory of memes and nicely decorated straw hats right now...
>"Humans desire the sense of stability that externalization of authority provides to their feels."
One major problem with your idea is that, the reality is that most people grow up under such heirarchical power structures. Raise people under such circumstances, and they LEARN to live with that system. But that does not mean that this is a rule that cannot be changed.
And raise people under an AP world, and see above for possible outcomes and how much worse it could really get... Just because there's no certainty we won't have a negative outcome, does not in any way guarantee we'll have a positive outcome.
> "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy."
So what's your point?
If AP turns out to be worse, the challenge of future dissidents figuring out how to climb out of such a world may be much, much harder than climbing out of our current failed hierarchy.
And this is why we use the word "revolution" (or even evolution) when discussing any concept which might upturn the entire present systems of hierarchy (power) - there is nothing but a revolving from one system of hiearchy to some other system of hiearchy.
I think you don't understand David Friedman's "The Hard Problem" from his book, "The Machinery of Freedom". Yes, in a pre-AP world, nobody (else) could figure out how to get rid of heirarchical power structures. Even I didn't figure it out, until January 1995. But then I did.
Ahah! This is your fundamental misnomer - you might have notice me going on about hierarchies and the certainty of the (re)creation by tribal humans. Well, when you say "But then I did [figure out how to get rid of hierarchical power structures]", I say you have fallen to ego, and that this (self) deception is a sexy seductive muffa! The final solution - the first and only one to solve this problem - the problem of the ages - solved, by me - I just happened to figure it out though many had come and tried before - there is no other problem to solve, now this fundamental problem is solved. Alright, alright, I'll stop there! Yes, you are right that if you had solved the "problem" of "hierarchical power structures", then you may as well be deemed to have solved all problems. But try, please, to follow the following: 1. Choose a value, such as peace, productivity, empathy, anything. 2. Now that you have chosen a value (at 1. above), we presume this is a value worth upholding (at least personally), proclaiming to others, that they might also try to live this value, that we might create a better world together. 3. Some folks try to live your chosen value, but they suffer one or another human failing. Pick pretty much any human failing, be it lazyness, impatience, lust, greed etc, and that will (at least for the person failing to live your proclaimed value) be entirely sufficient ground for their inability to "properly" "fully" "behold" "embrace" and "live" your proclaimed value. So now we have some humans who are able (/willing /motivated) to live your proclaimed value, and those who are "unable" for whatever reason. You now have an inherent hierarchy. Those able to live your proclaimed value near the top of the hierarchy, those unable to do so at the bottom of this hierarchy. And now Juan, or John Young or someone else comes along and adds a second value to yours and suggests that if one value is good, two values great! We will make this world such a wonderful, wonderful place by proclaiming, upholding personally, and living and sharing our values! And now the pyramid steepens, the hierarchy gets more noticeable, and many folks "ooh" and "aah" at the amazing anarchist punks Jim, John and Juan, who are better than most in the world because they can Live Their Proclaimed Values so truthfully and authentically, and they are orators par excellence, able to share their truths more succinctly than the bulk, and much to the chagrin of Jim, John and Juan, the Triple J's are pronounced "close to Jesus"! Now even Greg Newby and the rest of us Cypherpunks get a look in with more "ooh"s and "aah"s "my god, Greg administers that mailing list, he sits on the right hand side of the tripple Js!" and the crowds affirm and say yes. Pretty soon the angry mob is donating sticks of gold and silver and Vdemanding of the tripple Js that they institute their hallowed ("it was proclaimed") digital, gold back, fiat destroying coin. And on it goes... Jim, sad as it is, you will never, ever, get rid of human hierarchies! You may disrupt one, and may cause an interesting transition if you were really, really lucky, or you may, as Juan seems to assume, usher in chaos and an unleashing of raw evil the likes of which the world rarely sees (<COUGH!>Marxism<!>).
Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely unavoidable. "Nature abhors a vacuum". Prior to January 1995, nobody else knew how to do that. Not since then.
See above.
No matter how utopian the socialist Marxist collective, no matter how anarchic and free of statutes, no matter how blank the slate we can achieve with our glorious resent due to $FUNKY_ANARCHY_SYSTEM_XYZ, humans will, absolutely, immediately go about creating new hierarchies!
Which is pretty much a perfect statement of David Friedman's "Hard Proble". You haven't learned.
Ok, I've downloaded Friedman, but he's 133 pages, so it won't be overnight to read it. I come biased with the presupposition that reading these 133 pages will not cause me to doubt the challenging and interrelated considerations I've attempted to lay out clearly, above.
I am emphasizing this point, because this point seems to be lost on a lot of actual (or at least self proclaimed) anarchists.
We anarchists most often fail to grapple with basic human nature.
Many "we anarchists" clearly don't understand my AP essay.
We tend almost ubiquitously to being technocrats, presuming our wonderful system
>- social system
>- non-system system
>- computer crypto overlay funk
>- digital next gen fiat 2 point 0
>- AP or any other system etc
will somehow, if instituded widely and in short order, somehow magically cause existing present-day humans to live in freedom, free of fear, and allowing one another (our neighbours) to be in peace.
There's nothing "magic" about it, although it might seem that way to people who don't understand AP.
"You don't know humans like I know humans" :) That said, I'm sure you have you own experiences - perhaps you've interpreted similar experiences differently to how I interpret such ...
This is a fallacy of the first order no less!
I'm amazed you don't understand AP. I'd tell you to "read the archives", but SOMEBODY FUCKING LOST IT!!
Humans crave hiearchy and will FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH to claim their own version of utopian hierarchy!
<sigh>
The things we can hope for:
I hope you actually do the mental work to understand how AP is supposed to function. I did. And unlike you, I had nobody else around to help me, or explain it to me.
> - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive revolution
I suppose you are assuming that there is some clear distinction between these alternatives, or which is which. I've long argued that AP, once operating smoothly, will not shed a lot of blood. The reason is that if 'the bad guys' know that it is virtually 100% certain they will be targeted, they will realize that they will have no alternatives other than:1. Die.2. Resign.
Can you explain what third alternative they have to choose?
Crimea, despite vociferous and nefarious international bugle-ing, ceceded from Ukraine without a single bullet fired. Pretty fucking impressive in the face of the murders, war and despotism that was going on in the Ukraine back then. Really inspiring, some o' these Russian, I tell ya (documentaries - at least one on the Crimea events brought tears to my eyes, the courage and camraderie was so poignant. Secondly, Australia - unlike the USA, we did not have to have a "civil" war against the incumbent empire, to gain our freedom - admittedly our transition to federation was ~120 years after your revolution in the USA, but still, another example of an actual systemic transition without bloodshed.
- a revolution to a new hiearchy which is a little more sane than the present hierarchy
I think that many people who actually UNDERSTAND AP think of it as being a major improvement on any proposed alternative, and certainly over the status quo. .
And some seem to think there absolutely no possibility, whatsoever, that a post-AP hierarchy could be anything but better and brighter, saner and utopianer, than today's hierarchy. I get that. I really do get that.
> - a new system which somehow achieves a greater level of "inculcation with the average human" of a valueing of fundamental human rights and a knowledge of what freedom actually means, to live freedom on a day to day basis
Put people in a system which destroys heirarchical power structures, and I am quite confident people will adjust and adapt. Why do you think they won't?
"a system which destroys hierarchical power structures" - only, at best, very temporarily. AP is a system. All systems are harnessed into service of the (possibly new) hierarchy. It seems we can't get past this fundamental...
Such peaceful revolution may be not possible, I really have no idea.
I do "have an idea". And I wrote it into my AP essay 1995-96. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
Have more respect for people who actually take major risks to bring you freedom.
Careful, it's perhaps unwise to conflate "strong counter view" with disrespect. I am taking a counter view, because, it appears to me you have failed to do so, and to compare these (at least) two opposing views.
I am hopeful of the following basic premise being true though - that a system providing a useful level of privacy and anonymity for free speech will help to move the courage line for marginal dissidents, in the direction of "more folks experience more courage to speak their own truths".
Wake up! WAKE UP! "Dissidents" are not necessary!!! (with apologies to late Portland Oregon retailer Tom Peterson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUKjbUrxXE "Wake up! Wake up!" DONORS are necessary. Dissidents are not.
To say a donor is not a dissident, just a system participant, is to infer that, in your AP world, dissidents can provide no substantive value. If there are no dissidents, this means everyone is conformant. Or dead.
essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled: In part 5:
"Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of AP quote------- Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area in the 1990-1994 time frame. The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is well-described by the term "statism". But we, the Cypherpunks, should understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the various forms of 'digital cash'. That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the implications of an AP-driven society.
"I continue to see that those with the power to print unlimited fiats, shall have the upper hand against all dissidents, anarchists, and peaceful protesters."
If you know who they are, target them. If you don't know who they are, offer rewards anonymously to find out who they are and where they live and work., Then target them. Then watch them run.
They certainly can know who some of us are - some of us are at the same time vocal and public on this here cp list, others are public elsewhere, and those who say nothing publicly probably aren't worthy of the title "dissident". Since we dissidents are well identified, AP provides the most efficient, immediate, and anonymous way, for the oligarchs of the day, to cause you, I and the rest of us dissidents to be dead dead dead. AP is not a one way street, there are 2 sides to the coin, and the fiat printers have more fiats (unlimited in fact) that us! We can only do ourselves a great disservice by failing to consider both or each of the many, sides/considerations, of an idea.
As a consequence of my own thinking on this,"
Which, sadly, cannot be very consequential.
and this which I see, it appears to me inescapable that there is zero certainty, and great uncertainty, that AP shall usher in anything other than the unleashing of a great evil.?
Given your clear lack of understanding, I am not surprised you say that.
When unleashed, the list of those who dedicate their lives to opposing powerful evil in a way which draws the interest of those who print the fiats, is the immediate list for those printing the fiats to target/ game/ dispense with in short order:
How will the "good guys" be identified if they don't need to stand up and protest?
Richard Stallman
Julian Assange
Jim Bell
Jacob Applebaum
Andrew Breitbart
Dmitry Sklyarov
Aaron Swartz
John Young
Zenaan Harkness
Juan
and an endless list more
Jim, were AP in play, and you invented some concept of similar notoriety which was designed to dish out justice to the elite fiat printers, why would those elite fiat printers not have, instead of subjected you to 13 years of jail and illegal appeal behind your back etc, instead just whopped a few fiat on one of the various AP markets, and had you, Jim Bell, dispensed with in short order?
Please learn what AP actually means, and call me back.
(And so the final question, why is unleashing such "freedom to pay for killing other humans", wise?)
Call me when the existing alternative actually begins to work. It hasn't yet.
Jim Bell
Jim, others: Archives were discussed in the list awhile ago, a few times. Riad had some, and so did another source. I have a copy here: https://www.petascale.org/cypherpunks/ (a few different versions) The "to do" item is to slurp the archives so they are all findable among the other archives at https://lists.cpunks.org .. I will eventually do this. I looked at the Yahoo! Groups archives mentioned in this list a couple of weeks ago, and they seemed to be the same thing: just a long-time "subscriber" to the list. If anyone thinks they have unique content not listed above, we can try to hustle up a method to get a copy. Best, Greg On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:50:25AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 06:21:01 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:30:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
My comments follow: On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:45:00 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> -----
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Subject: Re: [WAR] ... List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org>
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
How about we implement a working AP system?
As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.
How did you come to that conclusion? I have long believed (probably as early as 1995, though somebody seems to have LOST the archives!!!) that except for a relatively short transition period (maybe a couple of years?) there will eventually be formed a set of courts, at least vaguely similar to today's courts, but VOLUNTARY to both the "plaintiff" and "defendant". Why? The alleged 'perp' might arguably be innocent,. Or, he knows he's guilty, but he believes that death should not be his punishment. (and maybe he's right?) Or, the public who is willing to donate to see evil people dead knows that the facts are often not clear, Or, maybe one person is clearly guilty, but others who are not known are likely to exist. The jury system may not be perfect, but it is probably the best system devised by man to learn the truth..,.IF it is actually allowed to function properly, If you don't understand this concept, you must not actually have thought about the implications of an AP-type system. _I_ did!!! Long before I published Part 1, I worked through the implications, probably far better than most people on the CP list ever attempted. I feel certain that discussion of my AP essay on the CP list eventually included these possibilities. But now, SOMEBODY has LOST the archive! Or, maybe it has been deliberately tampered with by somebody or somebodies.
Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.
"When all you have is a hammer ..."
In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
I support anarchism, not chaos.
----- End forwarded message -----
While it may seem to be over 23 years 'too late', I will indeed answer this last line of comment, assuming that I did not do so in September 1996:.
From above, "I support anarchism, not chaos."
To equate "anarchy" with "chaos" is the classic error. In my AP
I agree with that.
That was not my question though. Yes the colloquial use of the term "anarchy" is generally chaos, thus my use of the term "anarchism" etc.
Well, people can and do misuse terminology. Yes, I believe that a large fraction of people who call themselves 'anarchists', or who are called by others 'anarchists', are merely died-in-the-wool Communists, Socialists, or leftists whose favorite ideology miserably failed over the period of 1917 through 2019.
What I am equating is as follows: AP, with a very great potential for chaos, and if not chaos per se, for a significant increase in fear in the average dissident. YIKES! I suppose it doesn't occur to you. Why do we NEED "dissidents"? And by "dissidents", I mean a person to openly and publicly opposes some existing system. TODAY'S society needs "dissidents", because policies adopted by GOVERNMENTS need (with the existing system) to be publicly opposed, in order to force change. And that means public protests, including on the streets, What other tools do most people recognize? In an AP world, "protesting", in the classical sense, isn't necessary. If the government has a policy you don't like, donate to a fund to see your un-favorite politician DEAD DEAD DEAD. And you will be able to do so ANONYMOUSLY!!! Did you simply forget that straightforward concept? Will that necessarily result in a dead politician? No, but it will most likely be a politician who has resigned, or who changes the hated policies he previously had supported. WHY DID I BOTHER to write AP, when people misunderstand it so? I thought it was all quite clear! You are apparently stuck in the 1994 world pre-AP. You assume that AP changes NOTHING. In contrast, I claim it changes just about EVERYTHING. As I said in AP Part 2: "Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes." Do you REALLY not understand this?
And I further note, that dissidents are the exact folks actual anarchists ought be supporting - at least it should not be objectionable to support dissidents who diss: The work that used to be done by "dissidents" will be done by AP. Nobody will need to stand up, raise their fist, march in the street, or protest.
> - peacefully
- who protest peacefully And oftentimes, "peacefully" doesn't work.
> - who peacefully conscientiously object to some arbitrary rights suppressing statute law and therefore choose to not obey that law when "failing to obey that law" harms no one
Why do you keep forgetting what AP is DESIGNED to do?
The issue I am raising here is the threshold issue - the marginal dissident is the dissident who is on the border line being:
- actually acting (doing something) in pursuance of his dissidence (opposition to systemic problems/ corruption etc), vs
> - not doing anything in pursuance of his dissidence, due to fear
How much "fear" will he have, to donate a few dollars to see crooked politicians dead?
And the inescapable question which presents itself is, will AP move the line of marginal dissidents, way back to an extreme position, where only extremely dissident and extremely courageous dissidents DARE TO ACT in pursuance of their contrary positions and views in relation to the dominant structures present in society at that point in time?
I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. But unfortunately, if you really don't understand how AP will work, none of your hypotheticals will likely be relevant.
Again, we cannot escape the natural human desire, or at least tendency, to immediately establish hierarchies of authority, capacity, authority, will and any other vector we analyse, where none presently exists. I realize that you may think this is true, but that is clearly because you DON'T UNDERSTAND AP! NOT AT ALL!!!
Put another way, notwithstanding what most say:
> "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy."
People used to say, "Nature abhors a vacuum"But it wasn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)
>"Humans desire the sense of stability that externalization of authority provides to their feels."
One major problem with your idea is that, the reality is that most people grow up under such heirarchical power structures. Raise people under such circumstances, and they LEARN to live with that system. But that does not mean that this is a rule that cannot be changed.
> "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy." So what's your point?
And this is why we use the word "revolution" (or even evolution) when discussing any concept which might upturn the entire present systems of hierarchy (power) - there is nothing but a revolving from one system of hiearchy to some other system of hiearchy.
I think you don't understand David Friedman's "The Hard Problem" from his book, "The Machinery of Freedom". Yes, in a pre-AP world, nobody (else) could figure out how to get rid of heirarchical power structures. Even I didn't figure it out, until January 1995. But then I did.
Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely unavoidable. "Nature abhors a vacuum". Prior to January 1995, nobody else knew how to do that. Not since then.
No matter how utopian the socialist Marxist collective, no matter how anarchic and free of statutes, no matter how blank the slate we can achieve with our glorious resent due to $FUNKY_ANARCHY_SYSTEM_XYZ, humans will, absolutely, immediately go about creating new hierarchies!
Which is pretty much a perfect statement of David Friedman's "Hard Proble". You haven't learned.
I am emphasizing this point, because this point seems to be lost on a lot of actual (or at least self proclaimed) anarchists.
We anarchists most often fail to grapple with basic human nature.
Many "we anarchists" clearly don't understand my AP essay.
We tend almost ubiquitously to being technocrats, presuming our wonderful system
>- social system
>- non-system system
>- computer crypto overlay funk
>- digital next gen fiat 2 point 0
>- AP or any other system etc
will somehow, if instituded widely and in short order, somehow magically cause existing present-day humans to live in freedom, free of fear, and allowing one another (our neighbours) to be in peace.
There's nothing "magic" about it, although it might seem that way to people who don't understand AP.
This is a fallacy of the first order no less!
I'm amazed you don't understand AP. I'd tell you to "read the archives", but SOMEBODY FUCKING LOST IT!!
Humans crave hiearchy and will FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH to claim their own version of utopian hierarchy!
<sigh>
The things we can hope for:
I hope you actually do the mental work to understand how AP is supposed to function. I did. And unlike you, I had nobody else around to help me, or explain it to me.
> - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive revolution
I suppose you are assuming that there is some clear distinction between these alternatives, or which is which. I've long argued that AP, once operating smoothly, will not shed a lot of blood. The reason is that if 'the bad guys' know that it is virtually 100% certain they will be targeted, they will realize that they will have no alternatives other than:1. Die.2. Resign. Can you explain what third alternative they have to choose?
- a revolution to a new hiearchy which is a little more sane than the present hierarchy
I think that many people who actually UNDERSTAND AP think of it as being a major improvement on any proposed alternative, and certainly over the status quo. .
> - a new system which somehow achieves a greater level of "inculcation with the average human" of a valueing of fundamental human rights and a knowledge of what freedom actually means, to live freedom on a day to day basis
Put people in a system which destroys heirarchical power structures, and I am quite confident people will adjust and adapt. Why do you think they won't?
Such peaceful revolution may be not possible, I really have no idea.
I do "have an idea". And I wrote it into my AP essay 1995-96. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
Have more respect for people who actually take major risks to bring you freedom.
I am hopeful of the following basic premise being true though - that a system providing a useful level of privacy and anonymity for free speech will help to move the courage line for marginal dissidents, in the direction of "more folks experience more courage to speak their own truths".
Wake up! WAKE UP! "Dissidents" are not necessary!!! (with apologies to late Portland Oregon retailer Tom Peterson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUKjbUrxXE "Wake up! Wake up!" DONORS are necessary. Dissidents are not.
essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled: In part 5:
"Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of AP quote------- Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area in the 1990-1994 time frame. The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is well-described by the term "statism". But we, the Cypherpunks, should understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the various forms of 'digital cash'. That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the implications of an AP-driven society.
"I continue to see that those with the power to print unlimited fiats, shall have the upper hand against all dissidents, anarchists, and peaceful protesters."
If you know who they are, target them. If you don't know who they are, offer rewards anonymously to find out who they are and where they live and work., Then target them. Then watch them run.
As a consequence of my own thinking on this,"
Which, sadly, cannot be very consequential.
and this which I see, it appears to me inescapable that there is zero certainty, and great uncertainty, that AP shall usher in anything other than the unleashing of a great evil.?
Given your clear lack of understanding, I am not surprised you say that.
When unleashed, the list of those who dedicate their lives to opposing powerful evil in a way which draws the interest of those who print the fiats, is the immediate list for those printing the fiats to target/ game/ dispense with in short order:
How will the "good guys" be identified if they don't need to stand up and protest?
Richard Stallman
Julian Assange
Jim Bell
Jacob Applebaum
Andrew Breitbart
Dmitry Sklyarov
Aaron Swartz
John Young
Zenaan Harkness
Juan
and an endless list more
Jim, were AP in play, and you invented some concept of similar notoriety which was designed to dish out justice to the elite fiat printers, why would those elite fiat printers not have, instead of subjected you to 13 years of jail and illegal appeal behind your back etc, instead just whopped a few fiat on one of the various AP markets, and had you, Jim Bell, dispensed with in short order?
Please learn what AP actually means, and call me back.
(And so the final question, why is unleashing such "freedom to pay for killing other humans", wise?)
Call me when the existing alternative actually begins to work. It hasn't yet.
Jim Bell
Remember, all I INITIALLY wanted to do was to find the first instance where the topic of AP appeared in the list. Then I (and others) have quickly discovered what appears to be a weird omission of postings. I think many of my postings appear, just none (prior to November 1995) on the subject of AP. I cannot say much about other subjects, simply because I haven't looked at other threads, and I don't claim to be able to remember what other ideas were being discussed. This may end up being a substantial piece of work, which could take time. I ask again, could somebody find the date of the AP-essay appearance on CP? Maybe that will be a simple, discrete task that could be quickly done? Once a better picture of what data is missing appears, I will probably have no choice but to cry "fraud!!!". And I think we should pay attention to people, here, who AREN'T acting in a concerned fashion. What is their motivation? Does this possibility bother them? I think that the inactive (former?) Cypherpunks should be contacted, to inform them of the situation. They are, or should be, very concerned if this turns out to be an attack on the CP list. And we can learn a lot, by learning specifically what information was concealed, We don't need to immediately regenerate the entire archives in order to figure out what happened Jim Bell On Friday, November 1, 2019, 02:02:31 AM PDT, Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote: Jim, others: Archives were discussed in the list awhile ago, a few times. Riad had some, and so did another source. I have a copy here: https://www.petascale.org/cypherpunks/ (a few different versions) The "to do" item is to slurp the archives so they are all findable among the other archives at https://lists.cpunks.org .. I will eventually do this. I looked at the Yahoo! Groups archives mentioned in this list a couple of weeks ago, and they seemed to be the same thing: just a long-time "subscriber" to the list. If anyone thinks they have unique content not listed above, we can try to hustle up a method to get a copy. Best, Greg On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:50:25AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 06:21:01 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:30:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
My comments follow: On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:45:00 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> -----
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Subject: Re: [WAR] ... List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org>
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
How about we implement a working AP system?
As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.
How did you come to that conclusion? I have long believed (probably as early as 1995, though somebody seems to have LOST the archives!!!) that except for a relatively short transition period (maybe a couple of years?) there will eventually be formed a set of courts, at least vaguely similar to today's courts, but VOLUNTARY to both the "plaintiff" and "defendant". Why? The alleged 'perp' might arguably be innocent,. Or, he knows he's guilty, but he believes that death should not be his punishment. (and maybe he's right?) Or, the public who is willing to donate to see evil people dead knows that the facts are often not clear, Or, maybe one person is clearly guilty, but others who are not known are likely to exist. The jury system may not be perfect, but it is probably the best system devised by man to learn the truth..,.IF it is actually allowed to function properly, If you don't understand this concept, you must not actually have thought about the implications of an AP-type system. _I_ did!!! Long before I published Part 1, I worked through the implications, probably far better than most people on the CP list ever attempted. I feel certain that discussion of my AP essay on the CP list eventually included these possibilities. But now, SOMEBODY has LOST the archive! Or, maybe it has been deliberately tampered with by somebody or somebodies.
Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.
"When all you have is a hammer ..."
In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
I support anarchism, not chaos.
----- End forwarded message -----
While it may seem to be over 23 years 'too late', I will indeed answer this last line of comment, assuming that I did not do so in September 1996:.
From above, "I support anarchism, not chaos."
To equate "anarchy" with "chaos" is the classic error. In my AP
I agree with that.
That was not my question though. Yes the colloquial use of the term "anarchy" is generally chaos, thus my use of the term "anarchism" etc.
Well, people can and do misuse terminology. Yes, I believe that a large fraction of people who call themselves 'anarchists', or who are called by others 'anarchists', are merely died-in-the-wool Communists, Socialists, or leftists whose favorite ideology miserably failed over the period of 1917 through 2019.
What I am equating is as follows: AP, with a very great potential for chaos, and if not chaos per se, for a significant increase in fear in the average dissident. YIKES! I suppose it doesn't occur to you. Why do we NEED "dissidents"? And by "dissidents", I mean a person to openly and publicly opposes some existing system. TODAY'S society needs "dissidents", because policies adopted by GOVERNMENTS need (with the existing system) to be publicly opposed, in order to force change. And that means public protests, including on the streets, What other tools do most people recognize? In an AP world, "protesting", in the classical sense, isn't necessary. If the government has a policy you don't like, donate to a fund to see your un-favorite politician DEAD DEAD DEAD. And you will be able to do so ANONYMOUSLY!!! Did you simply forget that straightforward concept? Will that necessarily result in a dead politician? No, but it will most likely be a politician who has resigned, or who changes the hated policies he previously had supported. WHY DID I BOTHER to write AP, when people misunderstand it so? I thought it was all quite clear! You are apparently stuck in the 1994 world pre-AP. You assume that AP changes NOTHING. In contrast, I claim it changes just about EVERYTHING. As I said in AP Part 2: "Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes." Do you REALLY not understand this?
And I further note, that dissidents are the exact folks actual anarchists ought be supporting - at least it should not be objectionable to support dissidents who diss: The work that used to be done by "dissidents" will be done by AP. Nobody will need to stand up, raise their fist, march in the street, or protest.
> - peacefully
- who protest peacefully And oftentimes, "peacefully" doesn't work.
> - who peacefully conscientiously object to some arbitrary rights suppressing statute law and therefore choose to not obey that law when "failing to obey that law" harms no one
Why do you keep forgetting what AP is DESIGNED to do?
The issue I am raising here is the threshold issue - the marginal dissident is the dissident who is on the border line being:
- actually acting (doing something) in pursuance of his dissidence (opposition to systemic problems/ corruption etc), vs
> - not doing anything in pursuance of his dissidence, due to fear
How much "fear" will he have, to donate a few dollars to see crooked politicians dead?
And the inescapable question which presents itself is, will AP move the line of marginal dissidents, way back to an extreme position, where only extremely dissident and extremely courageous dissidents DARE TO ACT in pursuance of their contrary positions and views in relation to the dominant structures present in society at that point in time?
I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. But unfortunately, if you really don't understand how AP will work, none of your hypotheticals will likely be relevant.
Again, we cannot escape the natural human desire, or at least tendency, to immediately establish hierarchies of authority, capacity, authority, will and any other vector we analyse, where none presently exists. I realize that you may think this is true, but that is clearly because you DON'T UNDERSTAND AP! NOT AT ALL!!!
Put another way, notwithstanding what most say:
> "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy."
People used to say, "Nature abhors a vacuum"But it wasn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)
>"Humans desire the sense of stability that externalization of authority provides to their feels."
One major problem with your idea is that, the reality is that most people grow up under such heirarchical power structures. Raise people under such circumstances, and they LEARN to live with that system. But that does not mean that this is a rule that cannot be changed.
> "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy." So what's your point?
And this is why we use the word "revolution" (or even evolution) when discussing any concept which might upturn the entire present systems of hierarchy (power) - there is nothing but a revolving from one system of hiearchy to some other system of hiearchy.
I think you don't understand David Friedman's "The Hard Problem" from his book, "The Machinery of Freedom". Yes, in a pre-AP world, nobody (else) could figure out how to get rid of heirarchical power structures. Even I didn't figure it out, until January 1995. But then I did.
Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely unavoidable. "Nature abhors a vacuum". Prior to January 1995, nobody else knew how to do that. Not since then.
No matter how utopian the socialist Marxist collective, no matter how anarchic and free of statutes, no matter how blank the slate we can achieve with our glorious resent due to $FUNKY_ANARCHY_SYSTEM_XYZ, humans will, absolutely, immediately go about creating new hierarchies!
Which is pretty much a perfect statement of David Friedman's "Hard Proble". You haven't learned.
I am emphasizing this point, because this point seems to be lost on a lot of actual (or at least self proclaimed) anarchists.
We anarchists most often fail to grapple with basic human nature.
Many "we anarchists" clearly don't understand my AP essay.
We tend almost ubiquitously to being technocrats, presuming our wonderful system
>- social system
>- non-system system
>- computer crypto overlay funk
>- digital next gen fiat 2 point 0
>- AP or any other system etc
will somehow, if instituded widely and in short order, somehow magically cause existing present-day humans to live in freedom, free of fear, and allowing one another (our neighbours) to be in peace.
There's nothing "magic" about it, although it might seem that way to people who don't understand AP.
This is a fallacy of the first order no less!
I'm amazed you don't understand AP. I'd tell you to "read the archives", but SOMEBODY FUCKING LOST IT!!
Humans crave hiearchy and will FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH to claim their own version of utopian hierarchy!
<sigh>
The things we can hope for:
I hope you actually do the mental work to understand how AP is supposed to function. I did. And unlike you, I had nobody else around to help me, or explain it to me.
> - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive revolution
I suppose you are assuming that there is some clear distinction between these alternatives, or which is which. I've long argued that AP, once operating smoothly, will not shed a lot of blood. The reason is that if 'the bad guys' know that it is virtually 100% certain they will be targeted, they will realize that they will have no alternatives other than:1. Die.2. Resign. Can you explain what third alternative they have to choose?
- a revolution to a new hiearchy which is a little more sane than the present hierarchy
I think that many people who actually UNDERSTAND AP think of it as being a major improvement on any proposed alternative, and certainly over the status quo. .
> - a new system which somehow achieves a greater level of "inculcation with the average human" of a valueing of fundamental human rights and a knowledge of what freedom actually means, to live freedom on a day to day basis
Put people in a system which destroys heirarchical power structures, and I am quite confident people will adjust and adapt. Why do you think they won't?
Such peaceful revolution may be not possible, I really have no idea.
I do "have an idea". And I wrote it into my AP essay 1995-96. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
Have more respect for people who actually take major risks to bring you freedom.
I am hopeful of the following basic premise being true though - that a system providing a useful level of privacy and anonymity for free speech will help to move the courage line for marginal dissidents, in the direction of "more folks experience more courage to speak their own truths".
Wake up! WAKE UP! "Dissidents" are not necessary!!! (with apologies to late Portland Oregon retailer Tom Peterson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUKjbUrxXE "Wake up! Wake up!" DONORS are necessary. Dissidents are not.
essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled: In part 5:
"Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of AP quote------- Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area in the 1990-1994 time frame. The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is well-described by the term "statism". But we, the Cypherpunks, should understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the various forms of 'digital cash'. That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the implications of an AP-driven society.
"I continue to see that those with the power to print unlimited fiats, shall have the upper hand against all dissidents, anarchists, and peaceful protesters."
If you know who they are, target them. If you don't know who they are, offer rewards anonymously to find out who they are and where they live and work., Then target them. Then watch them run.
As a consequence of my own thinking on this,"
Which, sadly, cannot be very consequential.
and this which I see, it appears to me inescapable that there is zero certainty, and great uncertainty, that AP shall usher in anything other than the unleashing of a great evil.?
Given your clear lack of understanding, I am not surprised you say that.
When unleashed, the list of those who dedicate their lives to opposing powerful evil in a way which draws the interest of those who print the fiats, is the immediate list for those printing the fiats to target/ game/ dispense with in short order:
How will the "good guys" be identified if they don't need to stand up and protest?
Richard Stallman
Julian Assange
Jim Bell
Jacob Applebaum
Andrew Breitbart
Dmitry Sklyarov
Aaron Swartz
John Young
Zenaan Harkness
Juan
and an endless list more
Jim, were AP in play, and you invented some concept of similar notoriety which was designed to dish out justice to the elite fiat printers, why would those elite fiat printers not have, instead of subjected you to 13 years of jail and illegal appeal behind your back etc, instead just whopped a few fiat on one of the various AP markets, and had you, Jim Bell, dispensed with in short order?
Please learn what AP actually means, and call me back.
(And so the final question, why is unleashing such "freedom to pay for killing other humans", wise?)
Call me when the existing alternative actually begins to work. It hasn't yet.
Jim Bell
I think I should add a comment. It should go without saying that virtually all the information which should be in the CP archive exists, somewhere, on the face of the Earth. Perhaps it is in stacks of 1.44 megabyte floppies rubber-banded together, in cardboard boxes, long-retired 500-megabyte hard drives, all in closets, shelves, basements, and attics of the world. Maybe even in QIC-40 backup tapes. The problem is that it is not easily acquirable, 2 decades + later. So, we should not take the eventual fact that this information trickles back as any indication that "no fraud has occurred". Some innocent loss could have occurred, sure, but I think we will be able to identify the difference. The person(s) who has attempted to defraud the CP archive did not intend that they could completely eliminate this information. They knew that probably thousands of copies of the truth would remain, hard to get, around the world. Instead, they seem to have been wildly successful at generating a phony set of data, leaving at least dozens or hundreds of supposedly-intelligent people in the dark. And so far, the only reason that this fraud has been detected is because I sought a simple, single-piece of information from what should have been in that archive: The date (and posting) of the very first appearance of the AP essay, Part 1, on the CP list. A virtually trivial request. And the archive came up empty. I don't expect that they actually generated any phony text, That would have been HARD, given its potential volume! What I think they probably did was to sort the correct archive information by 'thread', and then simply deleted any thread they chose to remove, over any time frame they wanted the information to "disappear". Or deleted postings by specific authors, or subjects. And, perhaps, delete individual comments that they wanted the archive to "lose". Effectively, they simply caused that information to 'evaporate'. And maybe they accomplished this by, in the end, "helpfully" donating what they called "a partial archive" to people intending to create an archive. Did they fail or did they succeed? So far, I think they succeeded well beyond their wildest dreams, Sorry, guys, but YOU'VE BEEN HAD! Virtually all of you! The big goal here is NOT to generate a new, correct archive. The true goal is to expose the people who worked to fake this information. At this point, the "archives" themselves must be archived, so as to later make possible a forensic analysis of WHO faked this information. Let's not get sidelined by claiming that 'the goal' is to 'fix the archive'. At this point, we don't know who they are, but you have a task ahead of you. And pay close attention to anyone who resists such an inquiry!! They will probably be the same people who have long caused trouble on the CP list. THEY are hostile to its proper goals. Jim Bell On Friday, November 1, 2019, 11:45:52 AM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: Remember, all I INITIALLY wanted to do was to find the first instance where the topic of AP appeared in the list. Then I (and others) have quickly discovered what appears to be a weird omission of postings. I think many of my postings appear, just none (prior to November 1995) on the subject of AP. I cannot say much about other subjects, simply because I haven't looked at other threads, and I don't claim to be able to remember what other ideas were being discussed. This may end up being a substantial piece of work, which could take time. I ask again, could somebody find the date of the AP-essay appearance on CP? Maybe that will be a simple, discrete task that could be quickly done? Once a better picture of what data is missing appears, I will probably have no choice but to cry "fraud!!!". And I think we should pay attention to people, here, who AREN'T acting in a concerned fashion. What is their motivation? Does this possibility bother them? I think that the inactive (former?) Cypherpunks should be contacted, to inform them of the situation. They are, or should be, very concerned if this turns out to be an attack on the CP list. And we can learn a lot, by learning specifically what information was concealed, We don't need to immediately regenerate the entire archives in order to figure out what happened Jim Bell On Friday, November 1, 2019, 02:02:31 AM PDT, Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote: Jim, others: Archives were discussed in the list awhile ago, a few times. Riad had some, and so did another source. I have a copy here: https://www.petascale.org/cypherpunks/ (a few different versions) The "to do" item is to slurp the archives so they are all findable among the other archives at https://lists.cpunks.org .. I will eventually do this. I looked at the Yahoo! Groups archives mentioned in this list a couple of weeks ago, and they seemed to be the same thing: just a long-time "subscriber" to the list. If anyone thinks they have unique content not listed above, we can try to hustle up a method to get a copy. Best, Greg On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:50:25AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 06:21:01 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:30:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
My comments follow: On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:45:00 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> -----
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Subject: Re: [WAR] ... List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org>
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
How about we implement a working AP system?
As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.
How did you come to that conclusion? I have long believed (probably as early as 1995, though somebody seems to have LOST the archives!!!) that except for a relatively short transition period (maybe a couple of years?) there will eventually be formed a set of courts, at least vaguely similar to today's courts, but VOLUNTARY to both the "plaintiff" and "defendant". Why? The alleged 'perp' might arguably be innocent,. Or, he knows he's guilty, but he believes that death should not be his punishment. (and maybe he's right?) Or, the public who is willing to donate to see evil people dead knows that the facts are often not clear, Or, maybe one person is clearly guilty, but others who are not known are likely to exist. The jury system may not be perfect, but it is probably the best system devised by man to learn the truth..,.IF it is actually allowed to function properly, If you don't understand this concept, you must not actually have thought about the implications of an AP-type system. _I_ did!!! Long before I published Part 1, I worked through the implications, probably far better than most people on the CP list ever attempted. I feel certain that discussion of my AP essay on the CP list eventually included these possibilities. But now, SOMEBODY has LOST the archive! Or, maybe it has been deliberately tampered with by somebody or somebodies.
Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.
"When all you have is a hammer ..."
In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
I support anarchism, not chaos.
----- End forwarded message -----
While it may seem to be over 23 years 'too late', I will indeed answer this last line of comment, assuming that I did not do so in September 1996:.
From above, "I support anarchism, not chaos."
To equate "anarchy" with "chaos" is the classic error. In my AP
I agree with that.
That was not my question though. Yes the colloquial use of the term "anarchy" is generally chaos, thus my use of the term "anarchism" etc.
Well, people can and do misuse terminology. Yes, I believe that a large fraction of people who call themselves 'anarchists', or who are called by others 'anarchists', are merely died-in-the-wool Communists, Socialists, or leftists whose favorite ideology miserably failed over the period of 1917 through 2019.
What I am equating is as follows: AP, with a very great potential for chaos, and if not chaos per se, for a significant increase in fear in the average dissident. YIKES! I suppose it doesn't occur to you. Why do we NEED "dissidents"? And by "dissidents", I mean a person to openly and publicly opposes some existing system. TODAY'S society needs "dissidents", because policies adopted by GOVERNMENTS need (with the existing system) to be publicly opposed, in order to force change. And that means public protests, including on the streets, What other tools do most people recognize? In an AP world, "protesting", in the classical sense, isn't necessary. If the government has a policy you don't like, donate to a fund to see your un-favorite politician DEAD DEAD DEAD. And you will be able to do so ANONYMOUSLY!!! Did you simply forget that straightforward concept? Will that necessarily result in a dead politician? No, but it will most likely be a politician who has resigned, or who changes the hated policies he previously had supported. WHY DID I BOTHER to write AP, when people misunderstand it so? I thought it was all quite clear! You are apparently stuck in the 1994 world pre-AP. You assume that AP changes NOTHING. In contrast, I claim it changes just about EVERYTHING. As I said in AP Part 2: "Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes." Do you REALLY not understand this?
And I further note, that dissidents are the exact folks actual anarchists ought be supporting - at least it should not be objectionable to support dissidents who diss: The work that used to be done by "dissidents" will be done by AP. Nobody will need to stand up, raise their fist, march in the street, or protest.
> - peacefully
- who protest peacefully And oftentimes, "peacefully" doesn't work.
> - who peacefully conscientiously object to some arbitrary rights suppressing statute law and therefore choose to not obey that law when "failing to obey that law" harms no one
Why do you keep forgetting what AP is DESIGNED to do?
The issue I am raising here is the threshold issue - the marginal dissident is the dissident who is on the border line being:
- actually acting (doing something) in pursuance of his dissidence (opposition to systemic problems/ corruption etc), vs
> - not doing anything in pursuance of his dissidence, due to fear
How much "fear" will he have, to donate a few dollars to see crooked politicians dead?
And the inescapable question which presents itself is, will AP move the line of marginal dissidents, way back to an extreme position, where only extremely dissident and extremely courageous dissidents DARE TO ACT in pursuance of their contrary positions and views in relation to the dominant structures present in society at that point in time?
I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. But unfortunately, if you really don't understand how AP will work, none of your hypotheticals will likely be relevant.
Again, we cannot escape the natural human desire, or at least tendency, to immediately establish hierarchies of authority, capacity, authority, will and any other vector we analyse, where none presently exists. I realize that you may think this is true, but that is clearly because you DON'T UNDERSTAND AP! NOT AT ALL!!!
Put another way, notwithstanding what most say:
> "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy."
People used to say, "Nature abhors a vacuum"But it wasn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)
>"Humans desire the sense of stability that externalization of authority provides to their feels."
One major problem with your idea is that, the reality is that most people grow up under such heirarchical power structures. Raise people under such circumstances, and they LEARN to live with that system. But that does not mean that this is a rule that cannot be changed.
> "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy." So what's your point?
And this is why we use the word "revolution" (or even evolution) when discussing any concept which might upturn the entire present systems of hierarchy (power) - there is nothing but a revolving from one system of hiearchy to some other system of hiearchy.
I think you don't understand David Friedman's "The Hard Problem" from his book, "The Machinery of Freedom". Yes, in a pre-AP world, nobody (else) could figure out how to get rid of heirarchical power structures. Even I didn't figure it out, until January 1995. But then I did.
Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely unavoidable. "Nature abhors a vacuum". Prior to January 1995, nobody else knew how to do that. Not since then.
No matter how utopian the socialist Marxist collective, no matter how anarchic and free of statutes, no matter how blank the slate we can achieve with our glorious resent due to $FUNKY_ANARCHY_SYSTEM_XYZ, humans will, absolutely, immediately go about creating new hierarchies!
Which is pretty much a perfect statement of David Friedman's "Hard Proble". You haven't learned.
I am emphasizing this point, because this point seems to be lost on a lot of actual (or at least self proclaimed) anarchists.
We anarchists most often fail to grapple with basic human nature.
Many "we anarchists" clearly don't understand my AP essay.
We tend almost ubiquitously to being technocrats, presuming our wonderful system
>- social system
>- non-system system
>- computer crypto overlay funk
>- digital next gen fiat 2 point 0
>- AP or any other system etc
will somehow, if instituded widely and in short order, somehow magically cause existing present-day humans to live in freedom, free of fear, and allowing one another (our neighbours) to be in peace.
There's nothing "magic" about it, although it might seem that way to people who don't understand AP.
This is a fallacy of the first order no less!
I'm amazed you don't understand AP. I'd tell you to "read the archives", but SOMEBODY FUCKING LOST IT!!
Humans crave hiearchy and will FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH to claim their own version of utopian hierarchy!
<sigh>
The things we can hope for:
I hope you actually do the mental work to understand how AP is supposed to function. I did. And unlike you, I had nobody else around to help me, or explain it to me.
> - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive revolution
I suppose you are assuming that there is some clear distinction between these alternatives, or which is which. I've long argued that AP, once operating smoothly, will not shed a lot of blood. The reason is that if 'the bad guys' know that it is virtually 100% certain they will be targeted, they will realize that they will have no alternatives other than:1. Die.2. Resign. Can you explain what third alternative they have to choose?
- a revolution to a new hiearchy which is a little more sane than the present hierarchy
I think that many people who actually UNDERSTAND AP think of it as being a major improvement on any proposed alternative, and certainly over the status quo. .
> - a new system which somehow achieves a greater level of "inculcation with the average human" of a valueing of fundamental human rights and a knowledge of what freedom actually means, to live freedom on a day to day basis
Put people in a system which destroys heirarchical power structures, and I am quite confident people will adjust and adapt. Why do you think they won't?
Such peaceful revolution may be not possible, I really have no idea.
I do "have an idea". And I wrote it into my AP essay 1995-96. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
Have more respect for people who actually take major risks to bring you freedom.
I am hopeful of the following basic premise being true though - that a system providing a useful level of privacy and anonymity for free speech will help to move the courage line for marginal dissidents, in the direction of "more folks experience more courage to speak their own truths".
Wake up! WAKE UP! "Dissidents" are not necessary!!! (with apologies to late Portland Oregon retailer Tom Peterson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUKjbUrxXE "Wake up! Wake up!" DONORS are necessary. Dissidents are not.
essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled: In part 5:
"Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of AP quote------- Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area in the 1990-1994 time frame. The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is well-described by the term "statism". But we, the Cypherpunks, should understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the various forms of 'digital cash'. That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the implications of an AP-driven society.
"I continue to see that those with the power to print unlimited fiats, shall have the upper hand against all dissidents, anarchists, and peaceful protesters."
If you know who they are, target them. If you don't know who they are, offer rewards anonymously to find out who they are and where they live and work., Then target them. Then watch them run.
As a consequence of my own thinking on this,"
Which, sadly, cannot be very consequential.
and this which I see, it appears to me inescapable that there is zero certainty, and great uncertainty, that AP shall usher in anything other than the unleashing of a great evil.?
Given your clear lack of understanding, I am not surprised you say that.
When unleashed, the list of those who dedicate their lives to opposing powerful evil in a way which draws the interest of those who print the fiats, is the immediate list for those printing the fiats to target/ game/ dispense with in short order:
How will the "good guys" be identified if they don't need to stand up and protest?
Richard Stallman
Julian Assange
Jim Bell
Jacob Applebaum
Andrew Breitbart
Dmitry Sklyarov
Aaron Swartz
John Young
Zenaan Harkness
Juan
and an endless list more
Jim, were AP in play, and you invented some concept of similar notoriety which was designed to dish out justice to the elite fiat printers, why would those elite fiat printers not have, instead of subjected you to 13 years of jail and illegal appeal behind your back etc, instead just whopped a few fiat on one of the various AP markets, and had you, Jim Bell, dispensed with in short order?
Please learn what AP actually means, and call me back.
(And so the final question, why is unleashing such "freedom to pay for killing other humans", wise?)
Call me when the existing alternative actually begins to work. It hasn't yet.
Jim Bell
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 18:45:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Remember, all I INITIALLY wanted to do was to find the first instance where the topic of AP appeared in the list. Then I (and others) have quickly discovered what appears to be a weird omission of postings. I think many of my postings appear, just none (prior to November 1995) on the subject of AP. I cannot say much about other subjects, simply because I haven't looked at other threads, and I don't claim to be able to remember what other ideas were being discussed.
John Young was subscribed at that time and so was James Donald. Maybe they know something...
Yes, maybe, but not telling unless subpoenaed by Oregon grand jury, again. Jim's solo search, critique and call for multitudes to help: resisters, supporters, haters, admirers, sarcasters, jokers, is on a troll roll. Consider this op is not by the real Jim Bell but an imposter. Consider also, Real Jim was murdered in prison, or suicided. Carl Edward Johnson, a cpunk Bell supporter, who went to prison for it, possesses dox on those who whacked or Epsteined the Real Jim. This too as been excised from the archives, rightly so. Beyond not telling, look for a 1995 connection to Assange, not his real name either, its Dr Proff. Moreover, Tim May and Jude Milhon are alive in North Dakota living with gobs of armaments and cats in an impregnable missile silo. "Punk - Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote
John Young was subscribed at that time and so was James Donald. Maybe they know something...
Remember, all I INITIALLY wanted to do was to find the first instance where the topic of AP appeared in the list. Then I (and others) have quickly discovered what appears to be a weird omission of postings.
...an "assassination" of sorts.
I think many of my postings appear, just none (prior to November 1995) on the subject of AP. I cannot say much about other subjects, simply because I haven't looked at other threads, and I don't claim to be able to remember what other ideas were being discussed. This may end up being a substantial piece of work, which could take time. I ask again, could somebody find the date of the AP-essay appearance on CP? Maybe that will be a simple, discrete task that could be quickly done? Once a better picture of what data is missing appears, I will probably have no choice but to cry "fraud!!!". And I think we should pay attention to people, here, who AREN'T acting in a concerned fashion. What is their motivation? Does this possibility bother them?
Yes. I was on the list back in the 90s, shortly after the WIRED cover in '93. I find it odd. I have seen several strange internet-related omissions and interference related to internet revolutionaries who don't follow the dominant liberal or conservative political masters. I, myself, have been a target on sites such as StackExchange where they've tried to delete my content when they have a freaking VOTING MODEL for the community to decide! Anyway, best of luck, fellow dissident, Marxos Earth
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:04:59PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:
Remember, all I INITIALLY wanted to do was to find the first instance where the topic of AP appeared in the list. Then I (and others) have quickly discovered what appears to be a weird omission of postings.
...an "assassination" of sorts.
I think many of my postings appear, just none (prior to November 1995) on the subject of AP. I cannot say much about other subjects, simply because I haven't looked at other threads, and I don't claim to be able to remember what other ideas were being discussed. This may end up being a substantial piece of work, which could take time. I ask again, could somebody find the date of the AP-essay appearance on CP? Maybe that will be a simple, discrete task that could be quickly done? Once a better picture of what data is missing appears, I will probably have no choice but to cry "fraud!!!". And I think we should pay attention to people, here, who AREN'T acting in a concerned fashion. What is their motivation? Does this possibility bother them?
Yes. I was on the list back in the 90s, shortly after the WIRED cover in '93. I find it odd. I have seen several strange internet-related omissions and interference related to internet revolutionaries who don't follow the dominant liberal or conservative political masters. I, myself, have been a target on sites such as StackExchange where they've tried to delete my content when they have a freaking VOTING MODEL for the community to decide!
Anyway, best of luck, fellow dissident,
Marxos Earth
Now here's a concept that may be new to you Marxos - always look at the puppet masters, follow the money - you may find the ultimate StackExchange ownership and actual control (behind the scenes), close to the main stream media ownership model where ~94% is owned by one notable, smallish, notoriously pro-their-own-ethnostate, and outsized in influence, tribe. Hint: StackExchange may have experienced a solid "Shut it down!" moment...
participants (6)
-
\0xDynamite -
Greg Newby -
jim bell -
John Young -
Punk - Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness