{}coin: good enough for election politics?
From the techno-political-economic angle, it looks like overlaying distributed high-frequency futures trading would provide more than enough noise on top of fully-surveillable {}coin to provide a sufficient anonymity set, while actually providing a usefull value to us farmers, who could actually see who's on the other side of a
I may be a fool, but I'm not fool enough to play with Assassination politcs. I am, however, stupid enough to go do something provacative like attempt to prove that code is speech, money is code, and someone better figure out a better way to deal with campaign finance or we are all screwed. So I present {}coin, the broken cryptocurrency, neutered of all the privacy I can strip out of it, for broken election systems. https://bitbucket.org/dahozer/-- Could a good anonoperson cipherpunk tack on higher-level layers that are actually anonymous, as opposed too what I see being proposed for Bitcoin? Probably. trade. The experts at stealth, redirection, misdirection, and over-all dirty tricks (aka Wall Street) could simply move up a few layers and continue their anonymous game-of-thrones ( I mean game of CEO), and hide in plain sight in huge volumes of trades, and then so could anyone else. But then **I** don't have to pay to be someone else's anonymity set, and I could make money if I wanted to play that game, and take money from those who want to hide, instead of having value siphoned off by thousands of economic vampires hiding under regulatory capture of our current finance system. Does this sound anywhere near possible, or am I just an optimistic hashcash fool?
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
I may be a fool, but I'm not fool enough to play with Assassination politcs. I am, however, stupid enough to go do something provacative like attempt to prove that code is speech,
Already litigated in the USA, with very strange results: for example, code printed on your T-Shirt is free speech, while the same code may be a munition if instantiated on a processor. Money == spech (recent SCOTUS explosion of pro corporate diareaha). bits (for email) may be private, or not, depending on whether they are "at rest" or "in motion", etc... There are an unknown number of permutations, which leads to the inevitable realization that everything must be protected from governmental decisions as to whether any subset of bits is "free" or forbidden, by making the meaningful only to the entities (persons or corps) that have an actual right to know: encrypt *everything*, and only let those who you want to have access be able to decrypt them.
... and someone better figure out a better way to deal with campaign finance or we are all screwed.
Too late in the US. And with Roberts being such a young guy, expect no changes for a very, *very*, long time.
So I present {}coin, the broken cryptocurrency, neutered of all the privacy I can strip out of it, for broken election systems.
Very bad idea. Allowing the entire planet know your financial contributions [trail] will lock you out of some employers, lose your job with still other employers, act as a basis for reputational destruction of future candidates inder the right [or wrong] conditions, etc. The problem I think you are looking to "solve" is *Corporate* anonymity/pseudonymity. Won't happen under todays paradigm: the *fix* is to go back to separation of "natural persons" and "Corporate/chartered persons". The two types of personhood were never designed to be ewuals, yet her we are. :-(
https://bitbucket.org/dahozer/--
Could a good anonoperson
WTF is an "anonoperson"?
cipherpunk tack on higher-level layers that are actually anonymous, as opposed too what I see being proposed for Bitcoin? Probably.
From the techno-political-economic angle, it looks like overlaying distributed high-frequency futures trading would provide more than enough noise on top of fully-surveillable {}coin to provide a sufficient anonymity set, while actually providing a usefull value to us farmers, who could actually see who's on the other side of a trade.
Obscurity as actual security isn't going to fly anymore (if it ever did).
The experts at stealth, redirection, misdirection, and over-all dirty tricks (aka Wall Street) could simply move up a few layers and continue their anonymous game-of-thrones ( I mean game of CEO), and hide in plain sight in huge volumes of trades, and then so could anyone else.
You are describing the state of the world today, at least in *most* jurisdictions. Hell, fully automated trading has had the effect of greying out their respective meta-transactions from most forensic accountants since the mid-80's, but only for routine audits. If you know what youre looking for the meta is easy to see, and prove.
But then **I** don't have to pay to be someone else's anonymity set, and I could make money if I wanted to play that game, and take money from those who want to hide, instead of having value siphoned off by thousands of economic vampires hiding under regulatory capture of our current finance system.
And this seems fair to you? Why would we want to penalize the excersize of privacy?????
Does this sound anywhere near possible, or am I just an optimistic hashcash fool?
First off, I liked H/C: we even had a local bank here that dealt in H/C! Secondly though, I think you need to re-examine the privacy implications of the systems you are advocating. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:40 , J.A. Terranson
... and someone better figure out a better way to deal with campaign finance or we are all screwed.
Too late in the US. And with Roberts being such a young guy, expect no changes for a very, *very*, long time.
So I present {}coin, the broken cryptocurrency, neutered of all the privacy I can strip out of it, for broken election systems.
Very bad idea. Allowing the entire planet know your financial contributions [trail] will lock you out of some employers, lose your job with still other employers, act as a basis for reputational destruction of future candidates inder the right [or wrong] conditions, etc.
The problem I think you are looking to "solve" is *Corporate* anonymity/pseudonymity. Won't happen under todays paradigm: the *fix* is to go back to separation of "natural persons" and "Corporate/chartered persons". The two types of personhood were never designed to be ewuals, yet her we are. :-(
The fundamental problem is that we need to protect the anonymity of the common people supporting minority views, and keep public the rich and powerful’s lobbying and campaign contributions (and avoid having them simply filter money through others to hide their actions).
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 05:10:58 J.A. Terranson pisze:
The problem I think you are looking to "solve" is *Corporate* anonymity/pseudonymity. Won't happen under todays paradigm: the *fix* is to go back to separation of "natural persons" and "Corporate/chartered persons". The two types of personhood were never designed to be ewuals, yet her we are. :-(
Pretty much this. We need to dismantle the modern-day nobility: http://rys.io/en/77 Corporations are "people" with their "free speech": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission ...trying to have their "privacy": http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-att-privacy-idUSTRE7203UN201103... ...having their own courts and enactin their own laws. They are impossible to kill and impossible to be thrown in jail. They have (almost) all the rights of people without many of the duties, and without any of the morality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_%28film%29 http://rys.io/en/61 This is why we can't have nice things. -- Pozdr rysiek
On 2014-01-21 21:45, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 05:10:58 J.A. Terranson pisze:
The problem I think you are looking to "solve" is *Corporate* anonymity/pseudonymity. Won't happen under todays paradigm: the *fix* is to go back to separation of "natural persons" and "Corporate/chartered persons". The two types of personhood were never designed to be ewuals, yet her we are. :-(
Pretty much this. We need to dismantle the modern-day nobility: http://rys.io/en/77
Corporations are "people" with their "free speech": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
...trying to have their "privacy": http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-att-privacy-idUSTRE7203UN201103...
Corporations are people. If you grant lesser rights to corporations than to natural people, then the state can, and will, make corporations fire anyone suspected of thinking politically incorrect thoughts. Turned on the news last night, they were interviewing some silicon valley people, and the interviewer asked about how corporations viewed this and that. One of the interviewees replied "I am a corporation". He complained that he was subject to secret orders by a secret court, which lawless orders he could not tell anyone about, that he himself was being spied upon, that as well as being required to turn over information officially, his information was being stolen unofficially, and that foreign customers had (correctly) come to distrust him. A corporation is freedom of association, a group of people that agree together to act as one. In order to act as one, they delegate complete power over the collective assets of the project to one of themselves, the CEO, who is, often one of the major shareholders. Thus a corporation is people, people agreeing to associate, and corporation is a person, in that the people agreeing to associate commonly nominate one of themselves to be that person.
OHAI, Dnia środa, 22 stycznia 2014 07:35:10 James A. Donald pisze:
On 2014-01-21 21:45, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 05:10:58 J.A. Terranson pisze:
The problem I think you are looking to "solve" is *Corporate* anonymity/pseudonymity. Won't happen under todays paradigm: the *fix* is to go back to separation of "natural persons" and "Corporate/chartered persons". The two types of personhood were never designed to be ewuals, yet her we are. :-(
Pretty much this. We need to dismantle the modern-day nobility: http://rys.io/en/77
Corporations are "people" with their "free speech": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commissio n
...trying to have their "privacy": http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-att-privacy-idUSTRE7203UN2011 0301
Corporations are people.
No. They are *made of* people. This is not the same thing.
If you grant lesser rights to corporations than to natural people, then the state can, and will, make corporations fire anyone suspected of thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
What? I call bull. First of all, it's not the corporation's decision, it's a decision made always by *some person*. You don't have to give corporations these rights, as people that corporations consist of already have them. So, the government still cannot make *these people* fire other people for political views. Secondly, it's all about the responsibility. If the responsibility for decisions stops at corporation level, we're fucked, as we are currently, because people that actually make the decisions (in the end people make decisions, not corporations!) think "whatever, even if something gets fucked up, I'm in the clear, so why bother".
Turned on the news last night, they were interviewing some silicon valley people, and the interviewer asked about how corporations viewed this and that. One of the interviewees replied "I am a corporation". He complained that he was subject to secret orders by a secret court, which lawless orders he could not tell anyone about, that he himself was being spied upon, that as well as being required to turn over information officially, his information was being stolen unofficially, and that foreign customers had (correctly) come to distrust him.
But that still can be solved by bringing the rights and responsibilities down to personal level. If a "secret order" issued to a corporation is in violation of rights of physical people working there (as it seems to be in this case), the order is unlawful, full stop. Solved.
A corporation is freedom of association, a group of people that agree together to act as one.
Don't mix the freedom of association with the convenience of removed responsibility, or responsibility attached not to people, but to some legal fiction. The former is crucial, the latter is dangerous.
In order to act as one, they delegate complete power over the collective assets of the project to one of themselves, the CEO, who is, often one of the major shareholders. Thus a corporation is people, people agreeing to associate, and corporation is a person, in that the people agreeing to associate commonly nominate one of themselves to be that person.
But corporations are thus ubermensch -- they have all the rights and powers of a person, without many of the responsibilities, with no danger of being imprisoned, and the only real legal sanction the courts (and thus, the rest of people) have against them are fines. Which, if the corporation is large enough, can be factored-in as cost of doing business, hence being passed on to customers. So, passed to other people. The problem is that our laws and constitutions had been written in times when governments had been by far the biggest threats to personal freedoms, possessions and life. They had posed (and continue to pose) a real threat because: 1. their sheer power (in terms of money, information, military power, etc) 2. human flaws (power corrupts, etc) 3. (perceived) removal of responsibility ("what could they do to me anyway") Today all three (power, human factor and perceived removal of responsibility) is present in largest multinationals. I see no reason to fear them less than governments. In fact, I am dreading the coming day the first corporation announces independence. -- Pozdr rysiek
James A. Donald:
Corporations are people.
rysiek wrote:
No. They are *made of* people. This is not the same thing.
Is the same thing in any case that matters, such as freedom of speech, search without reasonable cause, and so on and so forth.
If you grant lesser rights to corporations than to natural people, then the state can, and will, make corporations fire anyone suspected of thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
What? I call bull.
Happens every day.
First of all, it's not the corporation's decision, it's a decision made always by *some person*.
But that person is not an officer of the corporation, but an employee of the government.
You don't have to give corporations these rights, as people that corporations consist of already have them.
That is backwards from reality. People that corporations consist of lose these rights, such as freedom of speech, because the government violates the rights of the corporation.
James A. Donald:
Corporations are people.
If you grant lesser rights to corporations than to natural people, then the state can, and will, make corporations fire anyone suspected of thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
rysiek wrote:
What? I call bull.
James A. Donald:
Happens every day.
For example, Pax Dickinson was fired for crimethink The person who called for his firing was Anil, who holds regulatory government powers over the company that employed Pax Dickinson. I was pretty amazed that he went for it. He flat out said that he wants his startup to be funded and wasn’t sure if it’d be possible after all of his, and I replied that it realistically wasn’t going to happen without the say-so of someone like me, and I wasn’t inclined to give some VC the nod on this. So, these days, the merely wealthy need a nod from the likes of Anil, the powerless need to run all their decisions past the powerful.
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 11:29 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald:
Corporations are people.
If you grant lesser rights to corporations than to natural people, then the state can, and will, make corporations fire anyone suspected of thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
rysiek wrote:
What? I call bull.
James A. Donald:
Happens every day.
For example, Pax Dickinson was fired for crimethink
Pax Dickinson was fired for being a rampant misogynist. I can see how that would upset you, being also a rampant misogynist/racist asshole, but nobody *really likes* people like you, and surely as an overt corporatist you must realize that you have no right to be employed if your employer doesn't want to be around an asshole. That also rather obviously had nothing to do with "the state" and far more to do with the massively bad PR that comes from employing openly misogynist assholes. No matter what domain your email account is on, you're obviously a troll at this point, and you're going in my killfile. -- Sent from Ubuntu
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:55:58AM -0500, Ted Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 11:29 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
For example, Pax Dickinson was fired for crimethink
Pax Dickinson was fired for being a rampant misogynist. I can see how that would upset you, being also a rampant misogynist/racist asshole,
So, I'm not James, nor do I have much of anything in common with him at all, but I'm far more creeped out by Anil Dash's self-righteous chortling over his own perception of holding Dickinson's career future hostage than I am at Dickinson's firing. "What is new in our time," Bertrand Russell once said, "is the increased power of the authorities to enforce their prejudices." Let me ask you this: put me in Pax's shoes. (You can substitute something offensive I'd be likely to say for Pax's actual words, if that helps with the cognitive dissonance. Perhaps something about guns. Or titties, I say some pretty crass things about titties too.) Suppose I then ended up across that lunch table from Dash, and that Dash had made the same "you'll never see VC if I can help it" threat. That's where the cognitive dissonance kicks in too strongly for me to continue the Gedankenexperiment: Dash would never make that threat to a woman, for fear of the ANIL DASH THREATENS FEMALE ENTREPRENEUR headlines that would flow like wine afterward. Dickinson was Fair Game, in Dash's view, and Dash accordingly displayed all the civility and restraint of a Hubbardite zealot, cloaked as it was under the veneer of a genteel Manhattan business lunch. Anil Dash fancies himself an authority, and fancies his position to be one from which enforcing his prejudices constitutes acceptable behaviour. The only authority he actually holds is money and relationships with other people who have money, but his demonstrated eagerness to use that authority to punish nonbelievers marks him as a danger to free thought and free discourse. Don't let that sycophantic scumbag anywhere near public office, is all I'm sayin'. --mlp
On 2014-01-24 02:56, Meredith L. Patterson wrote:
Anil Dash fancies himself an authority, and fancies his position to be one from which enforcing his prejudices constitutes acceptable behaviour. The only authority he actually holds is money
You are factually wrong: The authority Anil holds is government money and government permissions. He is on the revolving door between regulators and regulated.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:16:58AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2014-01-24 02:56, Meredith L. Patterson wrote:
Anil Dash fancies himself an authority, and fancies his position to be one from which enforcing his prejudices constitutes acceptable behaviour. The only authority he actually holds is money
You are factually wrong: The authority Anil holds is government money and government permissions. He is on the revolving door between regulators and regulated.
Are you referring to the fact that whatever currency he holds is fiat currency, or to his role as (e.g.) director of Expert Labs, or something else? (I know little about the man's history, just glanced at his LinkedIn.) --mlp
On 2014-01-24 09:30, Meredith L. Patterson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:16:58AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2014-01-24 02:56, Meredith L. Patterson wrote:
Anil Dash fancies himself an authority, and fancies his position to be one from which enforcing his prejudices constitutes acceptable behaviour. The only authority he actually holds is money
You are factually wrong: The authority Anil holds is government money and government permissions. He is on the revolving door between regulators and regulated.
Are you referring to the fact that whatever currency he holds is fiat currency, or to his role as (e.g.) director of Expert Labs, or something else? (I know little about the man's history, just glanced at his LinkedIn.)
Expert labs is a "Government 2.0 initiative that aims to connect United States government projects with citizens who want to become more involved in the political discussion". In other words, he is a political commissar. Expert labs is an NGO. NGO is code for GO, for when NGOs advertise jobs, they generally advertise those jobs as government employment. NGOs are government organizations that do stuff that is too embarrassing for the government to do, or which is illegal for the government to do.
From: James A. Donald
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:16:58AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2014-01-24 02:56, Meredith L. Patterson wrote:
Anil Dash fancies himself an authority, and fancies his position to be one from which enforcing his prejudices constitutes acceptable behaviour. The only authority he actually holds is money
You are factually wrong: The authority Anil holds is government money and government permissions. He is on the revolving door between regulators and regulated.
Are you referring to the fact that whatever currency he holds is fiat currency, or to his role as (e.g.) director of Expert Labs, or something else? (I know little about the man's history, just glanced at his LinkedIn.) Expert labs is a "Government 2.0 initiative that aims to connect United States government projects with citizens who want to become more involved in the political discussion".
In other words, he is a political commissar. Expert labs is an NGO. NGO is code for GO, for when NGOs advertise jobs, they generally advertise those jobs as government employment.
Hmmm, I thought that _I_ invented the concept of "Government 2.0" when I wrote my "Assassination Politics" essay in 1995-96. Or perhaps I should have called it, "Government Omega.Omega". Jim Bell
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Jim Bell wrote:
Hmmm, I thought that _I_ invented the concept of "Government 2.0" when I wrote my "Assassination Politics" essay in 1995-96. Or perhaps I should have called it, "Government Omega.Omega".
Jim Bell No... It should have ben called Government Delta.Delta. ;-)
//Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
Dnia piątek, 24 stycznia 2014 01:45:51 J.A. Terranson pisze:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Jim Bell wrote:
Hmmm, I thought that _I_ invented the concept of "Government 2.0" when I wrote my "Assassination Politics" essay in 1995-96. Or perhaps I should have called it, "Government Omega.Omega".
Jim Bell
No... It should have ben called Government Delta.Delta. ;-)
Aren't govenments and their agents often/usually Delta-Iota-Kappas? -- Pozdr rysiek
On 2014-01-24 02:56, Meredith L. Patterson wrote:
Anil Dash fancies himself an authority, and fancies his position to be one from which enforcing his prejudices constitutes acceptable behaviour. The only authority he actually holds is money and relationships with other people who have money,
He has no money of his own, only the ability to influence government funding. He has governmental power over people who have money.
Dnia czwartek, 23 stycznia 2014 17:56:16 Meredith L. Patterson pisze:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:55:58AM -0500, Ted Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 11:29 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
For example, Pax Dickinson was fired for crimethink
Pax Dickinson was fired for being a rampant misogynist. I can see how that would upset you, being also a rampant misogynist/racist asshole,
So, I'm not James, nor do I have much of anything in common with him at all, but I'm far more creeped out by Anil Dash's self-righteous chortling over his own perception of holding Dickinson's career future hostage than I am at Dickinson's firing.
"What is new in our time," Bertrand Russell once said, "is the increased power of the authorities to enforce their prejudices."
Thing is, today not only authorities have increased power to enforce their prejudices. Multinationals have sometimes even bigger power and possibilities as far as this is concerned -- just consider what Facebook can do in terms of censorship. Or Google. I'm not saying authorities and governments are not dangerous. I'm saying multinationals are as dangerous and we need to do something about it. -- Pozdr rysiek
--On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:42 AM +0100 rysiek
Thing is, today not only authorities have increased power to enforce their prejudices. Multinationals have sometimes even bigger power and possibilities as far as this is concerned -- just consider what Facebook can do in terms of censorship. Or Google.
I love how google censors autocomplete terms... 3, 2, 1, A conservative starts to pretend that 'private' censorship is not censorship! Also, it's funny how the jew-kristian-google-puritan monkeys censor, among other things, autocomplete terms related to porn and sex in general.
I'm not saying authorities and governments are not dangerous. I'm saying multinationals are as dangerous and we need to do something about it.
-- Pozdr rysiek
On 2014-01-24 11:18, Juan Garofalo wrote:
3, 2, 1, A conservative starts to pretend that 'private' censorship is not censorship!
If different corporations each had their own ideas on what should be censored, private censorship would not be censorship. The problem is that we hear one voice through a thousand megaphones.
Dnia piątek, 24 stycznia 2014 11:56:25 James A. Donald pisze:
On 2014-01-24 11:18, Juan Garofalo wrote:
3, 2, 1, A conservative starts to pretend that 'private' censorship is not
censorship!
If different corporations each had their own ideas on what should be censored, private censorship would not be censorship.
That, and one more condition: that we could choose different kinds of services and products independently. Unfortunately, different kinds of services and products are bundled in ways making it impossible for us to make informed choices, let alone choose them independently. For instance, if I go to food chain X, I only get soda Y. This is a very simple example of a huge problem, seen everywhere, esp. in the ICT sector. And it will only get more evident if net neutrality is not enforced.
The problem is that we hear one voice through a thousand megaphones.
For once, we agree. -- Pozdr rysiek
On 2014-01-24 10:42, rysiek wrote:
Thing is, today not only authorities have increased power to enforce their prejudices. Multinationals have sometimes even bigger power and possibilities as far as this is concerned -- just consider what Facebook can do in terms of censorship. Or Google.
Does it not strike you as odd that all censorship by facebook and google expresses the same political agenda, that of the state.
Dnia piątek, 24 stycznia 2014 11:40:36 James A. Donald pisze:
On 2014-01-24 10:42, rysiek wrote:
Thing is, today not only authorities have increased power to enforce their prejudices. Multinationals have sometimes even bigger power and possibilities as far as this is concerned -- just consider what Facebook can do in terms of censorship. Or Google.
Does it not strike you as odd that all censorship by facebook and google expresses the same political agenda, that of the state.
No, because it does not, at least not always. For instance, in Poland there were several cases of Facebook censoring/removing profiles that bashed large corporations for their actions. Of course multinationals and governments cooperate very closely on this, but it does not mean that for such censorship the government is solely responsible. And even if that would be the case -- even if ANY AND ALL cases of censorship and self-censorship in large, centralised, corporate communication and information platforms like Facebook or Google where government-ordered, my take on this would still be that we need to decentralise and spread them out, so as to make it so much harder for governments to censor. Because instead of going to a few one-stop-shops like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, Crapple and getting 95% of communication censored, the government would have to reach out to thousands upon thousands of private companies and persons and make them censor their infrastructure. Some would agree. Some would not. The latter group is why it's worthwhile. So any way you look at it, large multinationals are dangerous -- either on their own account, or through the simple fact that they make governments' "work" much, much easier. -- Pozdr rysiek
On 2014-01-24 01:55, Ted Smith wrote:
Pax Dickinson was fired for being a rampant misogynist.
He was fired for saying things, not doing things, fired for speaking out against affirmative action. In other words, you do not want freedom of speech for corporations, because that is a way of ensuring that individual humans employed by corporations do not have freedom of speech
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2014-01-24 01:55, Ted Smith wrote:
Pax Dickinson was fired for being a rampant misogynist.
He was fired for saying things, not doing things, fired for speaking out against affirmative action. In other words, you do not want freedom of speech for corporations, because that is a way of ensuring that individual humans employed by corporations do not have freedom of speech
Assuming all of your arguments to be correct (which I don't), I would want to remove "freedom of speech" for corporations because it artificially amplifies the voice of the corporate entity: the individuals who own the issued shares of the corporation already have these freedoms - by allowing the corporation "to speak", these "people" (both natural and atificial) are given more than their one individual opinions, (b) the corporation can be used to nullify the voices of the [natural] People comprising the corporation, and (c) the corporation has a narrow interest - making more money - which is often (if not always) at odds with those of the natural people who comprise the corporation. Corporations don't need food to eat, water to drink, and shelter to live: the People for which the Country acts as a home have interests that are at odds with the corporate focus on cash. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
J.A. Terranson
Assuming all of your arguments to be correct (which I don't), I would want to remove "freedom of speech" for corporations because it artificially amplifies the voice of the corporate entity: the individuals who own the issued shares of the corporation already have these freedoms
They ought to have these freedom, but in practice they don't. Hillary Clinton does not have to obey the campaign finance laws, leftists do not have to obey the campaign finance laws, but Kirk Shelmerdine does have to obey the campaign finance laws. And because corporations do not, in practice, have these freedoms, their employees and shareholders are denied these freedoms.
Dnia piątek, 24 stycznia 2014 19:02:39 James A. Donald pisze:
J.A. Terranson
Assuming all of your arguments to be correct (which I don't), I would want to remove "freedom of speech" for corporations because it artificially amplifies the voice of the corporate entity: the individuals who own the issued shares of the corporation already have these freedoms
They ought to have these freedom, but in practice they don't. Hillary Clinton does not have to obey the campaign finance laws, leftists do not have to obey the campaign finance laws, but Kirk Shelmerdine does have to obey the campaign finance laws.
And because corporations do not, in practice, have these freedoms, their employees and shareholders are denied these freedoms.
Maybe instead of giving the voice to a legal fiction we should work towards restoring the voice of real persons, eh?.. -- Pozdr rysiek
On 2014-01-24 01:55, Ted Smith wrote:
That also rather obviously had nothing to do with "the state" and far more to do with the massively bad PR that comes from employing openly misogynist assholes.
Anil was the state. Anil was not the public. The public quietly approves of what Pax said, though it is terrified to say so in public.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2014-01-24 01:55, Ted Smith wrote:
That also rather obviously had nothing to do with "the state" and far more to do with the massively bad PR that comes from employing openly misogynist assholes.
Anil was the state. Anil was not the public. The public quietly approves of what Pax said, though it is terrified to say so in public.
None of us can presume to 'know what the public thinks'. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:37 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2014-01-24 01:55, Ted Smith wrote:
That also rather obviously had nothing to do with "the state" and far more to do with the massively bad PR that comes from employing openly misogynist assholes.
Anil was the state. Anil was not the public. The public quietly approves of what Pax said, though it is terrified to say so in public.
None of us can presume to 'know what the public thinks'.
But James does. And he's going to continue insisting on presuming to. Is this conversation really helpful for the cypherpunks list? Is it signal or noise? Please, just killfile James already and move on with your life. There's no need to keep feeding that troll. I'm sorry if once, he was a productive list member. It's too late now, Jim. We have to accept it. -- Sent from Ubuntu
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Ted Smith wrote:
Is this conversation really helpful for the cypherpunks list?
At least as "helpful" as most of the other crap here.
Is it signal or noise?
One man's signal is another man's noise.
Please, just killfile James already and move on with your life. There's no need to keep feeding that troll.
I think I can make my own decisions as to who I killfile, and whom I consider a troll. I've known James a very long time now (early-mid '90s IIRC), and in my opinion he may have non-sensical beliefs on some things, but, he is most certainly NOT a troll: He comes by his beliefs and arguments honestly as far as I can tell. That may make him misinformed, or possibly worse, but he's certainly no troll.
I'm sorry if once, he was a productive list member. It's too late now, Jim. We have to accept it.
"We" don't have to accept *anything* except our own *personal* beliefs! I will not participate in mob tactics such as having some loner (you or anyone else) "suggest" that "we" follow any particular course of action. If you believe that Jim or anyone else is non-productive (???), you are free to add them to YOUR killfile. But for you to try and influence others to follow your personal world view makes *you* the defacto troll here. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:34 AM, J.A. Terranson
But for you to try and influence others to follow your personal world view makes *you* the defacto troll here.
Amen. Cypherpunks is a watering hole, pure and simple. Like any watering hole, there’s occasionally some blood in the water. Think of as extra protein. And iron. :-) Cheers, RAH
At 03:10 AM 1/20/2014, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Already litigated in the USA, with very strange results: for example, code printed on your T-Shirt is free speech, while the same code may be a munition if instantiated on a processor.
No, that one was never litigated, just administratively ignored. I was half-tempted to submit a FOIA request saying "Where's Raph's T-Shirt?" because his ITAR request for an export permit for the shirt was neither approved nor denied (or at least, it hadn't been replied to at all for quite a long time at that point.) It could only have been litigated if either he'd taken it to court or else they'd charged somebody with a crime for exporting it.
Money == spech (recent SCOTUS explosion of pro corporate diareaha).
Money might not exactly be "speech", but it's certainly "press". It's how you get your speech out to people who might listen to it. I get really tired of the kinds of people whose justification for censoring porn on the internet is "the first amendment's only about political speech" but when somebody actually wants to use it for political speech "no, can't do that, elections are WAY too important to let JUST ANYBODY say JUST ANYTHING they want!"
Too late in the US. And with Roberts being such a young guy, expect no changes for a very, *very*, long time. Roberts's real attraction for Bush was that he believes that anything the Executive Branch wants to do is Just Fine. He's probably more radical than Scalia about that. But while we're probably stuck with Roberts for the rest of my lifetime, the Court's balances can still change.
An American Spring is coming: one way or another. Given Global Warming, it'll probably be what we used to call "winter"...
participants (12)
-
Bill Stewart -
dan＠geer.org -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Jim Bell -
Juan Garofalo -
Meredith L. Patterson -
Philip Shaw -
Robert Hettinga -
rysiek -
Ted Smith -
Troy Benjegerdes