Jim's willingness and search to do work to protect Assange is inspiring. Often people raise their heads to help in such situations, and often such people are ignored or ridiculed. The reason for this response is often the same reason that the situation and similar situations may be in need of help. It's happening all over.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC) professor rat wrote:

Okay - Jim Bells hatred for the USG has reached the lunatic stage

bell is a right winger, just like you. His 'hatred' of the US govt very very selective.

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 10:52:50 AM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC) professor rat wrote:

...

Okay - Jim Bells hatred for the USG has reached the lunatic stage

 bell is a right winger, just like you. His 'hatred' of the US govt very very selective.

Then it's odd that I've managed to score 100/100 on the Nolan Chart ever since 1975, when I first realized that I'd always been a libertarian.  (See also World's Smallest Political Quiz). I support BOTH the "individual freedoms" traditionally defended by the Left (or, at least, they way the Left stereotypically defended them in the 1970's and before), AND the "economic freedoms" traditionally defended by the Right. Indeed, when I first saw the Nolan Chart, it was obvious why to a leftist, a "libertarian" looked like a "conservative", while to a conservative, an "libertarian" looked like a leftist.  

From their individual standpoints, they were ignoring the similarities, but paying attention only to the differences.   And while I classified myself as a "minarchist" from 1975-1994, it was only because I could not figure out a logically-consistent way to get rid of the last bit of government. And although I wasn't aware of his book, see David Friedman,  David D. Friedman  ,his 1973 book "The Machinery of Freedom",  The Machinery of Freedom  chapter "National Defense:  The Hard Problem". 

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf The problem, briefly stated, is "How do you defend a country based on anarchistic or libertarian principles, if they cannot tax themselves to put on a defense?". | | | | | | | | | | | The Machinery of Freedom The book was published in 1973, with a second edition in 1989 and a third edition in 2014. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | David D. Friedman David Friedman is the son of economists Rose and Milton Friedman. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Univ... | | | David Friedman couldn't figure out the solution, I only learned decades later.   Without knowing of David Friedman's existence, nor that of his book, or that chapter, (until probably late 1995 or even 1996), I independently realized in about 1975 (or a few years after) that creating or maintaining a stable anarchy would be impossible unless you could solve that problem.  THAT was why I called myself a 'minarchist'.   It wasn't that I wanted some residual amount of government to exist, I couldn't figure out how to eliminate that government, and yet protect that region from other, hostile regions elsewhere. Why would I invent my AP (Assassination Politics) idea, and publish it, if not to achieve the eventual destruction of all governments on the face of the earth? https://cryptome.org/ap.htm And, over 26 years later, nobody that I am aware of has been able to 'disprove', or find a fatal flaw in, my original idea.                Jim Bell  

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 04:18:57 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 22:55:31 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

  On Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 10:52:50 AM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:     On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC)

professor rat wrote:

...

...

Okay - Jim Bells hatred for the USG has reached the lunatic stage

...

 bell is a right winger, just like you. His 'hatred' of the US govt very very selective.

Then it's odd that I've managed to score 100/100 on the Nolan Chart ever since 1975, when I first realized that I'd always been a libertarian.

 >   You are clearly not a libertarian. Just go to the archives and read, for instance, your  repulsive defense of the borders of the US state.   >  It starts here  https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-December/064282.html I'm not in favor of GOVERNMENT borders.  I am very much in favor of PRIVATE borders.       >From jdb at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 20 13:21:27 2016   >  "This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea.  https://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/28/open-borders-or-market-immigratio..." You are pointing to something that seems to no longer exist.   Yes, I vaguely recall it.          > To make things even more funny look at who the 'libertarian philosopher' you invoked actually is     > https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-is-christopher-cantwell-the-white-nationalist...    > Now to state the obvious, libertarians support the extermination of the state, including of couse, the state's borders. And I am no different.  Government borders, no.   Private borders, yes.    

...

The problem, briefly stated, is "How do you defend a country based on anarchistic or libertarian principles, if they cannot tax themselves to put on a defense?".

 >   notice the absurd idea that such a thing as an anarchist 'country' can exist. If you were a libertarian you'd know that countries are a creation of the state. As you should well understand, in the English language (and probably most other languages) words are used with multiple meanings. country definition - Google Search | | | | country definition - Google Search | | | I'd like to see the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) and its myriad definitions.   I use the term "country" to mean "a region of land (usually) populated by people".   Sure, the label "country" is somewhat ambiguous.    People DO use it, sometimes, to mean "a region of land, populated by people, run by a government."  And yes, I'd agree that the term "region" contains less of an assumption about the nature of the government associated with the land.   Notice that I didn't use the term "nation", which would have (at least) implied a government operating to control that region of land.   Also, notice, for example, that in 1973, David Friedman titled one of the chapters of his book, "The Machinery of Freedom" was "National Defense:  The Hard Problem".      Myself, I thought of this choice of words, "nation", as being a mistake.  But the term "national defense" has become somewhat generic.  Sure, he should have used the term "regional defense", I suppose.  I'm not going to criticize Friedman for using the 'wrong' word in 1973.   He had a valid point, and he made it.               Jim Bell  

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 01:31:57 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

I'm not in favor of GOVERNMENT borders.  I am very much in favor of PRIVATE borders.  

I have found his statement in the Wayback machine, so I will post it here: Open Borders, or Market Immigration? - Christopher Cantwell

you are again quoting an anti-libertarian white supremacist. Thanks.

 I will quote what I see as the key section:"But open borders in the presence of a command economy and welfare state is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-peace."

That's a lie. Are you pretending that lie is true (and thus admitign again that you DO defend state borders? )

 The key is the "in the presence of a command economy and welfare state..." Which, no doubt, you 'forgot' and intentionally failed to seek out and re-post.   That's because you are dishonest.  

So thanks for admiting AGAIN that you are not a libertarian that you are indeed against open borders. I'll explain the libertarian position again, for completness sake. No libertarian ever defends STATE BORDERS under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. The existence of a 'welfare state' is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT and UNRELATED to the free movement of people.

I am in favor of ELIMINATING the "command economy" and ELIMINATING the "welfare state", and indeed ELIMINATING all the governments, without exception.

My position is consistent.  

Are you against open borders? Yes? You are not a libertarian.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 06:47:01 -0400 Karl wrote:

Punk, what do you think of the expression that it looks as if your primary goal in posting to this list is to insult people at every possible opportunity?

I think you are a US government agent karl, like virtually all the rest of list members. I further think you have little of value to say and are the typical fascist who want to control the way people speak. Go talk to your comrade david barrett

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:27:28 +0000 zeynepaydogan wrote:

why does everyone call each other agents?

I call everybody here a US government agent because they constantly parrot different bits of US government propaganda. See for instance the endless trump spam coming from 'grarpamp'. Then you have things like 'professor rat' and 'david barrett' whose job is clearly to get assange murdered. Et cetera.

why is everyone talking to each other so humiliating?

ProtonMail mobil ile gönderildi

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:23:28 +0000 zeynepaydogan wrote:

Then what are they doing here?

That's a good question and I don't have a good definitive answer. Maybe this list has become some kind of training ground.

If they're making US propaganda, why are they here? Are they trying to drive a few people who read the e-mails on the list crazy? This is a big waste of time for them

Yes, it apparently is a waste of time. But let's pretend that the grarpamp trump fanatic is a 'bona fide' trump fanatic (if there's such a thing). Why would a trump fanatic bother spamming a list read by 10 people? Even if I don't call him a government agent, his actions make little sense.

And some people are always targeting some of them, which is very disturbing I believe that cypherpunks defend a country-less society.

If anyone isn't like this, please leave this list

"Castigat ridendo mores"

Hehe. Well I've been ridiculing them for a while - the ridicule doesn't seem to have much effect =P Look at this post from a guy who pretends to be a 'high ranking cypherpunk' https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-July/081556.html "Many of the problems of police enforcement, especially unwarranted violence, cannot be solved until the human officers are replaced by androids." and look at the reply he got from a sane guy, who shortly left the list after that post. https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-July/081563.html

I have noticed that you haven't bothered to address what Christopher Cantwell ACTUALLY said.   You copied the cite, which had apparently disappeared from the Web, so I went to the Wayback Machine to find the original. Given what you have said about Christopher Cantwell, this is a fine opportunity for you to state your objections to what he said, in 2015. So go ahead, do that. Note:  I am not necessarily defending everything Cantwell said, or even much of what he said, but since you raised his article as an issue, I'd say that you should at least show what you objected to.  I have highlighted one specific quote from him: But open borders in the presence of a command economy and welfare state is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-peace. Presumably, Cantwell could have said, "But open GOVERNMENT borders...".    But I think his meaning was clear to his audience.                          Jim Bell On Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 06:32:53 PM PDT, jim bell wrote: On Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 06:18:08 PM PDT, jim bell wrote: On Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 04:18:57 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 22:55:31 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote: [snip] I have found his statement in the Wayback machine, so I will post it here: Open Borders, or Market Immigration? - Christopher Cantwell | | | | | | | | | | | Open Borders, or Market Immigration? - Christopher Cantwell The default libertarian position on immigration tends to be open borders, but ignoring the incentives in a State... | | | Open Borders, or Market Immigration?  September 28, 2015  Chris  61 Comments With Donald Trump at the forefront of the Republican presidential primary, and “refugees” pouring into Europe in record breaking numbers, immigration is a hot topic as of late. Reactions range from advocating giant walls be built, to amnesty, subsidy, citizenship, and voting rights. Whenever that great a chasm exists, there must be great controversy, and wherever such controversy exists, I must wade. Open Borders, or Market Immigration? For a libertarian, the answer may at first seem quite obvious, open borders. Governments have this nasty habit of building walls to keep people in, far more than to keep them out. Arbitrary geopolitical boundaries seem quite senseless, when drawn by criminal enterprises calling themselves nation States. Governments obtain everything they have from coercive violence, and thus have no legitimate claim to control what are commonly considered public spaces. We will decide for ourselves who comes onto our property, thank you very much. A practical and strategic problem then presents itself. If one is working toward building a more libertarian society, the importation of millions of communists, socialists, and religious fanatics – many of whom think the State should impose the will of their deity on the society – does not advance their purposes. Increased burdens on welfare rolls mean higher taxes. Increased crime means a greater police presence. Depressed wages means more people looking to government for solutions. Changing demographics in the age of political correctness means racial tension. But the (good) libertarian will tend to put principle first, no doubt. If welfare rolls are burdened, abolish welfare. If a police presence is repressive, restrain or privatize the police. If wages are low, hire people. If racial tensions flare, abolish anti-discrimination laws. Met with the political realization that none of these things are going to happen, he may choose to allow the suffering and self righteously blame the State, or he may try to find a more practical solution to a problem that is happening immediately. But let’s rewind a bit and analyze why people migrate in the first place. Growing up under the boot of the modern State, this can be difficult, but try to picture a free market world. People tend to be grouped together in various places throughout the globe. They have varying cultures, practices, and ethnic backgrounds much like they do now. Those cultures and practices lead to certain outcomes, some of which are more prosperous than others. In one particular area, wages are very high. Even the lowest skilled worker is able to feed a family by working only 40 hours a week. In a market economy, this is a market signal that workers are in high demand in that area. With that signal sent, workers migrate to the area to fill the void. Wages fall until it no longer makes economic sense to travel to the area. Wages then stabilize. This is what healthy immigration looks like. Migration only occurs to meet a legitimate market demand, and once the demand is met, it ceases. There is no massive shift in demographics, the migrants integrate with the culture of the society, and everybody is happy. But what if wages are very high, and (real) unemployment in the area is at 15%? This phenomenon can only occur under the boot of the State. This happens because of minimum wage laws, welfare subsidies, and other perverse economic incentives. Migrants respond to the market signal of high wages. They migrate, and some find jobs, and others do not. Those who do not find jobs end up on welfare rolls. Wages do not fall, and the market signal telling migrants to keep coming remains broadcasted to the world. More and more migrants come, the job market is saturated, they end up on the welfare rolls, and or involved in crime, and still the signal is broadcast to the world “Come here! Come here! Come here!” The welfare and crime burden increase in perpetuity. To meet the increased burden on public resources, money is printed. Money being printed causes prices to increase, but the steady supply of willing workers means wages do not rise with the prices of scarcer resources. Everybody in the society becomes increasingly miserable, and in their ignorance of economics they do not blame the minimum wage and welfare system, but rather demand their expansion. At this point, the misery of the society suggests to smart and productive people that this is not a good place to live, and the only migrants who continue to flow into the place are the lowest of the low. They breed, not only with each other, but with the natives – thereby irreparably lowering the genetic quality of the people in the society.  The migrants, readily identified by their skin color, language, and culture, rightly become seen as a scourge on the society. If the natives refuse to do business with the migrants, they are branded as racists, and even sued or imprisoned for being so bigoted. This can result in nothing other than racially motivated violence. At some point, we realize this cannot increase in perpetuity. It must hit a hard limit. Be it by a change in policy, a currency collapse, or riots in the street and a complete breakdown of the social order, the economics of the situation will bring a correction to that market. Depending on the form in which the correction comes, it could be cataclysmic, and with every moment the situation is allowed to continue the likelihood of that outcome increases. So while the libertarian theorist may comfortably sit back from a distance and wag his finger at the government, the libertarian who actually wants to stop the suffering has no such option. There is an immediate problem, not in some dystopian future, or some Ayn Rand novel, or some economics text book, but in the real world right now. His list of options do not consist of principled or unprincipled behavior, but of policy changes or racial warfare. Any well read libertarian would surely see market based immigration as a great benefit to any society, just as all market based activity is. But open borders in the presence of a command economy and welfare state is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-peace. If the situation were such that an infinite amount of time existed to solve the problem, I would agree with the open borders advocate that the answer is to educate the populace, to change the economic incentives, to abolish the State itself and solve the core underlying problem. But the problem is immediate and growing worse with time, and since I abhor the possibility of racial holy wars breaking out on the streets of America and Europe, I find myself inclined to side with those favoring stricter immigration controls – even if only to temporarily stave off inevitable catastrophe. [end of quote]  I will quote what I see as the key section:"But open borders in the presence of a command economy and welfare state is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-peace."  The key is the "in the presence of a command economy and welfare state..." Which, no doubt, you 'forgot' and intentionally failed to seek out and re-post.   That's because you are dishonest.   I am in favor of ELIMINATING the "command economy" and ELIMINATING the "welfare state", and indeed ELIMINATING all the governments, without exception. My position is consistent.                Jim Bell

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 01:17:17 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

 >   You are clearly not a libertarian. Just go to the archives and read, for instance, your  repulsive defense of the borders of the US state.

  >  It starts here  https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-December/064282.html

I'm not in favor of GOVERNMENT borders.  I am very much in favor of PRIVATE borders.  

The discussion was about immigration to the US (and other states) and you and cantwell were against it. It's all in the archives.

    >From jdb at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 20 13:21:27 2016

  >  "This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea.  https://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/28/open-borders-or-market-immigratio..."

You are pointing to something that seems to no longer exist.   Yes, I vaguely recall it.  

No, I'm quoting your own words : "This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea" But that idea, which you clearly disagreed with, has never been 'destroyed' and can't be destroyed. For completness sake you can get cantwell's article here, http://web.archive.org/web/20160104215832/http://christophercantwell.com:80/... Though again, the point is that you were rejecting a basic libertarian position : "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" - because you are not a libertarian. But maybe now you're saying you 'changed your mind' and you realize that indeed "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" ? NOTICE that OPEN BORDERS refers to STATE BORDERS.

       > To make things even more funny look at who the 'libertarian philosopher' you invoked actually is 

   > https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-is-christopher-cantwell-the-white-nationalist...

   > Now to state the obvious, libertarians support the extermination of the state, including of couse, the state's borders.

And I am no different.  Government borders, no.   Private borders, yes.  

Except, you and the white supremacist cantwell were talking about STATE borders. Also, when you say private borders, what do you think you're talking about exactly. Private borders (say the borders of the plot of land where your house is located) have nothing to do with immigration. And they are not even called borders as far as I know. I'm of course well aware of the right wing nutcases who think whole 'countries' should be 'privatized' and owned by musk and joogle, but of course those right wing nutcases are 1000% anti libertarian...

 

...

...

The problem, briefly stated, is "How do you defend a country based on anarchistic or libertarian principles, if they cannot tax themselves to put on a defense?".

 >   notice the absurd idea that such a thing as an anarchist 'country' can exist. If you were a libertarian you'd know that countries are a creation of the state.

As you should well understand, in the English language (and probably most other languages) words are used with multiple meanings.

I'd like to see the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) and its myriad definitions.   I use the term "country" to mean "a region of land (usually) populated by people".

Yeah so any region with some people on it can be called a 'country' but that's obviously not the sort of country that was being discussed. We were talking about 'countries' created by governments, and their government 'enforced' borders.

Notice that I didn't use the term "nation", which would have (at least) implied a government operating to control that region of land.  

OK so your last comment was just self-advertising based on a mostly meaningless use of the word "country". It was a side issue anyway. The main topic being your anti-immigration, pro state-borders view.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 03:34:33 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

  >  "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" ?

  >  NOTICE that OPEN BORDERS refers to STATE BORDERS.

Nope!   You are adding that "STATE" part!!!   Strawman!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_borders "An open border is a border that enables free movement of people (and often of goods) between JURISDICTIONS" JURISDICTIONS means STATES, you fucking dishonest idiot. So like I said, you were defending state borders along with the white supremacist cantwell, and there's a hundreds post thread in the archive proving it.