On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:22:44 -0000 So, how effective have your crypto techniques and tools been against the state?

Depends on what your metric is, I suppose. But, I'd argue that absent Matt Blaze's Clipper chip hack, your land line phones would have been entirely tapped well before 9/11. Sure, it didn't matter longer term because cell phones became the defacto standard. It remains to be seen whether Silent Circle will have an impact. Bitcoin is causing a stir, and providing the budding opportunity for an economy absent a state. These two examples, to my way of thinking, have had a more tangible outcome than observation, and discussion.. and perhaps, even more than outright protest. Because I don't see Wall St. responding to protests.. but they ARE responding to Bitcoin, and implementing their own block-chain mechanisms.

And what is stoping you from discussing crypto? Rhetorical question of course. The answer is, you and others can discuss whatever you want and ignore whatever posters you want to ignore. It's not like the list has a 100kb quota per day that's all being used up by 'off topic' posts.

Yeah, sure. I can ignore the pissing and moaning about the media, and the state. And likewise you can ignore my pissing and moaning about this list. Or, I can engage - as you can. It seems we're both favoring the later.

Is that supposed to mean : only 'abuses' of power are a problem, not power per se?

"I tried being an anarchist but there are too many rules." It's not supposed to mean anything other than what I said. People that make it to cypherpunks are already quite likely informed. I don't see the need in pointing out the obvious. But, to answer your inquiry about power directly, I'll bite. Do I think there are "legitimate" forms of power? Depends on what you mean by legitimate. Do I like it? No. But I accept reality. I wish that reality was different. It would be nice if power structures were different, and while I'm at it, I think I'd like to add more purples, and some green to the daily sunset. But that is all nonsense. Reality just IS. And reality IS that every social animal has a pecking order.. an alpha/beta dynamic. Humans are not exempt from this, and it manifests for us, in various forms, and governments and our institutions are among them. It's why the most driven, "alpha" sociopaths rise to power, and the whiny betas piss and moan about it, and don't. Changing that game is about a lot more than changing any individual institution. It is about more than changing ALL the institutions. Crypto won't help there, except as a tool to avoid state oppression. Activism and protests won't help, except as a means to draw attention to minor issues. Even if you manage to effect full-on insurrection, and get rid of alpha-male school bully #1, unless you change the very dynamic of behavior, some other douche will just take his place. And that, in a nutshell, is why I don't favor even bothering with most of this stuff. The depths of "the problem" go deep enough that all it does is to become its own form of distraction. Rather, I prefer to proceed this way: Find a small, soluble problem that fills a need. Propose a solution. Implement it. Repeat. If everyone does a little, a lot will get done.

"Don't get me wrong", I would love to have secure computing and telecom platforms, but it's painfully obvious that in the last 20 years we've moved in the exact opposite direction. Now the hardware comes compromised. "out of the box". And that's not because of off-topic posts to the cpunks mailing list.

No different than 20 years ago. You know Win95 wasn't secure. The remote exploits for Linux and BSD were laughable. If you want shit secure, then, as now, you have to work it over. In many respects, its a matter of shoveling shit against the tide, sure .. but actually doing the shoveling is more effect than philosophizing about the gravitational pull of the Moon, and the exact mechanisms of its producing tides. The moon exists. The alpha/beta dynamic exists. You fucking DEAL with it, you suck it up, and you shovel shit trying to clean up the fucking mess. Or, you deal with it, and shovel shit working for "the Man." It's just the nature of things. I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 09:20:15PM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

...

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:22:44 -0000

"I tried being an anarchist but there are too many rules."

Gold.

:)

Hah. Glad you got a kick out of it. That one got me laid once, in fact.

We can hope for the occasional 'benevolent' dictator. They might be rare, but they occasionally get into a seat of power.

For sure. I'd be an avowed monarchist if I could have even a 25% chance that the king would be a Marcus Aurelius. I don't think that such men are rare, in fact. I think they are smart enough to avoid politics. Politics attracts the worst of the lot.

I remain marginally hopeful you will never be proven wrong on "that which exists, exists."

But hey, I'd love to proven wrong on that too :)

Lol. Yeah, I don't think I'll get proven wrong on the existence part necessarily. But maybe someone will come up with a clever way to culture jam and get a whole bunch of quality people into the fold questioning the need for centralized institutions of power. You know, the main problem with anarchism is that there are no doctors and engineers to speak of. Its mostly political ideologues, and change-the-world hippies and freaks. A few ivory tower professors. Great people, in my experience, but you don't get solid respectable, work-a-day "professional" types that way, and they are the key.. the backbone, to any real social movement. That's why the hippies failed in the '60s. They couldn't get enough middle-class normies to smoke grass and fuck freely. It was too scary for them. In Zen monasteries, the roshi, the master, is treated like "one of the guys." You can make jokes, and poke fun at each other. That sort of thing. There is no grand show of deference inside the monastery. That is for the outside world. The roshi will wear fancy robes, and everyone will bow and all this. Because the knew that if you lived without authoritarianism, and showed it to the general public (especially a rigid society like Japan), it would be dangerous. But, you make a big show of bowing to some guy, and people think "oh ok.. they must be OK, they have structure like everyone else." But the monks know its all nonsense.. its just for show. It's an act, a play they perform. I've often thought that a successful anarchist movement would need to incorporate something like that.. as social camouflage.

Does not matter if your seats of power are in a global hegemonic empire, or merely the 12 seats on your local council, or some other system where a "benevolent dictator is supposed to wield ulatimte authority" - by "being too smart to get involved in politics", as you correctly point out,

Yes, I agree with you that it would be better for all if a different lot of people got involved in politics, whether at a local or global level, etc. The trouble is that it is difficult to convince people to act against their own immediate interests. For example, I happen to know an exceptionally smart woman that I think would be great in politics. But she'd get decimated in an election because of her lifestyle choices. She has a long-term, polygamous relationship and open relations with other people. There is an additional layer of complexity here: what individualist anarchist types view as "moral", "acceptable", and "normal" is fundamentally different than the population at large. And unfortunately, these are the types of things that the population focuses on; largely because they are unable to comprehend matters of the issues.

Well, you seem to get it, why have you not created a political party "Anarchy FTW" or some such?

I have, actually, at different times in life. The difficulty that I've run into is two fold. First, there has been a difficulty in uniting left-and-right oriented anarchists. That is "solvable" by simply focusing on one perspective and getting a group behind that. I don't much care, personally, if we're speaking about anarcho-capitalism, or anarcho-syndicalism, or whatever.

From my perspective, neither have be implemented at a large scale, and both seem to have advantages over the current failing system, so I'm happy to give either a chance. Others are more dogmatically ideological about it, in my experience.

But the bigger issue has been disruptive individuals. Whether they are just hard-line ideologues, or agent provocateurs, I won't bother to speculate. But the problem is that there is always a few individuals who manage to dominate the conversation, and derail practical things for some type of "purity." And to argue against them is to get labeled a sell-out, fascist sympathizer, or other nonsense. I was acquainted with an 'anarchist' group that ended up voting for George Bush Jr, the second time around on the "principle" that he is the worst choice, and that it would hasten the downfall of the State. I've been acquainted with others that advocate not voting at all.

How is it that, regardless of political philosophy underlying whatever political system currently prevails in the shared common delusion, that we can justify NOT being involved?

There are all manner of rational justifications for not running for office. Not wanting your personal life torn apart, and the people close to you harassed and hurt is damn good justification. There are less rational reasons to not vote.. even if you pencil in "no one" or "putin" or whatever nonsense, and take the time to encourage other members of the electorate to think differently about their duty while on line.

...

You know, the main problem with anarchism is that there are no doctors and engineers to speak of.

Speak for yourself.

And I encourage you, with a warm heart, to advise yourself to caution yourself in the words you use, in the genericisms you proudly flaunt as they they're God's given truth to the current reality.

I believe if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I was careful to use "to speak of" and "mostly" as needed. Perhaps I could have couched it more.

Guaranteed we could find at least a handful of "doctors and lawyers", who subscribe to at least some aspects of political anarchy!

Yes, of course. But a handful is not nearly enough, and I find that pragmatic professional types who aren't political ideologues don't want to waste time with a group composed of such people, which as I say, in my experience tend to be the type that crowd under the banner of anarchy.

I do wish there were an easier silver bullet where I could say to you "yeah, good on ya mate! go live your own life and avoid all politics it's all doomed anyway, so I pat your back for giving up mate!"

Well, I will say that I've all but given up on "anarchy." Or, rather, I've come around, perhaps, more to Thoreau's view: we're not ready for it. Today, I tend to put more focus on practical things, and rather avoid the ideology. What can be done to keep the internet as free as possible? What can be done to combat state surveillance? What can be done to see firearms rights preserved as best as possible? If I have to deal with National party folks, or Liberal party, or Greens, or whoever, thats fine.

... generally, learn to be a great human, a fantastic team player, a subtle and ego free behind the scenes influencer (if possible, I know from extended personal experience that ego is a shit of a thing to try to purge).

Indeed, sir. If people made this their life's work, I dare say most problems in the world would have already long faded to history textbooks. And yes, I agree. One's own ego is always the most difficult beast to slay.

Let's take turns wearing The Robe.

Now all we need is a suitably religious sounding yet subversive prayer chant to enchance the masses :)

Shouldn't be too hard. Most Zen is fairly subversive in its own right. In the 9th century, Zen master Ummon Zenji was asked "What's the Buddha?". He paused, and thought for a moment and replied "A dried shit-stick." There are many levels of meaning to this that I've often found it useful to ponder.

...

But the monks know its all nonsense.. its just for show. It's an act, a play they perform.

I've often thought that a successful anarchist movement would need to incorporate something like that.. as social camouflage.

You need to institute that as a cardinal rule I'd say.

:D

Indeed. Playing the game well, while remembering its a game, is the only real key to life, I'd say. Unfortunately, the ideological tend to get wrapped up in changing the game that gets played; not realizing it doesn't really make much difference whether we're playing Monopoly, or Chutes and Ladders so long as everyone is having a good time.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:11:43PM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote: We should probably imagine 10 year time frame, not 6 weeks :)

I think more on the scale of 100 years, but yeah. 10 would be wonderful.

But even though it's difficult, without a core of belligerently principled and strongly persistent fellow souls, you'll be a one man band, and that's no fun :/

Well, I dunno. I play a little guitar. I think it'd be a blast to be able able to rattle off some harmonica, and thump a pair of kick drums simultaneously. But I get your point.

An interim step could perhaps be "direct democracy" - some variant on Swiss style democracy.

Indeed. I don't often use the word "anarchist" in most discussions with people, unless the forum is such that I have good reason to believe they'll understand the real meaning of it. "Direct democracy" is an OK term. Most will appreciate it. Personally, I dislike it, because I am not that much of a fan of democracy the way most people think of it. i.e. Everyone is entitled to vote. I don't agree. One needs a license to drive a car. One needs a license to own a firearm. Rightly so. Exercising those rights can have real consequences for the public, and it seems prudent to make sure people have the information they need to be responsible. If voting TRULY mattered, if it was POWERFUL, you'd NEED a license for it. I feel this is a nuance most fail to grasp. "Anti-authoritarianism" is another OK term. Except I don't like labeling things "anti" .. you set up defining what you're AGAINST, rather than what you're FOR. Sets the wrong tone, in my estimation. It is, to me, very telling that we don't even have really appropriate terminology.. that is how deeply ingrained the authoritarian alpha/beta thing goes. And, as Chomsky would point out, if one lacks the language for something, it becomes very difficult to think properly about it. An old flame of mine likes to just drop the "anarcho" and call herself a Syndicalist. When people ask, she describes the free association of people into syndicates. She was fond of pointing out that it sounds bad-ass to people to "join a syndicate" .. calling up "romantic images" of joining outlaw crime syndicates, or such. I'm rather sure that wouldn't scale the way we want either. In certain contexts, all of these terms can be useful and effective.. but the lack of a single banner or anthem that most of the "fringe" can unite under is a real problem. And it isn't JUST a matter of terminology. The scattered, fragmented voice of the Occupy movement speaks to that problem. So many people know .. no.. more importantly FEEL.. deeply, truly feel that there is something wrong with our society. They can taste the plastic. The problem is, none of us can really KNOW what we want in its place, because we've never tasted anything else, except maybe in fantasy, or dreams.. perhaps a few fleeting few moments where one manages to escape the world, just for a moment, and catches the scent. One woman dreams of steak.. some older gent a bit of ice cream. The young kid wants a pizza. And we quibble over which one we should have.. and in the meantime, we're forced to subsist on the cafeteria slop. Its baffling to me now, but I remember being an ideologue. But for the life of me I can't remember what the fuck I was thinking.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:20:15 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:22:44 -0000 So, how effective have your crypto techniques and tools been against the state?

Depends on what your metric is, I suppose. But, I'd argue that absent Matt Blaze's Clipper chip hack, your land line phones would have been entirely tapped well before 9/11. Sure, it didn't matter longer term because cell phones became the defacto standard. It remains to be seen whether Silent Circle will have an impact.

I think, though I'm not completely sure, that there was a rather widespread opposition to the clipper chip, including opposition among more 'respectable' members of the establishment. The same members of the establishment that today fully backdoor their own chips, like intel and amd.

Bitcoin is causing a stir, and providing the budding opportunity for an economy absent a state.

Yes, bitcoin is interesting, but if so called regulators wanted to damage it, they could do so in a few days.

These two examples, to my way of thinking, have had a more tangible outcome than observation, and discussion.. and perhaps, even more than outright protest. Because I don't see Wall St. responding to protests.. but they ARE responding to Bitcoin, and implementing their own block-chain mechanisms.

I'm sure wall street would respond to real attacks against them. Whatever protests were done, I don't think they were serious. Real riotting and beating up bank owners doesn't seem like an irrelevant 'tool'. And yes, there seems to be a sizable amout of blockchain hype in the financial mafia, but I'm not sure what it means. It seems to mostly be...meaningless hype. Those people don't need any new crypto techniques - they have the ultimate technical device, the printing press, now gone digital. That and the state's guns.

...

And what is stoping you from discussing crypto? Rhetorical question of course. The answer is, you and others can discuss whatever you want and ignore whatever posters you want to ignore. It's not like the list has a 100kb quota per day that's all being used up by 'off topic' posts.

Yeah, sure. I can ignore the pissing and moaning about the media, and the state. And likewise you can ignore my pissing and moaning about this list.

=)

Or, I can engage - as you can. It seems we're both favoring the later.

...

Is that supposed to mean : only 'abuses' of power are a problem, not power per se?

"I tried being an anarchist but there are too many rules."

Haha! That's a good one =)

It's not supposed to mean anything other than what I said. People that make it to cypherpunks are already quite likely informed. I don't see the need in pointing out the obvious.

Seems to me that at least a few posters don't really get the full picture, but OK.

But, to answer your inquiry about power directly, I'll bite. Do I think there are "legitimate" forms of power? Depends on what you mean by legitimate. Do I like it? No. But I accept reality. I wish that reality was different. It would be nice if power structures were different, and while I'm at it, I think I'd like to add more purples, and some green to the daily sunset. But that is all nonsense. Reality just IS.

That's pretty much a tautology. But reality includes people, who are supposed to be moral agents and can choose to behave in different ways.

And reality IS that every social animal has a pecking order.. an alpha/beta dynamic. Humans are not exempt from this, and it manifests for us, in various forms, and governments and our institutions are among them. It's why the most driven, "alpha" sociopaths rise to power, and the whiny betas piss and moan about it, and don't.

So you think there are no honest people - people who seem honest are actually cowards?

Changing that game is about a lot more than changing any individual institution. It is about more than changing ALL the institutions.

Crypto won't help there, except as a tool to avoid state oppression. Activism and protests won't help, except as a means to draw attention to minor issues. Even if you manage to effect full-on insurrection, and get rid of alpha-male school bully #1, unless you change the very dynamic of behavior, some other douche will just take his place.

Yes true. On the other it seems reasonable to expect that if running a government gets you killed, wannabe rulers will think twice about it.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I don't favor even bothering with most of this stuff. The depths of "the problem" go deep enough that all it does is to become its own form of distraction. Rather, I prefer to proceed this way:

Find a small, soluble problem that fills a need. Propose a solution. Implement it. Repeat.

If everyone does a little, a lot will get done.

What kind of small, soluble problems do you have in mind?

...

"Don't get me wrong", I would love to have secure computing and telecom platforms, but it's painfully obvious that in the last 20 years we've moved in the exact opposite direction. Now the hardware comes compromised. "out of the box". And that's not because of off-topic posts to the cpunks mailing list.

No different than 20 years ago. You know Win95 wasn't secure. The remote exploits for Linux and BSD were laughable.

True, but I was thinking of hardware. Do you think that hardware 20 years ago was as bad as it is today?

If you want shit secure, then, as now, you have to work it over.

In many respects, its a matter of shoveling shit against the tide, sure .. but actually doing the shoveling is more effect than philosophizing about the gravitational pull of the Moon, and the exact mechanisms of its producing tides.

The moon exists. The alpha/beta dynamic exists. You fucking DEAL with it, you suck it up, and you shovel shit trying to clean up the fucking mess. Or, you deal with it, and shovel shit working for "the Man."

It's just the nature of things.

Trying to clean the mess can be a reasonable option if it can reasonably succeed. If not, what's the point of 'sucking it up'? I'm certainly not going to work for the man, but I'm not inclined to try to clean the mess if it's pointless. So doing nothing appears as a third option. And there may be more options I guess.

I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

I'd point out that yes, the current system is a horrid mess, but if we assume it's the result of real, unchangeable 'human nature' that 'just exists', then any action is pointless, unless we want to join 'their' side of the game.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 01:51:48 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:20:15 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote: I think, though I'm not completely sure, that there was a rather widespread opposition to the clipper chip, including opposition among more 'respectable' members of the establishment. The same members of the establishment that today fully backdoor their own chips, like intel and amd.

Not that I recall. Outside of computer and crypto-nerd rings, few had even heard about it. This was the '90s. Ma and Pa weren't on the internet yet. No one really knew what the fuck the internet was.

I didn't mean joe six pack, sorry. I meant opposition inside 'the industry' At any rate, even if intel and co. didn't oppose the clipper chip at that time, at least they hadn't put their own version in their processors. Now they have.

There was very little coverage in the media. I don't recall many senators opposing it. But nonetheless, you can throw PGP in there too.

If the state had its way, there would still be a crypto export ban, and you've have mandatory key escrow.

Key escrow like you have now in apple, amd, intel etc systyems?

...

Yes, bitcoin is interesting, but if so called regulators wanted to damage it, they could do so in a few days.

That's hardly the point. The question wasn't what technical/code type things are invulnerable to the state. The question was, what sort of crypto/techie stuff has encroached on traditional state power, or limited its reach.

I'm not sure when it was stipulated that was The Question, but it's kinda obvious that a system that can be destroyed in a few days hasn't limited state power to any meaningful degree.

I'd also offer that in Real Soon Now, you'll see small towns adopt crowdfunding in lieu of taxation. That will spread, and probably quite quickly.

lol...

The point is, there are all sorts of things that are eroding state power, or have the ability to do so, right now.

I don't see the state power being eroded, at all. As to things having the 'ability' to do so, of course. Since the danw of history.

...

That's pretty much a tautology. But reality includes people, who are supposed to be moral agents and can choose to behave in different ways.

Well, now we get into the whole free will thing.

You started the topic =)

Sure. We have free will, or at least if we don't, I'm apparently not free to believe otherwise. But there are limits to it.

True. My point however was that stating "this is reality" doesn't say much.

The social milieu is much like a river. You can swim in it, and to a degree you can control your direction, but you will always be moving with the current. If you're an extraordinary swimmer, maybe you can make progress against the current. These are the <insert your favorite inspirational social reformers here>.

A white male living in 1740 quite literally was not AS FREE as you or I in terms of his beliefs about race, slavery, God, and so on. Social pressure.

Not sure what you mean.

Could he CHOOSE to marry a freed black woman? Yeah. In theory, but you have to accept he'd be an incredible anomaly.

Now, not so much.

So?

...

...

And reality IS that every social animal has a pecking order.. an alpha/beta dynamic. Humans are not exempt from this, and it manifests for us, in various forms, and governments and our institutions are among them. It's why the most driven, "alpha" sociopaths rise to power, and the whiny betas piss and moan about it, and don't.

So you think there are no honest people - people who seem honest are actually cowards?

No, I'm not sure where you're getting that from with that. My point here is simply that there are underlying dynamics that we usually explain away, but which we don't actually understand. So, in the above, I'm trying to suggest that your average person NEEDS authority to bow to. They really do need it. Without it, they are like a dog that loses the leader of its pack.

I don't know, I mean, I see stray dogs all the time. They don't belong to any pack. And then there are dogs that have 'owners'. Those don't belong to packs either...they belong to their masters...

It is a frightening situation, and fills them with anxiety. The primary characteristic of a leader, in humans, is when the shit is hitting the fan and most people are unsure of what to do, and pissing themselves.. the leader says, I KNOW WHAT TO DO. He's quick. He's certain. He's "strong." That is comforting to people. Hence, Trump, by the way.

...trump is a 'leader'? More than half the electorate hates him actually...

And my point in all this is to show that, its not a problem with institutions, religions, politics, "the elite" or any of that stuff. All of those things are SYMPTOMS of the real problem.

The real problem, being, we act like what we are: primates.

I'm not really following. No doubt we can find more than a few instances of people acting like animals, but what of it? It's also true that people can act in rational ways, and that's what supposedly make them human.

...

I'd point out that yes, the current system is a horrid mess, but if we assume it's the result of real, unchangeable 'human nature' that 'just exists', then any action is pointless, unless we want to join 'their' side of the game.

No, not at all. Evolve, and encourage others to do so as well. Look, gravity exists. A downward pull to the earth exists. It's unchangeable. Period. But it can be USED, and overcome. That takes insight into those dynamics though.

A great part of our social dynamics is rooted in our primate past. We can't escape it,

OK. So, that's the end of it, no? That's 'hard science', reality and whatnot.

but we can acknowledge it, acknowledge its pull.. like gravity. And we can begin to understand it, and understand how to overcome it.

I don't know. I don't go around robbing and killing people, like, say, state agents do. Do you act like a primate?

At an individual level, it simply entails thinking at a "higher" level than the ego. At that ability will come and go, depending on stress level, hormones, concentration, all sorts of shit. But the more you do it, the more you cease to think in the ordinary primate ways, and begin to think in new ways.

I don't think I have the problem of acting like a primate. But thanks for the (unneeded and unasked) advice anyway...

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

Not sure what you mean.

I mean what I said. If I say "a wheel is spinning freely" you understand that there is little friction to it spinning.

Talking in wrong analogies and 'parables' isn't your best bet with me.

Likewise, it seems obvious that the social friction of the day that would make it socially difficult to maintain certain attitudes about race. Those attitudes are easier today, and in fact maintaining racist type ideas is more difficult.

...

...

Now, not so much.

So?

So, as I stated: there are limits to free will, and limits to your whole 'moral agent' thing.

You stated something, presented some sort of 'proof' and now you are authoritively 're-stating' the same thing. Impressive. Do you think that slaves wanted to be slaves? And do you think that the people who enslaved them were not responsible for the enslavement? THAT is free wiil at work. "There are limits free will" is just a vague, irrelevant comment.

...

I don't know, I mean, I see stray dogs all the time. They don't belong to any pack. And then there are dogs that have 'owners'. Those don't belong to packs either...they belong to their masters...

You're likely wrong there, with strays, I mean.

I am not. But I can change the animal anyway. Cats don't have 'leaders'. And my remark would be as relevant, or even more relevant than your comments about humans being 'primates'

Usually even stray dogs will belong to a pack.. a few other strays that they will hang with. Usually not full-time, they adapt.. but that is selection bias. People call the animal wardens on 3 or 4 dogs traveling together.. not so much on a single dog sniffing around.

And the dogs with owners do have a pack leader: the owner. In their eyes, their owner is the pack leader.

So you say. So what. Bottom line is, comparing humans to other animals doesn't prove anything.

...

...

unsure of what to do, and pissing themselves.. the leader says, I KNOW WHAT TO DO. He's quick. He's certain. He's "strong." That is comforting to people. Hence, Trump, by the way.

...trump is a 'leader'? More than half the electorate hates him actually...

A leader is simply someone who has followers. And yes: Trump obviously has followers.

OK. So in **authoritarian cultures**, some grown-ups pay attention to 'leaders'. There are also grown-ups who believe incredibly stupid and evil nonsense they call 'religion' - especially rhe jew-kkkristian sort. Do you think the bible comes from the DNA? But it just so happens that children don't believe that shit 'naturally'. They have to be brainwashed and coerced into believing it.

...

I'm not really following. No doubt we can find more than a few instances of people acting like animals, but what of it?

It's also true that people can act in rational ways, and that's what supposedly make them human.

Agreed, with the proviso that quite often people rationalize, rather than act rationally. They rationalize away animal instincts.

I don't know what you mean by 'rationalize' - Isn't that psychobabble? Also, there are animal behaviours that don't entail aggresion towards other animals, so even "acting like an animal" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Bottom line again, your 'realistic' view that SOME humans do what they do because of their animal nature is bullshit.

...

...

but we can acknowledge it, acknowledge its pull.. like gravity. And we can begin to understand it, and understand how to overcome it.

I don't know. I don't go around robbing and killing people, like, say, state agents do. Do you act like a primate?

Ever get jealous of a guy hitting on your girlfriend? That's primate territorialism.

If you say do. Did you learn that in the discovery channel?

When I say animal instincts, I'm not just talking about going around robbing and killing and whatever. There are all manner of similarities between primate behavior.

...

I don't think I have the problem of acting like a primate. But thanks for the (unneeded and unasked) advice anyway...

Well, I didn't necessarily mean you personally. I don't know you. I was more talking in generalities..

Right. You are generalizing and that's why your argument fails.

about Joe six pack, basically.

Joe six pack doesn't necessarily join the military to murder brown children for fun.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:55:09 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -0000 Do you think that slaves wanted to be slaves? And do you think that the people who enslaved them were not responsible for the enslavement? THAT is free wiil at work.

"There are limits free will" is just a vague, irrelevant comment.

Whatever. This is just hard-ass, inflexible thinking. The point of the matter is that right and wrong are largely a matter of interpretation through cultural norms.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, are you 'implicitly' saying that slavery being right or wrong is a matter of 'cultural interpretation'? Or mostly a matter of 'interpretation'?

It was socially reinforced to be racist back then. It was socially reinforced to not be homosexual. Hence, it was MORE DIFFICULT to be racially egalitarian, or homosexual. This, it would seem to me, shows that FREE WILL has limits. Those people were LESS FREE to be homosexual, or racially egalitarian.

That has nothing to do with free will. People were, and are free to think whatever they want. Notice also in the case of slavery how its 'legal' status changed overnight. And how the conservatives lost, at least regarding the most overt forms of slavery. At any rate, that means there wasn't a single 'river' 'flowing' in a single direction.

Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the slave could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There would be a cost: beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right? THAT is your free will?

So you don't know what free will means, and you are confusing free will with political freedom. Indeed the slave had free will and could CHOOSE to disobey. What he didn't have was POLITICAL FREEDOM. If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, you are free to decide for yourself what you want. That's 'metaphysical' freedom or free will. You are not free in the sense that your natural rights are not being respected and you are not free to keep your property, I am stealing it. By the way, I am free to become a thief or not. I can't blame someone else if I do.

Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.

You mean, from a correct usage of the terminolgy and sticking to logical thinking.

But for christ's sake you KNOW WHAT I MEAN when I say the slave doesn't have free will.

Well, it would be a lot clearer if you simply said that the slave didn't have freedom. Coincidentally, "lack of freedom" would be the definition of slavery...The point I was making is that despite the fact that the slave was physically coerced, he still had a will that opposed that coercion.

There is a COST to exercising it. It isn't fucking FREE.

Now you added a third layer of equivocation =)

Same for going against social conventions.

It's fucking grade school elementary.

Let's put it another way : There are 'benefits' to being a corrupt lapdog who goes along with whatever corrupt nonsense is currently fashionable. So? Is that what you advocate? If that's not what you advocate, what's the point of bringing it up? Is your point that I 'should' 'suck it up' and keep quiet, don't rock the boat, or what?

...

I am not. But I can change the animal anyway. Cats don't have 'leaders'. And my remark would be as relevant, or even more relevant than your comments about humans being 'primates'

Domesticated cats, no. But anyone with a cat will tell you they are LESS SOCIAL pets than dogs.

I happen to have a few cats and I wouldn't make such a remark. "Less social"? Less servile than domesticated dogs? Dogs vote, cats don't? What does "social" even mean?

That is my whole point.

...

...

So you say. So what. Bottom line is, comparing humans to other animals doesn't prove anything.

How very Biblical of you.

How so?

There is an idea in our culture, that it is man's right to use the planet, and animals any way we see fit. Because we can, basically. It's "might makes right." It's Yahweh's commandment to "hold dominion over the earth" where he set man apart from animals.

It's a primitive notion, really.

Yes, like anything coming from those retards. But I don't subscribe to it. You know, I don't have to either agree with what you're saying, or with the bible...

Are you mention humans are animals. Now, its perfectly normal in our science to compare lions to tigers. Or horses to zebras. We're content to abstract from their behaviors, and find similarities and guiding principles for the activity of different genus'.

Except when it comes to humans, and our primate relatives. It's arrogance.

You can compare us humans to our primate relatives or to our dogs and cats relatives or any other relatives. Ultimately the whole animal kingdom is related. Or, you can go even farther to plants. And? You can find similarities and differences. But you can't make a political philosophy out of the similarities.

...

OK. So in **authoritarian cultures**, some grown-ups pay attention to 'leaders'. There are also grown-ups who believe incredibly stupid and evil nonsense they call 'religion' - especially rhe jew-kkkristian sort. Do you think the bible comes from the DNA? But it just so happens that children don't believe that shit 'naturally'. They have to be brainwashed and coerced into believing it.

Lets be precise: in authoritarian cultures MOST adults will pay attention to the leaders. The ones that don't will get a label and will suffer some level of ostracism or social sanctions.

At any rate, now you've partially conceded my point. It's not animal/biological nature. It's a cultural matter.

Does religious nonsense come from DNA? No, not as such. But considering that EVERY human culture has developed some type of religious mythology, I'd say that its in our bones, so to speak. It's not JUST a matter of coercion and control, either. For example, shamanistic religions where there is no priestly initiation, or transfer of authority, etc. Humans seem to have a great need for myth.

Fairy tales are OK. Mythology, philosophical speculation about the universe, etc. Those are not a tool for political oppression, unlike some well known 'religions'.

But lets take it a step further. What is a "non-authoritarian" culture? Hippies? Punks? Bohemians and beat-nicks? Sure. But even they have leaders. They have ALPHAS that get a measure of deference and respect.

The key difference, and why we don't consider them authoritarian, is that there is less expectation to conform and do as one is told. But, for example, you're still going to get treated oddly by most members of these sub-groups if your fashion sense is to wear a three-piece button up suit.

But what is important to realize is that the alpha/beta dynamic exists in *virtually* all human social interaction. It *PLAYS* to a deep need, among most primates, to HAVE that dynamic.

Sorry, that's just cheap pseudo scientific fatalism. Why would your primates have such a 'need'?

There are always anomalies. You may be one of them. I certainly am.

I don't consider myself an 'anomaly' ;) - But if by 'normal' you mean 'average', then yes people who don't have 'average' views are not 'normal'. But so what?

As a child, I was socially ostracized for being friendly and talkative with mentally handicapped kids. They were my "lessers" and there was an expectation that I'd treat them as such.. not to be mean to them, but to not include them in "the circle."

And that was a rule that children had come up with on their own?

I saw many kids grow up and learn those types of "lessons." The vast majority folded to social pressure.

I'm sure children learn all kinds of 'lessons' from their shitty parents and the shitty enviroments they are raised in. But you must have noticed that children have a strong tendency to not obey their piece-of-shit parents?

I never cared about it. Still don't.

But I recognize that for many people, they deeply care about what others think of them.

...

...

Agreed, with the proviso that quite often people rationalize, rather than act rationally. They rationalize away animal instincts.

I don't know what you mean by 'rationalize' - Isn't that psychobabble?

Not at all. Let me give you an all-to-common example. Alice is married to Bob, and is close friends with Charlie. Bob is jealous of Charlie. Not full on, sweaty, digging through her phone jealous. But he feels it in a low-level way.

So, Alice decides to go hang out with Charlie and a few other friends one day, and Bob doesn't want her to go.

But he doesn't tell her NOT to go. He rationalizes: gives seemingly rational reasons why she should not go. "Oh, well hey babe, I was hoping to spend that day with you fixing up the garden." Or, "well, shit honey sorry, I wish I'd known earlier, but there is a good chance I'll get called in to work that day so you might have to watch the kids." And so on.

So Charlie is a hypocrite and doesn't want to confront his wife. Which might be a clever move since he might piss her off and get thrown out of his house, accused of being a 'child molester' or something.

They are rational, in the sense that proceed according to practical, reasonable principles. But they are (possibly unknowingly) dishonest.

And honesty and dishonesty happen to be moral concepts =)

The unknowing part is the important part. It may be that Bob really isn't aware that he is acting out of jealousy. He doesn't feel it in an acute way, and so he is largely unaware.

Ah, that 'subconscious' thing?

...

Also, there are animal behaviours that don't entail aggresion towards other animals, so even "acting like an animal" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I disagree. Animalistic responses, while not necessarily a bad thing in terms of effects, are inherently MINDLESS.

I disagree =) - It's quite obvious that animals have minds. Less complex than human minds, but fairly complex still.

Bob isn't MINDFULLY thinking to himself "Well, why don't I want Alice to go out today. Is it Charlie? Could I be jealous of Charlie? Hmm.. yeah, maybe thats it.."

Some people will be more honest with themselves than others. Still I don't see in that any foundation for any sort of political theory.

In fact, he doesn't necessarily THINK about it at all.. he KNOWS he doesn't want her to go out, for a low-level gut feeling, and has already started acting or rationalizing in a way to get what he wants.

...

Bottom line again, your 'realistic' view that SOME humans do what they do because of their animal nature is bullshit.

Nope.

Yes =) - And even if that were the case, what do you think it would follow in terms of political theory or political action ?

When I speak in generalizations, it is to say: the river is flowing south, and people get pulled south with the current.

You point to the two Olympic swimmers who can fight the current and say "SEE! NOT EVERYONE GOES SOUTH!"

So your first wrong analogy was gravity (to which there are no exceptions) and now you have a parable =P

Failing to realize the significance of the fact that they are able to do so, and what it means for the rest of people.

Well, let's pretend your view is correct. So, what would follow, politics-wise? For instance, why would anybody bother swiming against the current? (hm, that's a spanish expression - it seems to be an english expression too...)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:40:09 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, are you 'implicitly' saying that slavery being right or wrong is a matter of 'cultural interpretation'? Or mostly a matter of 'interpretation'?

Look, I'm not arguing for moral relativity, which is basically what you're asking.

Yes, that's what I'm asking. And are you sure you aren't arguing for it?

But I am trying to indicate that morality - even if it is soundly objective - is nevertheless interpreted differently, by different cultures and different people.

There certainly is room for interpreting some 'details' but not for the overall principles.

When you think on it, morality, fundamentally, has as much to do with "right" and "wrong" as it does with "in group" and "out group." In many ways, the concepts are inseparable.

Sorry, no, that's just more bullshit on your part.

Murder (killing a member of the in-group) is always wrong. What changes is who the "in group" is, and who the "out group" is. And likewise for slavery. Nowadays, progressive types make "in group" all of humanity, mostly

Not sure what you mean by 'progressive types'? To me progressive means : left-wing, fascist piece-of-shit.

but we reserve the right to kill members of the out-group, with that out-group being defined as those that attack us first. Killing in self-defense is OK,

Killing in self-defense is certainly OK, as a last, proportional* recourse, at the individual level, and it has nothing to do with 'groups' or 'progressive types'. *i.e. you can't kill people because they stole a candy from you, etc.

because we're killing a member of the out group: i.e. those that resort to violence first.

Dude, that has nothing to do with any 'group'. If you are an attacker, then your victims have every right to defend themselves. That's the basic logic of morality.

A deeply pacifistic person might disagree,

Fine. If somebody doesn't mind being attacked, that's his choice which he CANNOT FORCE on other people, both because of logic and his own pacifist principles.

and not fight back even in self-defense on moral grounds. Their in-group is even larger than yours.

Bullshit. Their view is stupid, but if they enjoy being attacked...I'd actually argue that by not countering attackers they are actually doing a disservice to their fellow men.

...

...

Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the slave could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There would be a cost: beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right? THAT is your free will?

So you don't know what free will means, and you are confusing free will with political freedom.

Nonsense.

You are the one that brought up slavery,

Maybe you should quit while you are still ahead? (OK you never were) Yesterday YOU WROTE "A white male living in 1740 quite literally was not AS FREE as you or I in terms of his beliefs about race, SLAVERY, God,..."

and asked me if I thought the slaves WANTED to be slaves. Of course not. But, now we have you saying this:

...

Indeed the slave had free will and could CHOOSE to disobey. What he didn't have was POLITICAL FREEDOM.

So let me ask you. IF slaves could choose to disobey, why didn't they rebel?

Because they didn't want to get killed.

Why wasn't there widespread slave rebellion? And if this really was a choice, then they CHOSE not to rebel, and one might argue that they wanted to be slaves.

Your 'type' might argue that...

Indeed, even after they were FREED, many slaves stayed with their former masters, and worked as paid laborers. That's a fact. So they certainly wanted to be there, probably even AS SLAVES.

lol...Not only a moral relativist, also a slavery apologist. You know, the moment you started whining about off topic posts and how people in this list were such experts on "abuses of power" I knew what to expect from the likes of you...

Why was it the Abolishionist movement among whites that got the ball rolling on getting rid of slavery?

What is your take on that?

My take is that the slaves didn't fucking KNOW any other life. Slavery is all they knew. Period.

You are the worse kind of enemy freedom can have.

It's not that they WANTED to be slaves. Most couldn't fucking THINK about rebelling, or disobeying, because there was NEVER an example in their lives of anyone really doing so. Even as freed men, they stayed on the same plantation .. for the same reason that many free people today never leave their small little home towns: FEAR. It CONTROLS the mind and the thoughts.

A few very strong minded souls could do so, of course, and had the heart to take the beatings as a badge of honor, of sorts. A very few, were free from fear.

But to their fellow slave onlookers? They would appear insane.

I hate to break it to you, friend.

You are not my friend.

But you don't have free will. Not quite like you want, at any rate. You're free, yes. But you're constrained. Controlled. By what you know, and what you fear. The more you know, and the less you fear, the freer you can think. But for the uneducated masses, and the slaves of the world.. things aren't exactly as simple as you'd like them to be.

...

If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, you are free to decide for yourself what you want.

LOL. Oh my, what an armchair warrior. I'd love to get you around a few of the folks I know. They'd be able to prove to you that in those moments, you're not thinking or deciding SHIT except, at best, how to keep your bladder in check. You'll be handing over your wallet before you even fully understand whats going on.

...

...

Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.

You mean, from a correct usage of the terminolgy and sticking to logical thinking.

Frankly, from that last comment of yours. It seems to me more that your "logical thinking" is really code for "woefully sheltered." You talk about what, or how you'll think and decide if you look down the barrel of gun? Give me a break. Brother, I'll bet you've never been in a REAL fight, let alone one that had it escalated to weapons.

What about you? Maybe you are an ex US military murder, that kind of psycho?

The simplifying assumptions your "logic" requires go out the fucking window when 9 little millimeters appear about 3 meters wide.

...

You can compare us humans to our primate relatives or to our dogs and cats relatives or any other relatives. Ultimately the whole animal kingdom is related. Or, you can go even farther to plants. And? You can find similarities and differences. But you can't make a political philosophy out of the similarities.

It's better than making a political philosophy based on some nonsense about metaphysical free will that, if it exists,

Dude, you don't know what free will means, and are too arrogant to learn. Get a fucking dictionary, for starters. only does so for the

pampered ivory tower types who.. yes, get to CHOOSE because they have never suffered.

But for real life, when you get beaten as a slave all day, it AFFECTS YOUR THOUGHTS.

When you work a dreary ass job, barely get enough sleep, having your very dreams filled up with visions of monotonous days at work.. it AFFECTS YOUR MIND.

And when life and death are on the line, when hormones and adrenaline dump, YOU DON'T FUCKING THINK.

That's real life. And it works more according to the laws of biology, and the fucking animal kingdom, than your metaphysical abstractions.

I clipped the rest, because we're going no where.

Right, I'm not addressing your nonsense point by point anymore because it's obviously a waste of time.

I think its obvious that we come from very different worlds, and perspectives. We're not gonna find common ground on most of this stuff, and we could go in circles on the differences forever, so I'm content to leave it here.

I'd rather focus on commonalities, such as they are. If there is something particular that you'd really like me to addres, I will, however.

I already asked what practical stuff you think it can be done and of course you didn't answer. I asked what are the implication of your fuckingly stupid preaching about "rivers" and whatnot and you didn't answer because you know what follows from your philosophical bullshit Here's your preaching : " Find a small, soluble problem that fills a need. Propose a solution. Implement it. Repeat." If everyone does a little, a lot will get done." My retort : "What kind of small, soluble problems do you have in mind? " And your answer? None of course. Even you don't believe your own bullshit.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 02:33:10 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:40:09 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

Dude, that has nothing to do with any 'group'. If you are an attacker, then your victims have every right to defend themselves. That's the basic logic of morality.

Ya know, after I hit send on that last message, I knew you'd start off with this.

You're like autistic or something.

Sure. And being gay is a disease that is cured with electroshocks and lobotomies. Oh and you are a master of 'biological' political 'theory'. No, not just ivory tower theory. What you say is REAL REALITY (TM) "Autistic" - you just keep polishing your pseudo scientific garbage eh. Now you are firmly in the grounds of fascist 'psychiatric' 'science'.

You focus on the words, but seem to have difficulty actually relating to the underlying scenarios or seeing the dynamics of human relationships within those scenarios. It's all this bullshit about "the logic" of morality. Bugger off with that nonsense.

Sure. If such an alpha master of intelectual thought like you says so, I will obey.

If I'm walking down the street, and see some strapping brick-shit-house sized dude chase after you, pin you the ground, beat the ever living shit out of you for a few moments, then pull out a knife and raise it above his head to kill you..

Well, I am not a victim. I'm no danger at all. I'm 20 yards away, smoking a cigarette, with my .45 in my waist band.

And I still have the right, and some would argue, the moral responsibility, to draw down on him and order him to stop, and if he won't to cork that fucker square between eyes.

And the REASON why I am able to do that. To make a judgment call valuing your life over his, IS because of GROUPING. Namely, the grouping of victim and grouping of aggressor, and the social valuation of one over the other.

I happen to agree with that valuation. But I'm not arrogant enough to say it isn't a grouping, and in that respect is not different than other groupings.

It is simply a grouping that I firmly believe. Others firmly believe in groupings based on religion, or race. Those I firmly despise.

But they are still a representation social in-group/out-group dynamics

I bow to your superior wisdom, massa

...

...

A deeply pacifistic person might disagree,

Fine. If somebody doesn't mind being attacked, that's his choice which he CANNOT FORCE on other people, both because of logic and his own pacifist principles.

It isn't because a pacifist doesn't mind being attacked. It's because their morality dictates that using force is wrong. And they won't stoop to the level of someone who does, even to defend themselves. It is akin to someone putting a gun to your head and trying to force you to rape a child. Hopefully you don't. Hopefully your morality is such that you'd rather die than do that. Even though someone forcing you to do so absolves you of responsibility. You choose to TAKE responsibility, and die. Same for the pacifist. He says "I will take responsibility for my actions, and not do violence, because violence is wrong. Whatever it costs, I won't do wrong."

Sure. Violence is wrong according to pacifists, but allowing people to be killed, including oneself, is 'right' - I laugh my ass off at the STUPIDITY of it. Feel free to lecture me again with that kind of stupidity as if it wasn't sheer stupidity...

...

Yesterday YOU WROTE

"A white male living in 1740 quite literally was not AS FREE as you or I in terms of his beliefs about race, SLAVERY, God,..."

Yeah, I mentioned it as an example of the types of social institutions that many people are not really in a position to question very easily. I thought it would be obvious, and easily accepted.

You were the one that zeroed in on it, and made a discussion of it. Perhaps I should have clarified more.

So, first you bring up a topic. Then you accuse ME of bringing up the topic...YOU brought up. And now the problem is that I 'zeroed in' on it. Oh, and if I mention that YOU brought the topic up, since, you know, you accused me of doing it, then "This is all about some mental dick-measuring contest" Any more self-parody you'd like to share?

...

...

Indeed, even after they were FREED, many slaves stayed with their former masters, and worked as paid laborers. That's a fact. So they certainly wanted to be there, probably even AS SLAVES.

lol...Not only a moral relativist, also a slavery apologist.

Oh fuck that nonsense. I'm not an apologist for shit. But it is true that some freed slaves stayed on the compounds.

If you say so. And good for them.

It sounds to me as if you simply don't have a fucking clue about life, mate. Have you ever been in a truly hopeless situation for an extended period of time? Have you experienced what it does to the mind, to your thought process and psychology?

If not, then yeah.. you have no fucking clue. If so, then you really need to think on what it would be like to be subjected to that since birth, and not even have a past to draw from, or a future to look forward to, for strength.

Because your whole "they didn't want to get killed" thing is bullshit. Indentured servants rebelled. Some were killed. Fucking people rebel and fought over taxes or shit like that, nothing as egregious as getting beaten and held as slaves. You really think that whites valued their tax dollars and liberty more so than blacks valued not getting beaten or raped, and so on? Get off it.

So really fucking think it over and ask yourself if it was a rational choice about getting killed, or whether it really did have a lot more to do about social engineering, human psychology, and the simplest thing of all: lack of hope.

Why would I bother 'thinking' about it when such a great philosopher like you has it all figured out and is teaching us poor betas?

That's why indentured servants rebelled. They had HOPE,

I'm glad they voted for obama!

saying to themselves.. I'll will myself into virtual slavery for N years, then I'm free, and I get a plot of land and I'm my own man. When that deal breaks down, it's fucking on. They'll DIE for the fucking dream that they lived for.

Ah, the americunt dream! Or the british dream? Your story is really moving mate! Have you thought about sending it to hollywood, or the proper english colony's dream factory!

A true slave, born into it? There is no hope. No one ever gets free. It isn't even a concept to freely think about.

Nope it isn't. Now I get it. Thank you massa! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_States In xorcist's Real Reality there are no fugitive slaves.

...

" Find a small, soluble problem that fills a need. Propose a solution. Implement it. Repeat." If everyone does a little, a lot will get done."

My retort :

"What kind of small, soluble problems do you have in mind? "

And your answer? None of course. Even you don't believe your own bullshit.

LOL. No. Because you don't get the fucking point, son.

#1, The whole point is for YOU to be SELF-DETERMINED and find problems YOU are interested in and that YOU want to solve.Find things that give your life meaning.

What, on fucking earth, makes you think I'm interested in any paternalistic, psychobabbling nonsense from you? The topic, as far as I was concerned was what practical things could be done to limit state power, not to "give meaning to my life".

#2, I didn't respond, because I suspected from your general demeanor you didn't really give a shit.

Au contraire. I was interested in a concrete reply, but admitedly, only to illustrate the flaws in your position.

As you indicate with your choice of the word "retort" .. everything you've shown so far is confrontational, so I didn't take the request seriously.

Are you autistic or what. YOUR first message whining about off topic posts was nothing but STUPID 'confrontational' bullshit. And now you are crying because you got 'confronted'? Pathetic.

#2, But since you're asking a second time, even though you're bringing it up in a seemingly confrontational manner, rather than any sort of genuine interest.. I'll tell you what I do, primarily, with my time in that regard.

I act as mentor for some cognitively disabled adults.

Has NOTHING to do with limiting state power.

I do this on top of my day job, which is in cloud infrastructure type shit.

Oh, that's more interesting. So you have first hand knowledge on how the 'infrastructure' is sabotaged, or do you even do the sabotage yourself?

As a hobby, try to find time to program, keep my skills up somewhat. In the past, I've designed deniable encryption protocols, and implemented tools to do it. One of the methods even got picked up in IEEE transactions and used in a communication system in Lebanon designed to safe-guard privacy in the face of oppressive governments.

Ah, 'oppressive' governents in the 'third' world. That would be governemtns that didn't follow CIA/Foreign Office orders?

But, as I mentioned elsewhere to Zen .. I also didn't respond to that because I'm not on this list for fucking hand-holding and encouragement about some shared social agenda.

That is fucking obvious. What you've done is the exact opposite.

Find your own fucking answers. I know what I believe in, and I know how far I'm willing to go, and what I'm not willing to do, to help.

Truthfully, this whole fucking thread is exactly what I DIDN'T want.

Really. A

bunch of horseshit that has nothing to do with "cyphers" .. but whatever, I'll count it as a "getting ta know ya" free-for-all.

2016-09-21 7:55 GMT+03:00 <xorcist@sigaint.org>:

1. I act as mentor for some cognitively disabled adults. Mostly in the way of helping them find coping strategies for their difficulties. Providing a measure of friendship and companionship

2. I do this on top of my day job, which is in cloud infrastructure type shit.

3. As a hobby, try to find time to program, keep my skills up somewhat. In the past, I've designed deniable encryption protocols, and implemented tools to do it.

oh oh oh... so much private information.... and WHAT an information.... we should start LAving you, xorcist. Just lAving you!!! What a holy man we got on the list... on day three he opens his hEAAAArt in front of all of us. Come on, cia dude. Cut of your bullshit. You are not gonna buy followers by acting like that. ___ xorcist to Juan:

i hit the nerv

Yeah, xorcist! Yeah! That's why you are on this list - hitting the "nerves" and trying to brainwash people. Well, there were much better attempts before you, fucker. We got a vast experience and great Hearts and Minds. So you are not gonna succeed. There are Invincible GUARDS here on the list for suckers like you. Zenaan and Juan are their names. So just DIS-appear exactly the way you appeared here. that's the only way for you. However, i know that you won't (in the near future), 'cause your masters won't let you. So, we will enjoy a few more knockouts for you.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:28:29AM +0300, Александр wrote:

you are not gonna succeed. There are Invincible GUARDS here on the list for

Ahem. : 1) At best, holding an intention for righteousness, truth, "a better future" or whatever floats your boat, is something we can strive for. 2) No matter who you are, I hope you try to live your own interpretation of your own good intentions. 3) xorcist - thank you for bringing some quite interesting highlights or "food for thought"; - - perhaps we can be grateful when folks bring any attempt at a constructive discussion. It is far too easy to leap onto a conspiratorial bandwagon, and who knows where any individual's heart will take them, even --regardless-- of who they work for. Manning worked for the US army/DIA or whatever, for example! Snowden worked for a US TLA. And some folks who sound initially sophisticated and competent, may not be quite as competent at particular conversations as we or they may like. I know all too well the embarassment that an "intellectual wanna be" can feel when putting themselves out publicly. We are human. Let's be at least a little forgiving of each other's human-ness. And enjoy a good joust, by all means. Regards all,

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:55:03 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

...

You're like autistic or something.

Sure. And being gay is a disease that is cured with electroshocks and lobotomies.

Hit a nerve, did I? Sorry. No judgments.

You hit a nerve only in a general sense. Psychiatry is a especially vicious tool for political manipulation and oppresion. I didn't mention the 'cure' of homosexuality for personal reasons but just because it's a great (and horrid) illustration of what kind of very bad joke the field is.

If its correct, it just means you just think differently. It's not even a big deal. For the purposes here, it just means you'll tend to take discussions in a more literal way.

...

"Autistic" - you just keep polishing your pseudo scientific garbage eh. Now you are firmly in the grounds of fascist 'psychiatric' 'science'.

lol. Dude, my niece has Asperger's. She's brilliant, talented, and I love her - and there is no 'fascist psychiatry' involved. Her life, and her relationships with her parents and others all benefited when the diagnosis was realized, and appropriate communications techniques used.

Your niece is shy. But now being shy has been turned into a 'mental disorder' a 'syndrome' or whatever. We should be glad that science is fixing the world...

...

...

You focus on the words, but seem to have difficulty actually relating to the underlying scenarios or seeing the dynamics of human relationships within those scenarios. It's all this bullshit about "the logic" of morality. Bugger off with that nonsense.

Sure. If such an alpha master of intelectual thought like you says so, I will obey.

Oh come now. Now you're just being butt-hurt. You've called what I've written bullshit numerous times and I didn't get all shitty about it.

I'm not really butthurt. If anything I'm slightly frustrated.

But, when I disagree, I say so. And I defend my position and state things how I see it. You are, of course, free to disagree and that's fine.

...and so we have a discussion...of sorts. You can call it a pissing match, but I think it remains a more or less rational discussion. And I'm not arguing just for fun.

Like I said, I don't have enemies.

...

...

But they are still a representation social in-group/out-group dynamics

I bow to your superior wisdom, massa

Well stand the fuck up then.

=)

...

Sure. Violence is wrong according to pacifists, but allowing people to be killed, including oneself, is 'right' - I laugh my ass off at the STUPIDITY of it.

Feel free to lecture me again with that kind of stupidity as if it wasn't sheer stupidity...

Don't misrepresent me. I never said I thought it was right. I never said I was a pacifist to that level.

We're talking about morality, and the ways it gets interpreted. Specifically, how morality can be objective, or at least not relative -- and yet still get interpreted differently by different cultures and people.

Yes, to some extent.

There are pacifists which interpret it that way however, and I'm just acknowledging an interpretation that is different my own, without denigrating it. Something you seem unwilling to do.

I'm not denigrating it, but pointing out that it's open to some degree of rational criticism.

...

So, first you bring up a topic. Then you accuse ME of bringing up the topic...YOU brought up. And now the problem is that I 'zeroed in' on it.

Oh, and if I mention that YOU brought the topic up, since, you know, you accused me of doing it, then "This is all about some mental dick-measuring contest"

No. The mental dick measuring comment was because you specifically made a comment about "quitting while I'm ahead" which would be fine as an idiom, except you also made it a point to parenthesize (but I never was) .. indicating you see this as a contest.

I see it as a discussion. Just like you said above, you are stating a position, and I disagree with it. I specifically disagree with putting too much emphasis on the fact that some 'majority' of people have 'mainstream' views. Although at first sight that indeed seems to be the case, treating it as some kind of biologically determined outcome doesn't strike me as either correct or useful.

You could have engaged me with "Well, that's interesting. I never thought it of that way. I think this way, for these reasons."

Instead, you've advanced no real ideas of your own, and only proceeded in attacking mine.

At this point I'm not sure how the topic of social conformity was started, but the idea I'm advancing is that social conformity should be shredded to pieces, not 'explained'. It's a good tactic for a debate on your

part, and I'll engage. This sort of thing is helpful to me, because it gives me an opportunity to focus on minutia and clarify.

...

...

That's why indentured servants rebelled. They had HOPE,

I'm glad they voted for obama!

Heh. That's actually kind of funny. They probably would have.

I'd hope not, but who knows...

...

...

A true slave, born into it? There is no hope. No one ever gets free. It isn't even a concept to freely think about.

Nope it isn't. Now I get it. Thank you massa!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_States

In xorcist's Real Reality there are no fugitive slaves.

Of course there were fugitive slaves.

I already said in another message that there were a few strong-minded types that could resist the fear, think freely, and so on.

More than a few slaves managed to actually run away, a rather risky action. It seems fairly safe to assume that a lot more thought about runing away even if they didn't try to. So the dreary picture you painted about people born in slavery not even being able to think about freedom is...let's say too biased towards pessimism.

Again just because something is possible for the FEW doesn't mean its possible for EVERYONE.

I'm not interested, particularly, in tailoring a political theory to what favors the intellectual, physical, or other elites. I'm interested in a political theory that can cater to everyone.

Well, as far as I can tell, you sound a bit too elitist even if you don't intend to. I'd rather assume that the majority of people can think for themselves, even though they are not doing it at the moment. If I assumed that they can't, then I'd have to conclude that the situation is...hopeless.

...

What, on fucking earth, makes you think I'm interested in any paternalistic, psychobabbling nonsense from you?

The topic, as far as I was concerned was what practical things could be done to limit state power, not to "give meaning to my life".

You apparently don't know very much of what it means for people to live without a state. I've lived in squats and communes. Everyone I've met was filled with a true passion for something apart from the politics and the agenda. It's vitally important, in terms of the "the movement" primarily because:

I've never lived in a commune. I'm not exactly a communalist, communist, or <insert appropriate label>. I suppose they are OK for people who...don't belong to the individualist category =P

The state fills an important role: it provides structure for people. That structure is a type of MEANING.

The patriotic soldier serves his "country" and derives meaning from it. The daily worker in a factory, takes an "honest job" .. pays his taxes.. and derives fulfillment.. meaning from it.

Well, yes, that may be true, especially regarding the most brainwashed individuals, the most self-serving or 'patriotic', etc, but for that to happen there's been a lot of indoctrination and coercion involved.

Find what fulfills you, apart from what the establishment says you should want.. that, by itself, limits state power. You're one less individual so deeply under their control.

Not sure if that was directed personally at me but rest assured that I'm not a patriotic tax payer...

Live that way, and inspire others do to likewise.

...

Au contraire. I was interested in a concrete reply, but admitedly, only to illustrate the flaws in your position.

So you weren't actually interested at all. What you're actually interested in, is arguing.

The dick measuring contest. Like I said.

Which is the same thing as a discussion. Trying to sum it up : you gave 'free advice' that amounted to "suck it up" "do something 'useful'". I don't think you got an unreasonable reaction on my part...

...

Are you autistic or what. YOUR first message whining about off topic posts was nothing but STUPID 'confrontational' bullshit. And now you are crying because you got 'confronted'? Pathetic.

Actually, my first post was a reply to Razer. I didn't piss and moan about anything, actually. I bellyached about the bullshit on this list after his panties got all in a bunch for zero reason,

Ah, you'll have to take that up with him =P and he

started taking me to task for nothing at all, trying to claim that I don't know what a "front organization is" and all sorts of other stupid shit.

...

...

I act as mentor for some cognitively disabled adults.

Has NOTHING to do with limiting state power.

Sure it does. The disabled are some of those that are absolutely reliant on the state. A common objection from statists is "Well, who would care for the disabled, who would build the roads, blah blah."

You're a fucking flake if you don't understand that limiting state power is all about providing alternatives to state services.

As is to be expected, I disagree. Limiting state power is...just what the sentence literally means. If the state can 'regulate', spy, tax, fine, kidnap, kill, etc, limiting its power amounts to stoping it doing that kind of thing. All the services that the state has monopolized like education, 'health care', whatever. can be provided by the market/the people/the commune once the state is gone. It's true that competing with the state can weaken it somewhat but only to the degree that they allow you to. Which is of course not going to be any meanigful degree that could threaten their power. "all about providing alternatives to state services" ...on the other hand there's a particular 'service' that the state allegedly provides, called 'security'. If you are talking about THAT service, then you are right. So how good is your army?

...

Ah, 'oppressive' governents in the 'third' world. That would be governemtns that didn't follow CIA/Foreign Office orders?

Have no idea what the designers of the comms intended by that. I just made the algorithm as a way to provide plausible deniability within a streaming cipher as a way to mitigate interrogation.

...

That is fucking obvious. What you've done is the exact opposite.

Likewise. See, we're on the same side after all.

=) But then, I don't believe in restricting the discussion only to crypto.

...

...

Truthfully, this whole fucking thread is exactly what I DIDN'T want.

Really.

Yeah. I thought about taking this private with you initially, but didn't because it was tangentially related to matters of state resistance, at least in terms of how I see the the role that the state fills. I.e. why people cling to it so passionately.

But, as may have been predicted.. we've entirely derailed.

I don't think it was that bad.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:35:31 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:55:03 -0000

You hit a nerve only in a general sense. Psychiatry is a especially vicious tool for political manipulation and oppresion.

Indeed. Religion, physics, and medicine generally, as well. Political oppressors will co-opt anything they can use, no?

Yes indeed. But there are very important differences between physics - a 'hard science', medicine which could be 'scientific' but since it deals with incredibly complex systems it is mostly a joke (and fraud) at the moment, and then psychiatry which is just...an attemtp to give a 'scientific' veneer to witch-burning.

As terrible as religion is, I won't deny some people get genuine benefit from it.

Of course. The frauds who live off their victims get genuine benefits from the scam.

As terrible as the A-bomb is, I won't deny physics has helped mankind. No different for psychiatry.

One of the key differences is that practical physics is real knowledge, which admitedly can be misused. But there's no knowledge in psychiatry or religion, only fraud.

...

Your niece is shy. But now being shy has been turned into a 'mental disorder' a 'syndrome' or whatever. We should be glad that science is fixing the world...

Not just shy, dude. She's shy, yes, because she is wired a bit differently and is self-conscious of it.. but its deeper than that. Certain psychological principles have truly helped her, and her parents, cope.

Treating shy people taking into account their shyness seems like common sense and decency to me. You don't need the psycho-charlatans to teach you that. What the psycho-charlatans bring to the table however is the idea that shy people are 'mentally ill' and that they should be 'saved' I mean 'cured' by them, the high priests of 'science'.

But let me be clear: I understand what you're saying, and you're not wrong. In my nieces' case, it took a few attempts with different doctors to find one whose first reaction wasn't to drug her.

And that's what really should be called fucking crazy. Poisoning people because they are not comfortable with their 'peers' who do conform to totalitarian 'social' 'norms'. It's not only crazy, it's outright criminal. So, what should be done to those crazy criminals, the psycho-babblers?

I'm not saying that the mechanisms of psychology, especially as it intersects with the State (i.e. state-run hospitals, state-ordered "therapy" and so on) aren't oppressive. They truly, surely are.

I'm just saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" .. Nazi doctors did terrible things, too, but presumably you understand that they are still helpful for setting broken bones and things.

Well of course, there is some practical knowledge in medicine. That doesn't invalidate my previous points.

...

...

There are pacifists which interpret it that way however, and I'm just acknowledging an interpretation that is different my own, without denigrating it. Something you seem unwilling to do.

I'm not denigrating it, but pointing out that it's open to some degree of rational criticism.

Fair enough, and I don't disagree. The thing to realize from my view, however, is that people aren't fundamentally rational.

The trouble with that view from an anti-authoritarian perspective is that, lets face, there is a lot of irrational stuff out there. So IF people were basically rational, then it would mean most people are just inherently stupid.

I'm not fully following...

And if they are not capable of reasoning through shit, it really calls into question whether they are capable of, for example, maintaining their affairs without State intervention, so some type of big brother checking up on them.

I didn't fully get what you were saying a couple of paragraphs above, but this last one is mistaken anyway. If people are not rational, then who is going to 'check up' on them.

I don't believe people are inherently stupid. I believe they operate primarily according to motives, and drives, that have little to do reason. The veneer of reason is added, as an after thought.

Rational criticism can help them realize THIS. But the alternatives offered have to play to something more than just algebra.

...

I specifically disagree with putting too much emphasis on the fact that some 'majority' of people have 'mainstream' views.

Although at first sight that indeed seems to be the case, treating it as some kind of biologically determined outcome doesn't strike me as either correct or useful.

I wouldn't go so far as to say its biologically determined, but I would say that there are psychological, or if you prefer, emotional forces involved.

The utility of the view can be expressed this way: when one realizes the emotional reasons why a person clings to statism so passionately, you're in a better position to help them out of it.

OK, that sounds reasonable. So far I got the impression that you were painting a fatalistic picture. But if you can sabotage statism using 'emotional' means great. Hoever, I think that's a big IF...

...

At this point I'm not sure how the topic of social conformity was started, but the idea I'm advancing is that social conformity should be shredded to pieces, not 'explained'.

OK, great. I agree totally. The question then, is how do we help do it? If you'll forgive an analogy.. but we have a burst pipe. One method of trying to stop the leak is to stuff the whole with argumentation, logic, and fill the void. Mine, as I see it, is to understand the cause of the leak. Identify the source, and shut off the valve.

Fine, So what's the cause/source of statism? =)

I could have argued, and reasoned with those two "followers" of mine. I'd tried, basically. Their answers were always some variation of: "Oh, I'm not simply following you. I really believe that. I've always felt that way, I just didn't have the words to express it so clearly." or some such thing.

Well, to some extent that must have been true? Granted, the fact that they agreed with whatever you said is suspicious. But the solution seems a bit ad hoc. Maybe confusing them worked, but you must have confused other people who were listening too?

I understood they weren't consciously trying to put me ahead of themselves as a leader, they lacked confidence in their own abilities, and felt more comfortable attaching themselves to me.

Yes...

And so it goes with social conformity, generally. Certain people get "groupies." It's just the way it is. Recognizing it, and helping to get them on their own two feet.. that's my solution. I see that as quite practical.

...

More than a few slaves managed to actually run away, a rather risky action. It seems fairly safe to assume that a lot more thought about runing away even if they didn't try to.

So the dreary picture you painted about people born in slavery not even being able to think about freedom is...let's say too biased towards pessimism.

I'm not a historian, and certainly am not expert on American history, but my understanding is that at the end of the civil war, there were far more slaves in captivity than freed.

I thought that at the end of the civil war, slavery was finally abolished. At least the most crass kind...

The percentage of fugitive slaves was fairly small. And it is, nevertheless, true that some slaves stayed on as paid laborers after the war.

And is that surprising? And does that need to be explained only in innate psychological terms?

Perhaps these were especially kind, fair "masters" whom the slaves never had a real problem with. Perhaps it speaks to a larger fear of the "great big world" that so many from small town and isolated social networks have. Perhaps its a combination of both.

Why are there poor people? Is it because they are lazy, they want to be poor, they have primate relatives, or because the economic system is rigged against them? There may be a mix of causes, but as a libertarian I would say : 1) being lazy is a virtue 2) by far the most important problem is the rigged economic system.

Maybe I was too dramatic in making my point, but I believe it stands: slave culture made obeying largely an instinctive quality.

And my disagreement stands. All that culture was backed by the whip and the hanging rope.

That culture limits the type of thinking that people can do. Outliers notwithstanding.

...

Well, as far as I can tell, you sound a bit too elitist even if you don't intend to. I'd rather assume that the majority of people can think for themselves, even though they are not doing it at the moment. If I assumed that they can't, then I'd have to conclude that the situation is...hopeless.

This is an interesting example of how two people can think opposite things and arrive at the same conclusion :)

Because my take is very different. As I explained above with regards to rationality. If I thought that rationality was the core feature of the human mind, I'd be forced to conclude most people are just not capable decent logic.. and we need a nanny state to govern their affairs.

Again, I don't understand. If rationaliy was the core feature, then people WOULD be capable of decent logic? So this... "If I thought that rationality was the core feature of the human mind, I'd be forced to conclude most people are just not capable +of decent logic" ...doesn't make sense to me. And you further add that in that case a nanny state would be 'needed' - that's also absurd? Even if the nanny state was 'needed', WHO would run it?

Rather, I see the situation that.. yes, free will is constrained. Yes, social norms and culture play a great role in placing boundaries on the thoughts that average people think.

Only after extensive brainwashing and outright violent coercion.

But there are important people who break the mold. Inspiring examples that speak not to reason, but to the real motivator of people: emotions, and the desire to truly breathe, not just with their lungs, but with their heart.

So, while neither of us may be able to convince a 3rd party in our particular brand of "reasonable ideas" .. either because of a dis-interest, incapability, or acute difference of opinion .. that 3rd party can still be inspired to live free from the state, as best they can.

So, for me, rather than a hopeless situation.. its rather quite pleasant. We don't have to stuff a gaping hole and resist the unfathomable pressure of millions of souls.

We just have to turn the emotional valve for people, to inspire them.

That sounds a bit too manipulative for my taste...

...

As is to be expected, I disagree. Limiting state power is...just what the sentence literally means. If the state can 'regulate', spy, tax, fine, kidnap, kill, etc, limiting its power amounts to stoping it doing that kind of thing.

The way you limit state power is to take away their legitimacy.

That's an important part of it, yes.

So, lets look at taxes.

If everyday people spent their time helping the homeless, unemployed, and the disabled rather than watching TV, there would be no need for the taxes collected for welfare, for instance.

OK - That is seriously wrong. Taxes are not collected by the state to help people, altough a tiny bit goes to 'help' people as a propaganda effort. So the solution to the taxes problem is to simply stop collecting them. Then there would be a lot less unemployed and and homeless people. And for the people who really need help there's private charity. But it is impossible to both pay taxes AND try to fix the problems that taxation causes by putting even MORE money and effort into the system.

Rome wasn't built in a day. And you won't undermine in a day, either.

You want a world without a state? So do I. It means we have to build it, and build alternatives.

Not in the way you described.

I can see why that doesn't appeal to you. It's not something a loner can really do effectively.

Actually you can't. There's a obvious rational explanation you missed, and worse, you are trying to 'psychoanalize' me. Instead of realzing that your anti rationalistic bias prevents you from thinking correctly, you are...messing with me =)

But, as far as I can tell, its the only viable option.

Too bad that simple economic analysis shows it's actually not viable at all.

I'm not playing the game out of self-interest in my lifetime. I'm playing for keeps, and may never see the results of my labor.

Like the architects and slaves that built the pyramids, or the laborers that build the Sistine Chapel..

It's BIGGER than ME.

...

All the services that the state has monopolized like education, 'health care', whatever. can be provided by the market/the people/the commune once the state is gone.

Cart before the horse, man.

Yes, exactly. That is exactly the reason why your analysis isn't right. You cannot compete with the state, providing all the garbage services the states provides, if you don't deprive the state FIRST of their monopoly powers. Consider the example of stuff banned by the state like 'some drugs'. What is your plan? Sell drugs on the black market? And you think that would limit state power? It obviously never does. The only solution for that sort of problem is to get the state out of the picture, making the commercial transactions perfecly 'legal'.

Unless you're advocating open insurrection. Good luck.

The problem with 'revolution' is that in revolving, we soon enough come right back around to having a state.

That is not necessarily the case. I agree that violence may not be an optimal solution, but it isn't inherently flawed either.

I don't want to turn the wheel, reset, and have some other state or some new oppressive non-state structure in its place.

I want to stop the wheel of history in that sense.

...

...on the other hand there's a particular 'service' that the state allegedly provides, called 'security'. If you are talking about THAT service, then you are right. So how good is your army?

You're right. A far more effective approach would be to establish large standing militias willing to confront the state.

And it doesn't even have to be an army. It's just a matter of getting a big enough number of people to say "no".

We're not there yet. In order to fight, people need something to fight for. Thats where the OTHER non-state services come in, in my view.

As you said, cart before the horse =P

...

...

But, as may have been predicted.. we've entirely derailed.

I don't think it was that bad.

:)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:50:00 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:35:31 -0000 Yes indeed. But there are very important differences between physics - a 'hard science', medicine which could be 'scientific' but since it deals with incredibly complex systems it is mostly a joke (and fraud) at the moment, and then psychiatry which is just...an attemtp to give a 'scientific' veneer to witch-burning.

In my experience, the people who are so rabidly anti-medicine, and anti-psychiatry are usually ridiculously religious, or fearful they are mentally ill.

Medicine and psychiatry are conceptually different. The problem with medicine is that knowledge in the field is very limited, but at least in theory, knowledge is possible. Also, not much debate is needed regarding what being healthy means - it's a physical condition. Psychiatry is radically different. Being 'mentally healthy' simply means being 'well adapted' to a society of crazies. For instance, so called western 'civilization' is choke full with religious lunatics who think that blowing brown children up is their sacred duty. And those people are not locked up in a nuthouse. They are the ones running the show.

You don't strike me as either, so this seems really odd to me. Obviously, psychiatry is mis-used by the state, but I just cannot fathom this idea of a "scientific veneer" .. certainly, there is a great amount to question in what the doc's say.. but.. certain things seem obvious?

Like the idea that people tend to operate from a position of protecting the ego. That just seems so.. obvious.. I don't know, I just don't know what else to say.

The fact that psychiatrists and the like may sometimes say some sensible things doesn't counter this other fact : they also say very crazy things. And do very criminal things.

...

Treating shy people taking into account their shyness seems like common sense and decency to me. You don't need the psycho-charlatans to teach you that.

You obviously know shit about autism. She is.. oddly sensitive to certain things, and prone to emotionally crippling "tantrums" because of it. Certain smells, the smell of freshly cut grass, makes her slightly ill feeling. She doesn't like things around her feet, like normal shoes or sneakers, and its genuinely distressing, not just a matter of preference. Consequently, the sight of lawnmowers, and the need to wear sneakers for gym glass, can cause her to get panic attacks, basically, which result in those tantrums.

Maybe she doesn't like gym class. And maybe the tantrums are caused by some other reason.

It isn't just a matter of her being shy, and needing to take shyness into account. Those differences, and people looking at her like she's all fucked up, made her shy. When she was much younger, she was very curious and outgoing. People treating her like a weirdo because she IS different, made her shy.

So, the issue is not any mental problem on her part, but having to deal with less than fully civilized people...

She really does have different neurology.

...whatever that means.

...

And that's what really should be called fucking crazy. Poisoning people because they are not comfortable with their 'peers' who do conform to totalitarian 'social' 'norms'.

Sorry, but this is idiotic. It's not about fucking "totalitarian" norms. When a kid freaks out about the smell of grass, its normal for other kids to tease, thinks she's weird, and so on. This is +not impressed on them by the fucking state.

It is impressed by parents not really caring for their children, sorry to break it to you. Some children may tease of bully other children sometimes but one would expect their parents to teach them not to.

It's how primate humans treat people who they see as different and not in their in-group.

But since that's all bullshit, sure.. it's the government.

In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from pater)...that kind of thing...

C'mon. Granted, we agree on the silver-bullet drug thing. Drugs are over prescribed. I don't see that as state totalitarianism, and the "veneer" of science on a sham discipline.

That's economic corruption. Doctors getting kick-backs from drug companies, and shit. That's just good old fashion greed at work.

Exactly. Greedy STATE LICENSED doctors working as salesmen for the greedy pharmaceutical mafia that exists only thanks to STATE GRANTED patents and other IP shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are not 'normal', i.e. they are actually healthy children who don't get along with 'normal' savagery. So the state seems to play some sort of role in all that...

...

...

The trouble with that view from an anti-authoritarian perspective is that, lets face, there is a lot of irrational stuff out there. So IF people were basically rational, then it would mean most people are just inherently stupid.

I'm not fully following...

Well, presumably we can agree that there is a lot of irrational shit out there in society. Right? So, pick something that you are sure is just straight irrational.

If people were so fundamentally, at their core, rational -- why does this irrational thing exist?

Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able to impose their views on the rest. So, many things that happen are things that benefit those in power but look absurd if we assume that the majority is directly responsible for them. For instance, if you are going to have to pay taxes no matter what, then you won't pay too much attention to rational arguments about taxation because you *know* that arguments don't count. And let me borrow a theory from you =) - After people have been *forced* to pay taxes they come up with the rationalization that 'taxes are good' Also, I'm not saying all people are completely rational all the time. Obviously we are not. But rationality still plays an important role. And if there's a choice between encouraging the rational side of people or the emotional side, I think the rational choice is the first =P

If we're all so rational, and yet irrational things exist, then that means that some people (the creators, facilitators, etc) - while rational - are not competent and smart enough to UNDERSTAND that its irrational. The scope of their intellect is just not there. People are stupid.

And if people are so stupid as to not see these irrational things, clearly you, or I, or others who DO see the irrationality of them, out to be in charge to deal with.

We should be the state. We obviously know better than the stupid fucks that can't reason their way out of a paper bag.

Even if we were cleverer than the rest, it doesn't follow we should be in charge. And a group of stupid people controlled by a minority of marginally less stupid people is a recipe for tyranny and disaster.

I find all this to be problematic. So, for me, I tend to reason this way: Yeah, irrational stuff exists because humans aren't entirely rational. Some really irrational shit exists to meet emotional needs people have. It doesn't mean, I or anyone else, should necessarily be "in charge" .. because I can't decide what meets someone else's emotional needs any better than they can... if I can reason more clearly.

Well at least I agree with the conclusion...

...

...

And if they are not capable of reasoning through shit, it really calls into question whether they are capable of, for example, maintaining their affairs without State intervention, so some type of big brother checking up on them.

I didn't fully get what you were saying a couple of paragraphs above, but this last one is mistaken anyway. If people are not rational, then who is going to 'check up' on them.

I'm not following.

The point is that if "rationality" is the metric for "good" then the "most rational" people should be in charge. They should be the agents of the state.

Except that the state is a criminal organization so by definition it's not "good".

...

Fine, So what's the cause/source of statism? =)

Social mammals have a herd instinct, and more specifically humans naturally select leaders at a subconscious level in social situations.

/some stuff deleted

You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select "popular" kids,

Did I mention that children (and 'teenagers') are well known for defying authority? The 'authority' of their shitty parents, for starters. You seem to be focusing on facts that validate your theory but ignore the facts that don't fit...

For people deeply attached to the state, when you call into question the state, in an emotional way, you're sort of insulting their father,

Yes, fuck their parents.

or maybe "big brother"

And of course, fuck big brother too! Now I'm kinda wondering what's your take on 1984? An example of heretical and misguided rational thinking?

would be more apropros, and you're calling into question the entire structure of what they know. They find it difficult to believe a world without the state is possible,

So the answer to the problem is obvious. Don't bother with grown ups.

So, what do we do about all this?

The way you describe the situation? We do nothing because nothing can be done. You can keep repeating your deterministic views, based on...'biology'? 'psychology'? but if you keep repeating that alpha/beta thing, at least face the logical consequences of your own theories.

Well, it should be immediately obvious that we're up against something much larger than a mere principality. It may seem daunting to consider, but it's really not that big of a deal. Humans have organized in fantastically diverse ways in history.

Hm. Now the 'herd instinct' has vanished?

The emotional ties people have are important to consider, when trying to "win a convert" to an anti-authoritarian view, make your arguments against the state .. "gentle" .. couch it with "I wonder if people could organize without it.."

But I don't wonder. I've studied the subject =) And actually I do listen to statists first, and then yes, shred their 'arguments' to pieces. Seems to me that's the intellectually honest way to talk to people.

when they object, AGREE, but continue with the "wondering."

...pretend to agree with nonsensical stuff?

We should feel compassion for people so enamored with authoritarianism, and be gentle with them.

Feel compasion for people who advocate all sort of attrocities?

Many anarchist writers of the past have looked at them as some sort of debased beast who is content to lick their chains, and this view is why we don't have more people.

Oh, so it's bakunin's fault now? =)

Be compassionate: the statist is one that is weary, and feels weak. They get brow-beat with orders from superiors regularly. Our job is to give them respite. Don't brow-beat them with arguments designed to make them feel inferior.

Arguments are not meant to make people feel inferior. Arguments are used to get at the truth. On the other hand if two people are arguing and the one who loses feels bad, then...don't argue? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?

Gently encourage new thoughts. Make them feel strong. Ask for their opinions, and don't be quick to dismiss. If you disagree, nudge them towards your view.

It is more effective, persuasion wise today, and one day, without a state, those would need to be social norms so that the "betas" get uplifted, and feel like they too can lead, in some areas.

And what kind of 'leading' would the 'betas' do...?

Take note when people are being deferential towards you, and putting you in a subtle position of social power, and ABDICATE that power. Ask for their opinions, and defer to them. When someone comes to you, for advice, or a solution.. Be content to say you don't know, and encourage them to use their own understanding. Encourage them to see that you aren't their superior.

I'm not sure what that is about. I'm not a politician nor I believe in authority...

With those types of norms in place, the roots of power have less surface to take hold, and in the absence of a state (either self-made collapse, or insurrection) we're more likely to be able to fill the power vacuum

There shouldn't be any 'power vacuum' absent the state. That's like saying that absent the mafia there would be a 'crime vacuum'. Well, yes, actually that's the point of the whole anarchy exercise, a power vacuum, meaning nobody has power.

with something better than the current notion of the state.

The only way, that I see, to really make a society where people don't have to conform to an insane litany of arbitrary social norms is to have very few social norms that are very flexible and adaptable towards people.

Well, yes.

...

There may be a mix of causes, but as a libertarian I would say : 1) being lazy is a virtue 2) by far the most important problem is the rigged economic system.

I must say, I'm surprised by #1. Most libertarians I've met are very enamored with the self-made-man trope and the idea that people should be ambitious, and do well for themselves.

Those are conservatives, puritans, people who babble about protestant 'work ethic' and the like. The self-made-man part is OK, but it doesn't necessarily mean making money.

Or did you mean libertarian in the old-school sense, and not so much the modern "objectivist" sense?

I meant it in the bastiat-adam-smith-old-liberal sense. Yes, the stuff that the randroids stole and mutilated.

I don't entirely disagree with you here. Certainly, people deserve more time for slack, and sloth, but I don't know that I'd say laziness is a virtue.

Consider that the 'classical liberals' devoted a good deal of time to 'economics' and in turn 'economics' deals with 'economizing', optimization of resources. You can optimize for maximum free time...

The rigged economic system is a problem, true. Providing alternatives to that system is another thing that needs to at least have seeds planted if we're to get through a power vacuum.

...

Again, I don't understand. If rationaliy was the core feature, then people WOULD be capable of decent logic? So this...

"If I thought that rationality was the core feature of the human mind, I'd be forced to conclude most people are just not capable +of decent logic"

...doesn't make sense to me. And you further add that in that case a nanny state would be 'needed' - that's also absurd? Even if the nanny state was 'needed', WHO would run it?

Well, lets put it this way. A child can reason, and utilize rationality.. but they won't necessarily come to TRUE conclusions.

They won't? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUZud3OLgg

Their minds are not developed enough, there will be variables and conditions that they can't keep track of. You might think of it like chess. And inherently rational game, well defined rules. Easy to learn. But not everyone can play at the same level, and its not a matter of practice.

So, irrational things exist. If rationality is the core human feature, then I must conclude that a great many people are too feeble of mind to come to correct, true, conclusions. People trade their queens for pawns, regularly.

If rationality is the prime reason for this, then there is no hope to win the game. But I don't believe that. They make irrational trades, for non-rational reasons. Those reasons, nevertheless, can be understood, and compensated for.

Well, I already gave my take on that.

As far as who would run a nanny state -- anyone popular, savvy, and ambitious enough to get the job. Just like now. Certain people would be able to look around, with a keener mind, and say "These stupid fucks can't see that X will never work. I'll fix it, do Y, they'll be amazed, and I'm on easy street." It's compelling, for the self-interested.

...

Only after extensive brainwashing and outright violent coercion.

Well, with a wide enough definition of brainwashing, I guess this works. But its not really brainwashing.. not in the way cult leaders or the like do it. It's just being .. "pro-social."

Well, I still call it brainwashing and coercion, and I think it's a more accurate description of what's going on... Sure, totalitarian societies are pro-social in that they reinforce their own totalitarian/authoritarian views.

...

...

We just have to turn the emotional valve for people, to inspire them.

That sounds a bit too manipulative for my taste...

You know, I was in agreement with you on that for a long, long time. And, in fact, I've greatly enjoyed this conversation, because its like arguing with the 20 year old me.

So, yeah, I get it. But, suffice it to say that, over the years (and please don't take this as some appeal to aged wisdom here, its just my experience) I've come to really learn the meaning of "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

Not the kind of metaphor I'd use, though the point may be partially true. But since it's figurative language, I'm not really sure what it alludes to. Are rational arguments 'vinegar' and they should be avoided? Or is it just a suggestion to be always polite, or what. And what does it mean to catch flies? One catches flies in order to get rid of them...They are caught and killed.

It depends on what you're "manipulating" them to do, I'd say. If you're manipulating them to your own ends, against their wishes.. yeah, its terrible. But often times, people lack the courage to do what they want. They lack the confidence. If you're inspiring them to be true to themselves, I see nothing wrong with it at all, and rather see it as a virtue.

I've met people that were "manipulative" in this way. It turned me off, at first, until I began to realize that.. it's really just a tool. How that tool is used, really is up to the person and if its used for good, then its good. I've seen people be "manipulative" in this way, and nevertheless really inspire genuine love and affection in others, and genuinely inspire them to chase - and more importantly - fulfill dreams.

By making people FEEL GOOD, of course they are going to want to be around us. We're providing them with a real positive aspect to their lives. If, as a community, we did this for each other, we'd have more members. Just a thought.

The time I'm thinking of, in particular, a friend I'll call Alice, used some emotional manipulation to convince another (Betty) to go back to school, get a degree, and really helped her get into a much better path in life. At the graduation party, Betty introduced Alice to some other people, and - her face just beaming - told how she owed everything to Alice, and she wouldn't have been able to get the degree, and go back to school without her, and so on. Alice just smiled, and said "Sweetie, I didn't do your homework. Everything you've accomplished, you did on your own. You just forgot that you could and I reminded you. If anything, you inspire me!" Then the tears and laughter started flowing.

And don't think that 'manipulating' or 'causing' or 'suggesting to' somebody to get a degree is a good thing. So both the means and end strike as less than ideal.

It was a genuine, human moment. If inspiring each other to be our best selves is distasteful, then I would suggest that you don't actually like humanity very much.

Yeah. I'd tell people that academy is a disguting mafia and that they shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole =)

...

OK - That is seriously wrong. Taxes are not collected by the state to help people, altough a tiny bit goes to 'help' people as a propaganda effort.

You're missing the point.

People pay them, justify it to themselves, because of the helping part.

I commented on that point above. People pay them under coercion. What they say after being forced to pay doesn't matter much. Even if they say that they want to pay, the remark is meaningless because they CAN'T prove it, because taxes are NOT voluntary...

Statists will say, we NEED taxes, to help with welfare, to build roads, and so on.

We know thats bullshit. Ok. So we can spend time.. going on hundreds of years now.. trying to argue against this perception, OR we can just build alternative institutions that mitigate the entire fucking idea.

So, you are going to build roads. How are you going to deal with the fact that road building has been monopolized by the state, including land title registration. Plus the problem that you'll have to pay taxes for 'official' roads, even if you build your own, thus having to pay twice for roads.

...

But it is impossible to both pay taxes AND try to fix the problems that taxation causes by putting even MORE money and effort into the system.

Like I said, we try real hard, and are mostly effective, at not needing government dollars for our work with the disabled.

There already are sizable 'charity' efforts. They don't change a thing, IMO.

The two areas where tax money comes into play is when we get people jobs. The employers get tax subsidies. We try to encourage them not to take them, but are mostly ineffective with that. The other area is education. We don't have always have the private funding to pay for schooling, so we help our "clients" file for the government programs to get it. I actually disagree with that.

It's good that you disagree because I can't think of anything more fucked up than sending people to schools, let alone state schools (which is what virtually all schools are today anyway)

We'd be able to pay for them if we took money from religious charities, then we wouldn't need the government grants. I get out voted on that by some rabid atheists in the group though, so it is what it is.

As if theocracy was anything but the most brutal sort of statism?

Food not Bombs provides food without tax money.

People should be able to provide food for themselves? Also, http://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/faq.php "Military contractors are worried that we might influence the public to realize our taxes could be spent on human needs instead of war" "The government and corporations find our message – that we could redirect the taxes that currently are used on the military to fund things like education and healthcare – a threat to their profits and power." That seems ambiguous. Although it would be better that stolen money be used to 'educate' people instead of outright killing them, it would still be statism. And as matter of obvious fact, the welfare-warfare does both. They keep right wingers and left wingers 'happy'. "No one should need to rely on a soup kitchen or charity when we have food in great abundance." So they are not a charity...I don't get what's the point of giving 'free' food is then. I don't think that poverty would be a problem at all in a free society, but the impression I get from fnb is that they think that economic problems can be solved by giving away 'free' stuff - which is of course sheer commie nonsense.

There are plenty of anarchist social services building infrastructure independent from the state.

They don't seem to be interfering with state power too much, if at all...

...

Not in the way you described.

What way? People helping people? People getting programs together that are independent from the state?

Only to a very limited extent. Because the state knows pretty well that if their power gets really challenged, they can 'fix' the problem.

...

Actually you can't. There's a obvious rational explanation you missed, and worse, you are trying to 'psychoanalize' me.

Instead of realzing that your anti rationalistic bias prevents you from thinking correctly, you are...messing with me =)

Your obvious rational explanation is nonsense. There is no reason alternative to state programs cannot be made without taking tax dollars.

There are various problems with that. One is that your alternative statist programs are just that. Giving 'free' stuff to people is obviously NOT the way to encourage people to be independent. Second, even if you can give some free stuff away, it will never scale.

There is no reason you can't boot strap an independent program using tax dollars initially.

Lol. Not only you are playing state, you are also using state money? It doesn't get any more 'anarchist' than that...

And I'm not trying to mess with you or analyze you. You're obviously a loner, and have said as much.

What I said is "mas vale solo que mal acompañado" - but whether I'm a loner or not, my points stand on or fall on their own.

If you're rather focus on ways to destroy the state, rather than create alternatives.. that's fine too. Destruction can be an act of creation.

I choose differently. And it has nothing to do with an "anti-rationalist" stance. I'm not, even, anti-rationalist, despite what you want to think.

I just incorporate more axioms into my logic, and I'm aware of the .. larger.. implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. =)

I suspect that your grasp of math is way better than mine. However your overall political analysis doesn't strike me as good.

...

...

But, as far as I can tell, its the only viable option.

Too bad that simple economic analysis shows it's actually not viable at all.

Lulz. Economic analysis, generally, is horse shit.. or at least confined to a frame of reference. Economics is all predicated on theory of value. Socialist theory of value says, roughly "A thing is worth the labor gone in to produce it."

It's well known that socialists stole that one (from smith and co.), and got it wrong anyway. Cart before the horse and all that. Valuable stuff usually requires labor to be created, that's why it looks as if labor is a measure of value. (but there are valuable stuff that don't require labor).

Capitalist: "A thing is worth what someone will pay."

Anarchist: "A thing is worth what it is being used for."

From each of these theories of value, one can derive economic "laws" .. like the "law" of supply and demand. It's a law.. only so long as people operate according to the theory of value.

But people can choose to value things however they like. Goes with the whole free will thing, actually.

I think you are hand-waving...

...

...

...

All the services that the state has monopolized like education, 'health care', whatever. can be provided by the market/the people/the commune once the state is gone.

Cart before the horse, man.

Yes, exactly. That is exactly the reason why your analysis isn't right.

You cannot compete with the state, providing all the garbage services the states provides, if you don't deprive the state FIRST of their monopoly powers.

It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an alternative.

I call that competition. I think it's the correct word =) You can go to grocery store 'A' or to grocery store 'B'. 'A' is an alternative to 'B'. And viceversa. And both stores are 'competing'. People can use state services, or your alternative services. You are competing with the state.

It doesn't need to be a complete, viable alternative. It just needs to be a working model. A proof of concept.

Of what concept? That cooperation can exist without the state? That's self-evident. Oh wait, thinking about stuff for five minutes is too much for the poor masses...

Why? Because I'm not trying to destroy the state.. directly. I'm not trying to blow it up, and start from zero.

Start what from zero? You seem to believe that the state needs to be replaced with something. I don't think that's the case. The state is a criminal organization. An UNnecessary evil.

I'm trying to grow alternatives that will, over time, allow the state to wither..

It will NEVER wither. You will NEVER be allowed to provide an alternative. Seriously. The state is all about COERCION. If people could voluntary choose an alternative, WE WOULD ALREADY BE LIVING UNDER ANARCHY. The people who call themselves the government are criminals. They need to be stopped. They will never 'wither' and 'voluntarily' relinquish their power. If your plan is based on the idea that you will catch them unaware and outsmart them...they've already outsmarted you.

the same way it didn't appear overnight and slowly grew. That is how it will be replaced.

Non sequitur.

At bottom, a state is just a human activity. PEOPLE DO it.

Of course. A particular kind of activity. Crimianl activity. And it's some people who do it, not aliens, but what of it?

We just have to attract a critical mass of people doing something different.

Agreed on the critical mass part.

...

Consider the example of stuff banned by the state like 'some drugs'. What is your plan? Sell drugs on the black market? And you think that would limit state power? It obviously never does.

Uhm. The cartels run Columbia dude, so I'm not sure what you're exactly getting at there.

Drug dealers and the state run colombia. And drug dealers need the state to outlaw drugs, otherwise prices would be ridiculously low and selling coke would be as profitable as growing potatos. My point is, how would you solve a quintessential statist problem like the 'war on drugs'? What kind of alternative can you provide to the 'war on drugs', apart from ending it ASAP?

But you're making a subtle error. Helping disabled people isn't illegal. The state has their hands in it anyhow. We can take that over, and get them out of it.

You can take it over only if they allow you. And I'm not making an error. I'm switching to an area (drugs) where it's not clear how the 'provide alternative options' strategy can be implemented.

By appropriating social services, there is also a propaganda effect involved..

Yes, that's true. But do notice that before the state ITSELF appropiated social services, they were mostly provided by 'private' mutual aid societies and the like.

the state will have a difficult time blasting away at anarchists involved with helping disabled, the homeless, etc. Food not Bombs gets shit, usually out of health-code nonsense, but even still, they are relatively immune because of the propaganda effect.

You lose that when you get into overt crime areas.

They are crime areas only because they've been made so by the state. But yes, they are more problematic and the only solution is to get rid of the outlawing. But how?

This is what fucked over anarchism at the turn of the 20th century. The "propaganda by deed" horseshit is what inspired robberies, crime, assassinations, and associated "anarchy" with "chaos" in the public mind.

I don't know...

It is, essentially, why I am politically pacifist. In theory, I'd be up for good old insurrection, but I'd have to KNOW we'd win. Fuck the self-interest of it, I don't care about that.. but the potential for centuries of setbacks is too great if we let the victory write our history.

...

And it doesn't even have to be an army. It's just a matter of getting a big enough number of people to say "no".

AGREED! Critical mass of people living without the state. That's what I'm working towards.

Well, that's a lot harder if people are living in a statist society. You can have your alterative help system for disabled persons but you will still be subjected to taxation, regulation and whatnot.

...

...

We're not there yet. In order to fight, people need something to fight for. Thats where the OTHER non-state services come in, in my view.

As you said, cart before the horse =P

Perhaps. But I like the smell of this horse better.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:39 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

I see. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me more like your main criticism is of the establishment of psychiatry, and not so much with the study of the mind, personality, and so on as such?

You can 'study' the mind if you want. I'll remain skeptical for many reasons. I outlined a couple of reasons why...

I can agree with this. I think a great deal of psychiatry, as a discipline, is half-assed, and generally speaking am critical of institutions generally.

But in terms of explaining common aspects of human behavior, I find psychological models fairly accurate.

Well, I don't. And what hat are you wearing now? The manipulative emotionalist, or the cold 'scientific' thinker?

...

Maybe she doesn't like gym class. And maybe the tantrums are caused by some other reason.

No, she won't wear shoes if she can help it.

OK. You want to believe that your niece has 'autism'. I think she should be left the fuck alone. Notice also how a couple of days ago you apparently thought that conformity to 'social norms' was a problem, but you've been taking the exact opposite side here. You made excuses for the psychiatric mafia, and ultimately you just believe in their nonsense.

That example is like a weird "two-fer" .. Aspies (affectionate name for those with Asperger's)

Fuck that.

...

So, the issue is not any mental problem on her part, but having to deal with less than fully civilized people...

I wouldn't consider it a problem.. and my understanding is that because its biologically based,

I'm done with (your) pseudo science, sorry.

...

In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from pater)...that kind of thing...

Ok, so we're talking models of the state, and not THE totalitarian state.

Huh? All states are totalitarian, by definition.

...

Exactly. Greedy STATE LICENSED doctors working as salesmen for the greedy pharmaceutical mafia that exists only thanks to STATE GRANTED patents and other IP shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are not 'normal', i.e. they are actually healthy children who don't get along with 'normal' savagery.

So the state seems to play some sort of role in all that...

Greedy state-outlawed drug dealers, working as salesmen for out-lawed cartels, selling outlawed, unpatentable freely reproduced and copied products and other shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are just looking for an escape from the 'normal' savagery.

What point are you trying to make? That doctors are nothing but drug dealers? Yes, of course, but they are way worse than non-state-licenced drug dealers. And you got a couple of things wrong. "unpatentable freely reproduced and copied products" Unpatentable yes, freely reproduced, obviously not at all. The products still need to be manufactured in a highly regulated enviroment. That's why there's a black market... "they drug up children " No, dealers sell recreational drugs to people who want them.

So the state seems to have little role, in all of that...

The state obviously is the sole creator of black markets for some drugs. AND they are the ones who license your beloved official 'legal' drug dealers, aka 'medical doctors'. So, what point are you trying to make?

Greed will always be around, man. Greed will infect any system you have, or don't have. Greed infected monarchies, modern nation-states, churches,

Momarchies, 'modern' states and churches are criminal organizations - You seem confused.

...

Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able to impose their views on the rest.

But it isn't rational to allow a minority to impress its will on the majority.

So we're back to square one.

No. It's true that if people were completely rational they would be fighting back in a rational way, but their enemy is more specialized and motivated.

...

Even if we were cleverer than the rest, it doesn't follow we should be in charge. And a group of stupid people controlled by a minority of marginally less stupid people is a recipe for tyranny and disaster.

Why not? If rational is the metric for good, then the most rational people can do the most good. They'll seek to do the most good.

OK. They'll seek to do the most good by means of 'laissez faire', so if the rational people you want to put in charge are really rational they would resign in the blink of an eye. Nobody will solve your problems - vote for nobody.

It may still be a recipe for disaster, but it would seem to be a smaller disaster, or take a longer time, or SOMETHING positive compared to those that can't reason to the same level of complexity.

If you think my position entails support for 'rational' 'leaders' you don't understand my position.

...

Except that the state is a criminal organization so by definition it's not "good".

OK, fair enough, so perhaps phrase it a different way.. the most rational should, in some way, have their views take precedent over the irrational views.

Ah yes, of course. At least as far as arguments go...

Whether that is a "state" or whatever you want to call it, it seems clear that if "rational" is "good" then "irrationality" needs to be suppressed.

What needs to be suppresed are attacks against person and property. And it just so happens that those attacks can't be rationally justified.

...

...

You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select "popular" kids,

Did I mention that children (and 'teenagers') are well known for defying authority? The 'authority' of their shitty parents, for starters.

I don't think so. But yeah, I was certainly one of them.

OK. You don't believe that children don't want to obey their parents? And you are the one who are pretending to be a 'realist' and 'teaching' me about 'life'? Come on.

That doesn't invalidate what I'm saying though.

Yes it does.

At the same time that children start selecting their peer leaders, they rebel against their parental leaders.

Nope. They rebel against their piece of shit parents from day one.

It's because they are defining their own identity, and that identity -- as a primate, is largely bound up in hierarchy.

primate bla bla bla primate

"No, Dad, I'm not going to listen to you. I'm going to wear makeup like the cool girl in school does!!"

I'm going to wear makeup because of obvious reasons having to do with sexual affairs. Again, you are pretending to teach me about 'street smarts' and 'real life'?

Bottom line.

Bottom line is indeed clear.

...

You seem to be focusing on facts that validate your theory but ignore the facts that don't fit...

Not at all.

Yes at all.

...

And of course, fuck big brother too! Now I'm kinda wondering what's your take on 1984? An example of heretical and misguided rational thinking?

Indeed.

The music was god-aweful.

I can't hear any music coming from my books.

...

The way you describe the situation? We do nothing because nothing can be done. You can keep repeating your deterministic views, based on...'biology'? 'psychology'? but if you keep repeating that alpha/beta thing, at least face the logical consequences of your own theories.

Oh, I do.

Hierarchy, to some level, will always(?) be present in human society. It does not follow, however, that the alphas need to always be the most cunning, competitive, driven sociopaths we have around.

If you've ever met an alpha type who is actually a genuinely nice person, its obvious to see the positive effect they can have on people, in terms of getting them to be more confident themselves.

I don't believe in fairy tales, good cops(except dead cops of course) and your 'good' 'leaders'.

Do that long enough, on a large enough scale.. I don't know how many generations it would take..

Cool. So a bunch of members of the master race will save the poor human primates. Some anarchist you are.

Just because we're social animals doesn't mean we can't have different ways of organizing. There are constraints, but the Native American economy was run on beads and the honor system. Some societies were ruled by the strongest, others the oldest.

Beads? As in indirect medium of exchange, also known as money?

...

But I don't wonder. I've studied the subject =)

And actually I do listen to statists first, and then yes, shred their 'arguments' to pieces. Seems to me that's the intellectually honest way to talk to people.

No, its the dick way of talking to people that will guarantee that they will get angry, and won't remember what you said, just that what you said made them angry. And so, since they don't remember, they'll never change their mind.

Fuck fake politness.

...

...

We should feel compassion for people so enamored with authoritarianism, and be gentle with them.

Feel compasion for people who advocate all sort of attrocities?

Of course. Conceivably you'd feel compassion for a person hit by a bus and through no fault of their own had their body broken.

Why would you not feel compassion for a person whose mind, and very spirit was broken by the weight of the state?

It's not the same thing.

...

...

Many anarchist writers of the past have looked at them as some sort of debased beast who is content to lick their chains, and this view is why we don't have more people.

Oh, so it's bakunin's fault now? =)

Indirectly, yes. I appreciate much of the man's thought, but he made errors he couldn't have forseen. We all have.

I could wish that my errors wouldn't be visible for hundreds of years.

They are glaring already...

...

And what kind of 'leading' would the 'betas' do...?

I don't know. It depends on the individual, of course. I'm a terrible cook, and in matters of cooking, I defer to those that are my betters. I've never made shoes, and so I defer to the authority of the boot maker.

Ah, as in 'division of labor'? What's new about that, exactly?

With apologies to Uncle Mikhail, naturally. :)

...

...

Take note when people are being deferential towards you, and putting you in a subtle position of social power, and ABDICATE that power. Ask for their opinions, and defer to them. When someone comes to you, for advice, or a solution.. Be content to say you don't know, and encourage them to use their own understanding. Encourage them to see that you aren't their superior.

I'm not sure what that is about. I'm not a politician nor I believe in authority...

Doesn't matter if you believe in it. You can disbelieve in VD all you like, someone can still give it to you, and without your consent.

The point is, be aware of the subtle ways in which people express their feelings of their inferiority to you, or others, and subtly uplift them.

I'm not a babby sitter.

...

There shouldn't be any 'power vacuum' absent the state. That's like saying that absent the mafia there would be a 'crime vacuum'. Well, yes, actually that's the point of the whole anarchy exercise, a power vacuum, meaning nobody has power.

Rather not. The point of anarchy would be power equilibrium.

With a vacuum, there is always something trying desperately to get sucked in, and to fill the vacuum. Anarchy would be equilibrium. No power pushing out, and none seeking to attain it.

Yeah well. Phrase it however wish, but that's the idea.

And if you dispose of a state without people being ready to live without it, there WILL be a new state.

Spain. WWII. After Franco fell, there was decentralized organization.. no rulers to speak up. Cooperation to run the country, and after the war they made a new government.

They didn't have to. It just seemed like the thing to do. Fuck, we have to keep up with the Jone's. Every other self-respecting people has a government. We better get one.

Seems like creative interpretation of spanish history. I'll simply point out that spanish 'anarchists' got quite a few high ranking posts in the government of catalonia.

...

And don't think that 'manipulating' or 'causing' or 'suggesting to' somebody to get a degree is a good thing. So both the means and end strike as less than ideal.

Really? Because she went from not being able to support herself, nor her child, and being on state assistance, to getting a decent job. I haven't seen her in some years now, but last I heard she is a quite prosperous small business owner now.

And you need a university degree to do that?

I get that university is largely a scam. It's a fucking pyramid scheme, basically. But like most "multi-level marketing" schemes, if you really put in the effort, you can get ahead.

If you put in the effort you can get ahead generally speaking, and you don't need to get a degree. But hey, I'm sure that more peopel with degrees is a step forward towards freedom.

...

...

It was a genuine, human moment. If inspiring each other to be our best selves is distasteful, then I would suggest that you don't actually like humanity very much.

Yeah. I'd tell people that academy is a disguting mafia and that they shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole =)

Forget every I've said. Stay a loner =)

So making common sense remarks aligned with common sense not-pro-establishment views means I'm a loner.

...

...

Statists will say, we NEED taxes, to help with welfare, to build roads, and so on.

We know thats bullshit.

And?

You tell me. You wrote the part with quote level 3 "> >>" - I replied with something else that you are not quoting...

It doesn't matter what we know is bullshit. The point is helping OTHER people know its bullshit. If a deductive argument gets them there? Good. If example, and suggestion get them there? Good. If it takes a hit of LSD? Fine.

Well yes. If LSD actually worked, fine. But does it work?

The point of an argument is the truth, right? Well, which is the valuable part? The form of language, the process that gets them there? Or the truth?

If you actually value the TRUTH of the idea that the state is perhaps the worst idea humans have ever come up with (with the possible exception of Barry Manilow recordings), I'd imagine that you'd be keen and open on any way to dispel that idea

Yes.

.. and not be hung up on little fine points of communication style.

That seems to be exactly your problem. You seem concerned about form and politeness more than substance.

I'd think that any block or friction to getting that idea dispelled would be done away with.

...

So, you are going to build roads.

No, I never said that.

No? So you are only going to provide alternatives to some of the 'services' the state provides? So, you will never fully replace the state with something else?

...

There already are sizable 'charity' efforts. They don't change a thing, IMO.

So what does? As I mentioned some time ago, you're taking the tact of questioning without offering alternatives.

So?

Its a good debate tactic, if you like to just carry on. It won't dissuade me.

Because you just chose to do something that doesn't work and are too arrogant to admit you are wrong. Notice also the fallacy here. You say : 2+2=5 Me : No, that's wrong. You : HOW CAN I BE WRONG AND YOU MUST TELL ME THE RIGHT ANSWER. Well, it just so happens that whether I tell you the right answer or not, my criticism stands. The idea that criticism is not valid because I'm not also finishing YOUR homework is...flawed.

I know the tactic. I've used it on occasion. No matter how many questions you come up with, even if I can't answer, actually proves me wrong.

Priceless. I can't answer objections to what I'm saying but the objections never prove anything.

Whether its logic puzzles that may stump me, or fine points of magnifying conceptual distinctions, none if it actually proves anything I've said incorrect, unless you can provide an alternative that is in some way better, simpler, or so on.

Again that is beyond ridiculous. As a matter of fact I've been proving you wrong all along. If you are doing something that doesn't work, then doing NOTHING is a better alternative. At least if you do nothing you are not wasting your time. And that's just one possibility.

...

It's good that you disagree because I can't think of anything more fucked up than sending people to schools, let alone state schools (which is what virtually all schools are today anyway

Shows how little you know about this area of life. These are private institutions. They cater to people with cognitive disabilities.

So you were saying they were not good and now you flip-flopped?

...

...

We'd be able to pay for them if we took money from religious charities, then we wouldn't need the government grants. I get out voted on that by some rabid atheists in the group though, so it is what it is.

As if theocracy was anything but the most brutal sort statism?

You like to exaggerate terms. So do I. Hyperbole can be fun, yeah?

Depends on the theology. I imagine you're not real versed in, say, the Dalai Lama's rule as a theocratic leader.

I don't think you were talking about taking moeny from the dalai lama, were you? And I don't know the dirty secrets of those particular theocrats anyway, but I surely know who the 'judeo-kristians' are, and I assume those are the ones offering money to you. Plus, *you* said you didn't think it was a good idea.

Not many states give up their terrority to avoid bloodshed.

Not that I have much use for the guy, really. But I won't get into that.

In any case, I'd have thought that someone who made such a big show about the coercive nature of taxes would understand that I'd rather not take tax money because I know its at the barrel of a gun.

That doesn't mean I would cooperate with fucking jew-kkkristians, who are not only theocrats they are also statists. But hey, I'm a 'loner'.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but if people want to put money into the Easter egg for charity work, that's fine by me. It's voluntary.

These days, at any rate.

Ha ha. Organized religion aka organized fraud is 'voluntary'.

...

People should be able to provide food for themselves?

I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't completely detached from reality.

Right back at you.

What should be, and what is. You seem to have a problem with that whole reality thing. What arguments are meant to do, vs. what they do.

*You* have the problem and it was apparent from your first message. I'll restate it once more, and then I'm not bothering anymore. If you are a 'realist' then you 'should' not advocate any sort of change. Whatever happens, IS REALITY. There's no, gasp, 'free will' and nobody is responsible for anything. Stuff just happens. Ther's no moral anything and words like 'should' and 'ought' are meaningless. The military 'should' stop bombing people? Hey, that is 'reality'! They just bomb people. But of course, you are a 'realist' only when it suits you.

There are other examples, it seems, I don't feel like going back through the thread to find them.

The whole conversation is an example of your lack of consistency. So, yeah, whatever 'examples' you think you find about my failure at grasping reality, they are actually examples of your selective 'realism'.

But you really should get that looked at.

...

They don't seem to be interfering with state power too much, if at all...

Neither does your trolling?

Well, thanks for finally shoting yourself on the foot.

...

Only to a very limited extent. Because the state knows pretty well that if their power gets really challenged, they can 'fix' the problem.

It's all about PR.

I'm not a marketing bot.

...

There are various problems with that. One is that your alternative statist programs are just that. Giving 'free' stuff to people is obviously NOT the way to encourage people to be independent. Second, even if you can give some free stuff away, it will never scale.

You can feed a man while he learns how to fish. I'm not sure it scales to feeding trolls though.

Now you shot your remaining foot. At any rate, realize you are not teaching people how to fish. And learning requires rationality.

...

...

There is no reason you can't boot strap an independent program using tax dollars initially.

Lol. Not only you are playing state, you are also using state money? It doesn't get any more 'anarchist' than that...

I always vote not to do so, as I've said.

Why would you vote against that? It's just reality!

But, I do understand the logic of those that vote for taking state money:

So you vote against it, but you think it's logical anyway?

its better than using it elsewhere (military),

I suggest you look up welfare-warfare state.

and if we can bleed off the state

And I'm out of touch with reality? You think you are going to bleed off the state by taking tax money? Seriously?

to get programs rolling and people set up, all the better. We could take a lot more state money, but we don't.

Why not? Weren't you going to bleed off the state?

And we're not 'playing state.'

You can LOL at bootstrapping from the state if you like. But its how things work in the real world. You know, that pesky thing called physics and biology.

Like you for example. You were bootstrapped out of your mama's vag, sucked on your nanny's tit, ate their food, and burdened them. Papa could have gotten more ass if not for all your crying. And they didn't even have the responsibility to do this for you, seeing how you aren't them and you should have been taking care of yourself, after all you were just the result of an ejaculation.

What point are you trying to make?

...

I suspect that your grasp of math is way better than mine. However your overall political analysis doesn't strike me as good.

I don't really look at it as political analysis, seeing as I have no real political ideology.

Ha...

The way I think about states is the way I think about children. I've often commented on "playground politics." The dynamics of how 5 year olds act are quite similar to the nonsense nation-states engage in.

You seem to have missed this one "Boy asks Who Made God? " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUZud3OLgg See? That's reality. Piece of shit parent, rational child setting her straight.

...

...

It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an alternative.

I call that competition. I think it's the correct word =)

So, your car breaks down. Person A offers you a ride. Person B offers you a ride.

You think they are in competition?

Wrong analogy. So, fail.

It's not the correct word.

Competition implies striving, and struggling. It involves trying to beat another at some mutually important task, or game, and so on.

I'm not in competition with the state. I don't want to do what they do. They really don't want to do what I do.

To give themselves an air of legitimacy, they are forced to provide certain services. They'd probably rather line their pockets or buy bombs. I'm not trying to beat them at that game.

You said that helping people is good PR. You mention the state does it for the same reasons. And you are not trying to beat them at their own game?

I'm not forced to provide services. If I worked harder at my job instead of the other stuff, maybe I'd make more money and line my pockets. Instead I choose to provide services.

I'm not in competition with the state. They aren't in competition with me.

I am providing an alternative though, that if widely supported and used, would take away one of the false ways the state legitimizes itself.

...

You can go to grocery store 'A' or to grocery store 'B'. 'A' is an alternative to 'B'. And viceversa. And both stores are 'competing'.

People can use state services, or your alternative services. You are competing with the state.

You can ride in your friend A's car, or friend B's car. You can choose either service.

Keep up with the wrong analogies. But even in that case they may well be competing. Maybe both want to give you a ride for their some particular reason of their own in addition to helping. So both they will try to get you to ride in their car. But really quibbling about the meaning of competition is even more disgression.

They are not in competition.

...

My point is, how would you solve a quintessential statist problem like the 'war on drugs'? What kind of alternative can you provide to the 'war on drugs', apart from ending it ASAP?

Civil disobedience and getting high.

Civil disobedience, yes.

...

You can take it over only if they allow you. And I'm not making an error. I'm switching to an area (drugs) where it's not clear how the 'provide alternative options' strategy can be implemented.

Fine. Who cares? Not all strategies are fit for all terrains or all conditions. That's obvious. Each strategy needs soldier/workers. That's obvious.

You propose no real strategy as an alternative, other than - what are you advocating? Nothing. Except talk.

You are also doing a lot of talking too. And from my point of view reinforcing stuff that should actually be challanged.

Fucking dumb.

...

...

Yes, that's true. But do notice that before the state ITSELF appropiated social services, they were mostly provided by 'private' mutual aid societies and the like.

So I'm trying to re-take lost terrain? OK. Sure.

But never bother about thinking how you lost that terrain in the first place? Ah no. Thinking is too much trouble.

Better than waiting for a solution from you that will never come,

I'm 'teaching' you how to think for yourself...ha ha ha.

or waiting for an insurrection to take the whole show and HOPEFULLY actually ends in anarchy .. and not just another criminal gang with guns.

And since your solution (I suspect its insurrection because you won't say it) includes getting a gang of people with guns together,

My solution would be civil disobedience basically. But you don't get people to think about civil disobedience by giving them 'free' 'vegan' food, I believe.

and then killing guys who HAVE power, it seems really risky that when the dust settles they won't TAKE power. In theory it could work.. but it requires too much that never seems to come about: millions of people free from greed.

And if they are when they start, you lose a leg or an eye in the fight.. then you start thinking "well, I DESERVE something" that other people didn't get.

I know to much history to fall for that shit. I'm real suspicious of violence as a solution.

I'm not advocating violence per se. I think I said violence is less than ideal, but if I didn't, I'm saying it now.

...

...

This is what fucked over anarchism at the turn of the 20th century. The "propaganda by deed" horseshit is what inspired robberies, crime, assassinations, and associated "anarchy" with "chaos" in the public mind.

I don't know...

Don't know what.. how 'anarchy' got associated with violent chaos?

Get reading.

"I don't know..." meant I'm not buying state propaganda. Anarchy was associated with chaos long before the beginning of the 20th century.

...

Well, that's a lot harder if people are living in a statist society. You can have your alterative help system for disabled persons but you will still be subjected to taxation, regulation and whatnot.

Yeah its hard. What makes you think getting rid of the biggest, global mafia EVER was gonna be easy? You think its gonna be romantic like some fucken Hollywood movie? You get to hang out with yer buddies in a bad ass bunker, get a cool nickname carved on your rifle, shoot some bad guys, get a sweet scar, and get the girl?

No. It's fucking busting your ass to do the shit people don't want to do. All the shit that people don't want to do, gets shuffled to the state.

That's only partially true.

They don't want to police their own neighborhoods and confront violent criminals they want to call the cops. They don't want to fight fires. They don't want to hang out with 30 unruly kids and try and teach.

All those things can be done without the state, and have been doing without the state, and the state provides mediocre and/or expensive services.

They don't want to provide services. They don't want to do SHIT. They want to be coddled, and taken care of by Mama state.

Ah but a few altruistic leaders will do all the work that thousands of millions of people don't do. I don't think that makes sense.

They want to fuck around, live in the basement, buy their toys, and take as little responsibility as possible.

Laziness is no virtue.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I'm willing to listen to any practical ideas that would be faster, or more efficient.

But FAILING that, I'll do the work, laying the foundation as best I can, pebble by pebble, with far few too few workers, and far to few fucking pebbles.

Well, if you want to...

If nothing else, in my last days, I'll know I truly did try. It wasn't a theory, or a "political leaning" or a dream. It was my life. And along the way, I meet a lot of rad people doing it, I learn a lot, and I grow as person.

You really can't beat it.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 03:24:06 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

OK. You want to believe that your niece has 'autism'. I think she should be left the fuck alone. Notice also how a couple of days ago you apparently thought that conformity to 'social norms' was a problem, but you've been taking the exact opposite side here. You made excuses for the psychiatric mafia, and ultimately you just believe in their nonsense.

I'm not taking any "exact opposite side" .. you seem to really be unable to separate, as I'm mentioned before, idealistic principles from pragmatic practice.

I'm really fed up with you now =)

...

...

I wouldn't consider it a problem.. and my understanding is that because its biologically based,

I'm done with (your) pseudo science, sorry.

Go look it up, dude.

I'm not taking even half seriously an idiot who gets his 'science' from derren brown. Game over sonny. The episode about 'converting' an 'atheist' was beyond pathetic. As I already mentioned the guy is a scammer and you are one of his victims.

...

...

...

In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from pater)...that kind of thing...

Ok, so we're talking models of the state, and not THE totalitarian state.

Huh? All states are totalitarian, by definition.

Read. "IN THIS CASE ITS THE FAMILY WHICH IS ___SOME_SORT_OF_MODEL__ .."

You started out by saying that kids are forced into comformity by THE TOTALITARIAN STATE.

Your bullshit about 'autism' comes from the state. And obviously children are forced in conformity by the state, and their parents, etc.

The STATE. The functioning body of government does not, through law and state officials, have much to do with the behavior patterns encouraged upon children.

Yes it does. Buy hey since it's all 'herd instinct' anyway...

...

...

Greedy state-outlawed drug dealers, working as salesmen for out-lawed cartels, selling outlawed, unpatentable freely reproduced and copied products and other shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are just looking for an escape from the 'normal' savagery.

What point are you trying to make?

Nope. The point was that using your reasoning you can apply it to things that government has no direct bearing on.

Medicine and drug regulations, the state has a pretty direct bearing on. So, the fuck are you talking about. Plus there are lots of other areas where the state has INdirect bearing on, but it still has a lot of influence.

The state IS. Greed IS. There is overlap.

Hey, state officials breathe too, I hear.

So fucking what.

...

Unpatentable yes, freely reproduced, obviously not at all. The products still need to be manufactured in a highly regulated enviroment. That's why there's a black market...

Freely reproducible in the sense that customers are free to reproduce. I buy my ounce of weed, smoke the bud, toss the stems, and plant the seeds. My dealer isn't going to come after me.

No, the government will. Yet another retarded retort on your part.

...

The state obviously is the sole creator of black markets for some drugs. AND they are the ones who license your beloved official 'legal' drug dealers, aka 'medical doctors'.

You really should stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I loved medical doctors, nor psychiatrists.

No no. You just pay attention to their amazing theories. As in the amazing theory of 'autism'.

...

...

Greed will always be around, man. Greed will infect any system you have, or don't have. Greed infected monarchies, modern nation-states, churches,

Momarchies, 'modern' states and churches are criminal organizations - You seem confused.

If you're going to quote me, don't cut me off in mid-sentence like a cunt to pretend you have a point or a real objection.

That sentence was finished with examples that are NOT criminal organizations. And greed can still infect them.

Well, I don't happen to give a damn about your rant on greed, go figure.

That was the point. You're linking the state to greed, but greed can be linked to anything.

It's fucking stupid. Like I said, government officials breathe too.

Yes, a highly stupid remark on your part. Congrats.

...

No. It's true that if people were completely rational they would be fighting back in a rational way, but their enemy is more specialized and motivated.

Whatever the fuck that means. You still haven't given any real answer to why, if people are rational, so much irrationality exists.

It because of fucktards who believe in 'herd instincts' and 'autism'

...

If you think my position entails support for 'rational' 'leaders' you don't understand my position.

You haven't actually advanced a position. You're just thrown stones at mine.

Awww. Your bullshit is being stoned and you don't like it. What a tragedy.

So no, I don't understand your position.

No wonder since you get your intellectual education from the likes of derren brown.

...

What needs to be suppresed are attacks against person and property. And it just so happens that those attacks can't be rationally justified.

Sure they can. As we covered before, if someone is attacking you, you have the right to attack back.

That's called 'defense'. But whatever.

...

...

At the same time that children start selecting their peer leaders, they rebel against their parental leaders.

Nope. They rebel against their piece of shit parents from day one.

Some children, yes. Some, no.

You're over-generalizing again.

Ah yes. And that coming from you, the master of the 'herd instinct' really counts as an objection.

...

...

If you've ever met an alpha type who is actually a genuinely nice person, its obvious to see the positive effect they can have on people, in terms of getting them to be more confident themselves.

I don't believe in fairy tales, good cops(except dead cops of course) and your 'good' 'leaders'.

I wouldn't if I were you either. You're negative, argumentative, and purposefully obtuse. You object, for the purpose of objecting,

Ah yes. I'm not conforming to your 'social norms' =)

and you misrepresent.

So obviously there are few humans who would BE nice to YOU to begin with!

Sniff, sniff.

...

...

Do that long enough, on a large enough scale.. I don't know how many generations it would take..

Cool. So a bunch of members of the master race will save the poor human primates. Some anarchist you are.

I feel sorry for you.

How touching.

...

...

No, its the dick way of talking to people that will guarantee that they will get angry, and won't remember what you said, just that what you said made them angry. And so, since they don't remember, they'll never change their mind.

Fuck fake politness.

No wonder why people don't like you.

Yep. Because I'm not a hypocrite whereas hypocrysy is today's highest 'value'. So, how's your attempt at enforcing your fucking fake politeness working on me? =)

...

...

The point is, be aware of the subtle ways in which people express their feelings of their inferiority to you, or others, and subtly uplift them.

I'm not a babby sitter.

Oh, I disagree. You're at a computer, so you're sitting. And you most certainly are a baby.

Ha ha ha. So funny.

...

...

Really? Because she went from not being able to support herself, nor her child, and being on state assistance, to getting a decent job. I haven't seen her in some years now, but last I heard she is a quite prosperous small business owner now.

And you need a university degree to do that?

It can help. Also helps you network with others, find like-minded people and so on.

Ah yes. Do networking with the rest of corrupt fucks who go to uni. Old boy network and all that. Pretty anarchist.

...

So making common sense remarks aligned with common sense not-pro-establishment views means I'm a loner.

Nope. Being a condescending jerk, who is perfectly willing to be impolite for no particular reason,

Damn! I'm being IMPOLITE. This is really a serious offense.

who fails to consider even basic social norms and courtesies and in fact rallies against them,

I really love it when people are their own self parody. So you are whining about lack of respect for social norms. I think this is check mate =)

makes you PRECISELY the sort of person that people won't want to deal with, and the kind of person they'll treat like shit to convince you to go away.

Then you learn "well, fuck people. I'll be a loner!!"

=) I feel so bad about all those nice, honest people not liking me =) - It's a real tragedy. Sniff, sniff.

...

...

It doesn't matter what we know is bullshit. The point is helping OTHER people know its bullshit. If a deductive argument gets them there? Good. If example, and suggestion get them there? Good. If it takes a hit of LSD? Fine.

Well yes. If LSD actually worked, fine. But does it work?

I imagine so. Leary was pretty anti-state. The whole tune-in, and drop-out thing.

So it worked on leary and who else? Oh wait. Might you be 'over-generalizing'?

...

No? So you are only going to provide alternatives to some of the 'services' the state provides? So, you will never fully replace the state with something else?

Sounds to me like you've never undertaken a significant challenge in your life. I can tell by this very question. How?

Because you have a tendency to 'learn' about 'life' watching derren brown on youtube.

...

Priceless. I can't answer objections to what I'm saying but the objections never prove anything.

Not the way you're approaching it. All you're doing is misrepresenting what I say, magnifying the import of minutia, and so on.

Sure. You declared you don't listen to objections, but somehow it's my fault =)

...

Again that is beyond ridiculous. As a matter of fact I've been proving you wrong all along. If you are doing something that doesn't work, then doing NOTHING is a better alternative. At least if you do nothing you are not wasting your time. And that's just one possibility.

If your thinking was true on this, then Edison would have never invented the light bulb.

Any retard who had an internet connection could learn that edison didn't invent the light bulb. Buy hey - enjoy your ignorant cliches...

You're just an armchair theorist, who doesn't even have theories to share. Vacuous would be a good word.

Sure. I mean, if a scientist like you, who got his degree from Derren University says so. it must be true. Emotionally true.

Yeah, I was just taking a moment to play your game of picking a theme, like "theocratic despotism being the worst sort" and pointing out the obvious counter examples that have nothing to do with what you're actually saying.

I thought you'd be content with me playing along.

What, you tried your dishonest, manipulative garbage on me? =) Was it effective? =)

...

*You* have the problem and it was apparent from your first message. I'll restate it once more, and then I'm not bothering anymore.

I doubt that.

Wait and see.

...

But of course, you are a 'realist' only when it suits you.

No, I'm able to separate what IS, from what I believe OUGHT to be. I understand that they are very different, and, realistically speaking -- historically speaking -- expecting change is frankly, well.. unrealistic.

Yes, yes. Don't rock the boat.

...

...

...

They don't seem to be interfering with state power too much, if at all...

Neither does your trolling?

Well, thanks for finally shoting yourself on the foot.

I haven't shot myself in the foot. You've been littering stupid ass questions like that, that have nothing to do with the point made, through the whole thread. What else should I call it?

Ask derren brown?

...

...

...

Only to a very limited extent. Because the state knows pretty well that if their power gets really challenged, they can 'fix' the problem.

It's all about PR.

I'm not a marketing bot.

As far as you've expressed, and therefore as far as I can tell, you're nothing. So I agree.

And you are the kind of retard who reply to 'nothing' =)

...

At any rate, realize you are not teaching people how to fish. And learning requires rationality.

I may not be teaching you how to fish, but I can assure you that the cognitively disabled I help with, learn a great deal.

...

...

Why would you vote against that? It's just reality!

So?

...

So you vote against it, but you think it's logical anyway?

Yup. Why wouldn't I?

Right. You are pretty much an inconsistent retard. So why would your actions be consistent.

...

And I'm out of touch with reality? You think you are going to bleed off the state by taking tax money? Seriously?

'We' as in me and the people I personally know? No.

But it's going bankrupt already, and WE as in a metric shit-ton of people? Yeah.

Oh, so now the state is bankrupt thanks to all the 'anarchist' parasites who live off it. I'm not even bothering trying to follow your next round of 'emotional' 'reasoning'.

...

What point are you trying to make?

Like I said. Physics and biology.

And Derren Brown!!!

...

"Boy asks Who Made God? " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUZud3OLgg

See? That's reality. Piece of shit parent, rational child setting her straight.

It's actually not rational at all.

... Well, I don't forget that you belive in autism, so...

...

...

Fucking dumb.

...

So, yeah. Fucking dumb. Squared.

Yep. You.

...

...

So I'm trying to re-take lost terrain? OK. Sure.

But never bother about thinking how you lost that terrain in the first place? Ah no. Thinking is too much trouble.

Yeah, I do think about how the terrain was lost in the first place. Laziness. People stopped doing the social work that they used to.

Your thoughts are very clever and interesting.

There may be some light at the end of the tunnel, if the technologist types are right. Robots = displaced workers. There is already a social movement, and talk in European governments about creating a "living wage" ..

european governments might save the day - quoted for self-parody value. So this is it xorcist. You didn't want off-topic posts on the list, but somehow you got the chance to present your amazing 'biological' philosophy based on the teachings of the philosopher derren brown. You got some commentary on it that I guess helped you reinforce your notion that your philosophy is pretty much an accurate representation of 'real' 'reality'. Have a nice day =)

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 10:32:22 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 03:24:06 -0000 I'm really fed up with you now =)

Does this mean we're breaking up?

Life is terribly tragic sometimes.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

Yes massa O'Brien @ xorcist @ sigaint - I bow to your alpha intellect.

On 09/25/2016 04:25 PM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 10:32:22 -0000

...

Does this mean we're breaking up?

Life is terribly tragic sometimes.

No, not a tragedy, just life. I find the best way to deal with a painful breakup is to remember that if not for the lows, the highs would not be as sweet; and that, with the right type of eyes, one can fall madly in love for span of hours, and then move along, alone again. How long one is in love for is not important, what is important is to experience it.

...

How long you're involved with someone isn't important. What you get out of it is. Right? Psychopath. Rr Yes massa O'Brien @ xorcist @ sigaint - I bow to your alpha

...

intellect.

There you go with that bowing again. Have you tried a chiropractor?

For me, I would say its obvious that I have no superior intellect. While I do endeavor to hold complementary ideas in mind, I often find it difficult. Just when I think I have it, I'm prone to hives.

Not to mention, here I am, trying to understand the ways people think in a variety of ways and perspectives, ranging from the coldly rational, to the exotically playful, and yet I find myself time and again, in all manner of confusion when seeing peoples responses to the simplest of things.

I never attacked your views. I never offered the slightest argument against classical libertarianism, nor even objectivism. Other than clarifying your stance, I did not address them at all, that I can recall. My main focus was to simply state some ideas that I have, and why they lead me to conclude that anarchism is a worthwhile endeavor.

But because I would not bow to you, nor your objections, this causes you, to bow to me?

The world truly is ripe with irrationality.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 08:51:18PM -0300, juan wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:39 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

...

Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able to impose their views on the rest.

But it isn't rational to allow a minority to impress its will on the majority.

So we're back to square one.

No. It's true that if people were completely rational they would be fighting back in a rational way, but their enemy is more specialized and motivated.

...

...

Even if we were cleverer than the rest, it doesn't follow we should be in charge. And a group of stupid people controlled by a minority of marginally less stupid people is a recipe for tyranny and disaster.

Why not? If rational is the metric for good, then

OK, this one's gotta be nipped in the bud so to speak! 1) Rational is not the metric for good, although good may often be rational. Your proposition is some sort of logical reversal which does not follow as an absolute, at all! 2) Your propositional sentence (starting "If...") is an often times effective but sly tool. Nutha one for the troll tools list... Here's a hint to everyone on still reading: Every sentence beginning with "if" (or similar, or that implicitly begins with an 'if' etc) is quite likely suspect from the get go. "If" begins a proposition, or assertion, etc. Such propositional sentences are easy to slip past those who are not familiar with this communication tactic. And in this particular example courtesy 'xorcist', we have a classic case of a proposition implying an absolute, but in fact is not true, yet tends to lead the reader into the fallacy. (Forgot the name of this particular 'logical reversal', but it's a fallacy nonetheless.) Second hint: the "more honest" or "leading the reader in critical thinking rather than blind agreement" approach is to instead of beginning such a sentence with "if", to begin your sentence with "I assert that..." or "I assume it is true that..." or even "In many cases, we can fairly assume that ...".

...

the most rational people can do the most good. They'll seek to do the most good.

And here we see the logical fallacy flowing from the false generalisation / proposition. Alright then, carry on ...

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 08:51:18PM -0300, juan wrote:

1) Rational is not the metric for good, although good may often be rational.

No argument from me. Just to be clear, that was my way of summarizing juan's position. He has been the one advocating rationality as the key to focus on.

And in this particular example courtesy 'xorcist', we have a classic case of a proposition implying an absolute, but in fact is not true, yet tends to lead the reader into the fallacy. (Forgot the name of this particular 'logical reversal', but it's a fallacy nonetheless.)

I believe you may be referring to 'affirming the consequent'. If X, then Y. Y, therefore X. But if you really want to get deep like that, juan's entire line of thinking falls to the "argument of fallacy" which is the idea that because an ARGUMENT for something is fallacious, then the conclusion must be fallacious.

...

...

the most rational people can do the most good. They'll seek to do the most good.

And here we see the logical fallacy flowing from the false generalisation / proposition.

Remember, I'm not asserting any of this, in fact. You seem to be confused, and should re-read. I'm summarizing my take on juan's position, and offering my counter.

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 03:46:11PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On communication ...

For those who use the cp archives, the original thread continues here: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-September/062006.html

2016-09-21 3:33 GMT+03:00 juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:

Oh... what a deadly punch/es, Juan! (one of) The poor new CIA troll xorcist (substituting the SDW guy) starts to understand why his fellow man (SDW) failed on the list with his cheap US/antihuman pseudophilosophical propaganda. :P

Lets see whom they will send next.

I absolutely love it when you nutters call me CIA or some shit. Fucking hilarious. See, now THIS is what I mean when I said I'm here for the lulz.. Let me guess, whenever you see a black van on the highway you think 'they' are following you, right? Wait wait.. no, no.. they only use black vans in the movies, right? In real life they use WHITE vans. Yeah, thats the ticket. Right. fucken hell.. Dude, if I was CIA, I'm sure I'd have a lot better things to do than argue with you fucking assholes. And if they dont, then that sure as hell explains the recent god damn bombings and shit for the last few decades, don't it? In fact, I'm not EVEN CIA, and I have a lot better things to do. I'm burnt out lately, so I've been slacking.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:40:09PM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

But for real life, when you get beaten as a slave all day, it AFFECTS YOUR THOUGHTS.

When you work a dreary ass job, barely get enough sleep, having your very dreams filled up with visions of monotonous days at work.. it AFFECTS YOUR MIND.

And when life and death are on the line, when hormones and adrenaline dump, YOU DON'T FUCKING THINK.

Now, here's your fallacy. Because we humans are of course acting rationally under pressure. Take Juan's give-me-your-money example: in order to actually hand out your money you need to understand my intentions, you need to know that I know what you might know etc, and then act accordingly. This is rationality at work. It works fast, so fast that we don't notice it. In fact, what most people (and I suspect yourself as well) think is THINKING when they decide something is wrong. A human being always decides all things almost instantly. What follows, and what we misinterpret as "thinking", is that we a) try to understand our decision or b) try to find arguments why we decided as we did. At this point you might counter that other mammals brains work similar, like lions or dogs or whatever. Yes. But there's a difference: we humans are able to revise that decision. That is, we decide on something (e.g. kill that slow grandma on the lane in front of me), then reason about this decision and come to the conclusion that we won't do it. THAT is free will. Tom PS: and forgive me my bad english, I hope it was understandable.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:59:14 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:40:09PM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote: Now, here's your fallacy. Because we humans are of course acting rationally under pressure. Take Juan's give-me-your-money example: in order to actually hand out your money you need to understand my intentions, you need to know that I know what you might know etc, and then act accordingly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdYgEDSm7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q2KGGMc1EM

Here's a second video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy75GtKsOAw In that second video apparently he tricks a guy at a jewelry store (a goldsmith?) into selling him a $4500 ring for a stack of white paper. Needless to say, I think the video is fake. The first video you linked might be plausible, especially taking into account that the people he tricks do realize they were tricked after a short while. However the idea that a professional seller of jewelry is going to make a big sale like that, without even COUNTING the bills because he had been chatted up with some nonsense about the subway system is...not plausible. I do think that Darren is socially engineering people. The people who watch their videos, IF they think are real...

Don't be so sure.

...

This is rationality at work.

...

THAT is free will.

Poke around on Youtube and watch a bunch of Derren's stuff.

I don't mean this in a confrontational tone, but it seems you are being tricked by Derren... Watch how

he MAKES people make choices that, to them, feel entirely free.

Listen to him, as he teaches you how it works, WHY it works, and get an understanding of the limits of rational, conscious free will.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:18:03PM -0300, juan wrote:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

...

I'm not really following. No doubt we can find more than a few instances of people acting like animals, but what of it?

It's also true that people can act in rational ways, and that's what supposedly make them human.

Agreed, with the proviso that quite often people rationalize, rather than act rationally. They rationalize away animal instincts.

I don't know what you mean by 'rationalize' - Isn't that psychobabble?

Also, there are animal behaviours that don't entail aggresion towards other animals, so even "acting like an animal" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Bottom line again, your 'realistic' view that SOME humans do what they do because of their animal nature is bullshit.

I think you missed the agreement - I'm reading you both saying almost the same thing on this point. Juan, I agree with your wording, but it's not what I read xorcist say. I'm also very strongly agreeing with the principle "we should strive for something higher than our 'base instincts'", as well as "'rationalizing' evil behaviour as merely 'animalistic' tendency is a self fulfillment of propagation of that which we say is evil. xorcist said what some people do; you say they shouldn't do that, except for those "animalistic" behaviours which are not evil (of course). Looks to me like we're all on the same page here...

Right. You are generalizing and that's why your argument fails.

I am quite guilty of tearing down generalisations and missing if there was something useful, whether in frustration or whatever.

...

about Joe six pack, basically.

Joe six pack doesn't necessarily join the military to murder brown children for fun.

Doesn't necessarily, but often enough 'does' (effectively does). Sad but true. What Joe six pack ought do is say "no, I conscientiously object, and if that's what it comes to, I'll take solitary for X years, rather than go and shoot those brown children" - there are just so many personal stories over the web these days of ex grunts who've become "peace activists" (perhaps to purge their conscience?) but that does little to stop the killing machine - saying no -before- shooting folk in other countries is what is needed to stop the killing. </preaching to the converted>

On 09/18/2016 06:36 PM, Mirimir wrote:

Posting private messages is very bad form, without explicit permission.

Just sayin'.

Trolling for information about people on lists using confrontational strategies and tactics is 'bad form;' Do it offlist, that means HOSTILE COMMUNICATION, or having been hostile on list, then without notification contact me off it and be even remotely hostile and FUCK YOU TOO! The last of it's trolls before I blocked the jackass was a textbook example of fishing for information using some 'social cues' it picked up somewhere. Maybe correct. Mostly not even in the ballpark, but UNWANTED UNCONSTRUCTIVE communication fishing for information. I'm too busy for that. I'm also too busy to deconstruct it for you line by line (which in the process reveals more info) I wouldn't waste my time doing it for myself either. The narrative being used was too fucking obvious. Let it bug Zenaan, or you perhaps. Rr