Internet Utopias Survey and Manifesto
Fri, Nov 22, 2019 Reply-To: christian.fuchs@uti.at As part of an AHRC research network, I conduct a survey about Internet/media utopias. In the time of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and fake news, we experience a crisis of Internet platforms. Many people think we need Internet and media utopias today. But how could they look like? Those interested in liberation and technology might have good ideas... I therefore want to invite you to participate: https://psmutopias.limequery.net/879161 Answering will take about five minutes. A number of participants with very visionary ideas will be invited to a workshop in 2020 in London, where participants will work on co-writing/co-authoring an Internet/Media Utopias Manifesto. Kind regards, Christian Fuchs -- Prof. Christian Fuchs University of Westminster, Director of the Communication and Media Research Institute http://www.camri.ac.uk @fuchschristian c.fuchs@westminster.ac.uk
In 1995 through 1996, I proposed that a new method to eliminate unwanted government be used, that would eliminate all militaries, wars and nuclear weapons, forever. I provocatively called it "Assassination Politics". https://cryptome.org/ap.htmOver a series of ten (10) parts, written between February 1995 and about May 1996, I proposed that a system would be set up to allow the public to donate money, anonymously, to be paid, also anonymously, to the person who correctly "predicted" the data of death of a hated politician or government figure. In doing so, I solved David Friedman's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman) "Hard Problem" that he wrote of in his 1973 book, "The Machinery of Freedom". http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf In doing that, I made it possible for "anarchy" to actually be stable and orderly, and not chaotic. In Friedman's analysis of the problem, a region run by libertarian or anachistic principles could be attacked by other regions running more traditional government systems, like taxes and militaries. That region that couldn't tax its citizens would seem to be easily defeatable. My solution not only protects that anarchic region by allowing its people to attack and defeat the leadership of those other regions, but also allows the people of those other regions to attack and defeat their own "leadership" which they don't want. This would also destroy all militaries, including all nuclear weapons in their possession: Anybody who possessed a nuclear weapon becomes a threat to anyone potentially in a targeting area, which means that a large percentage of the population is threatened. The people of such areas can donate money to purchase the death of anyone possessing those weapons, unless those possessors agree to publicly dismantle and destroy all of their weapons. As such, I assert that my Assassination Politics idea, when implemented, will permanently stabilize a virtually government-free world. Jim Bell On Saturday, November 23, 2019, 02:22:52 AM PST, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: Fri, Nov 22, 2019 Reply-To: christian.fuchs@uti.at As part of an AHRC research network, I conduct a survey about Internet/media utopias. In the time of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and fake news, we experience a crisis of Internet platforms. Many people think we need Internet and media utopias today. But how could they look like? Those interested in liberation and technology might have good ideas... I therefore want to invite you to participate: https://psmutopias.limequery.net/879161 Answering will take about five minutes. A number of participants with very visionary ideas will be invited to a workshop in 2020 in London, where participants will work on co-writing/co-authoring an Internet/Media Utopias Manifesto. Kind regards, Christian Fuchs -- Prof. Christian Fuchs University of Westminster, Director of the Communication and Media Research Institute http://www.camri.ac.uk @fuchschristian c.fuchs@westminster.ac.uk
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 06:54:40 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
In doing that, I made it possible for "anarchy" to actually be stable and orderly, and not chaotic.
OK. You keep showing both your ignorance and your true colors. And you are starting to sound like the jew-kristian nutcases who like to believe they are 'saving the world'. So no Jim you did nothing of the sort. You know fuck about liberal anarchy and your 'solution' is no such thing.
On Monday, November 25, 2019, 07:47:26 AM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 06:54:40 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
In doing that, I made it possible for "anarchy" to actually be stable and orderly, and not chaotic.
OK. You keep showing both your ignorance and your true colors. And you are starting to sound like the jew-kristian nutcases who like to believe they are 'saving the world'.
So no Jim you did nothing of the sort. You know fuck about liberal anarchy and your 'solution' is no such thing.
I said nothing about "liberal anarchy". What is that, anyway? You didn't make it up, at least as a concept. The problem is that I think you improperly applied the label to me. There are MANY prefix and suffix-anarchies in existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism One major problem is that MANY people who call themselves "anarchists", of the various and many strips, don't actually believe in the concept of "no-government" at all. I will quote an article that was the first result in my doing a google-search for "liberal anarchy", and insert my comments inline: https://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/politics/the-growing-threat-of... "The media is ignoring a growing threat to civil society on the left: the strange resurrection of the dangerous dogma known as anarchism." I don't think that "anarchism" is "dangerous", except mostly to governments and statists. "Simply put, anarchism is the belief that human beings are basically and intrinsically good" No, I don't believe that. But that is irrelevant for the purposes of "anarchism". If some people aren't 'good', and guns are available, such people can be shot and killed. " and all authority is evil and corrupting." Mostly, that is true. If the term "authority" means an involuntary relationship. "It can also lead to violence such as the riots in Seattle on May 1, when a mob roamed through the city’s downtown attacking police and destroying property. The crowd, composed largely of anarchists, https://ktla.com/2013/05/01/may-day-protests-turn-violent-in-seattle/#axzz2S... "I disagree. Maybe they CALLED themselves "anarchists", or were called that by others, but I doubt most of them actually believed in the concept of "no government". "threw rocks, firebombs, metal pipes, and fireworks at police. Such riots have become a yearly event in Seattle, where mob members attack everything from the federal courthouse to McDonalds. That's an old concept known as a "riot"."The members of the mob were mostly anarchists" I doubt that.", radical leftists"THAT is more probably true! These guys actually believe in A LOT of government, oppressive government, IF they are in control of it. "who believe that they have a moral right to destroy property, violate the law, and engage in all kinds of criminal behavior. "Or, at least, believe that given the insane politics of places like Seattle and Portland, they are going to be able to get away with these acts." Their shenanigans are ignored by the media, but as some shop keepers in Seattle learned, they are no laughing matter. The anarchists believe that it is perfectly all right to walk up to a family-owned business and smash in the window or set it on fire as an “act of protest.”" Again, I think calling them "anarchists" is stretching the definition of "anarchist" past the breaking point. "What Is Anarchism Anyway?" "The difference between anarchism and libertarianism is that libertarians believe that the government is overreaching and generally undesirable, but that other sources of authority, such as the church, are acceptable. Anarchists believe that any form of organized authority is evil and should be destroyed."NONSENSE! I think that enforced, heirarchical, non-voluntary "authority" is bad. If a church engaged in actions the way governments today do, it would be as bad, too."The belief is based on the idea, disproved by thousands of years of history, that human beings are basically good."No, I believe that governments are basically bad, worse often than the people who make them up. It is not necessary to believe, or at least claim, that "human beings are basically good". " Instead, all corruption is caused by government or society’s rules;"Mostly that is true. But not "all". " crime could simply be eliminated by eliminating the rules and the authorities that enforce them."Not really. But it would have to be a different system. A system of AP, coupled with a voluntary court system, would do it. " Anarchists reject the Christian notion of original sin"I don't think "anarchism" and "religion" are necessarily related. They are orthogonal, I think. " and the traditional belief that government has a God-ordained role to police human behavior"That may have been a 'traditional belief, among religious people, but I don't think that's relevant, here. " Taken to its logical outcome, anarchism teaches that utopia will result if we simply destroy all organized authority." A clear misrepresentation of reality. With a dose of unsolved-David-Friedman's "Hard Problem" thrown in. If you are aware of, or would agree with, Friedman's "Hard Problem", you would think that "destroying all organized authority" would lead to chaos. "The resurgence in anarchism"The mere use of the term "anarchism" doesn't prove that there is an actual resurgence in anarchism." should bother us because anarchists also believe that property is evil."A major over-stretch. I consider myself an "anarchist" but I don't think "property is evil". I am a firm believer in the concept of private property. I simply don't believe that a government is necessary to enforce such private property. French radical Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the father of modern anarchism, actually wrote that “property is theft.” Any property right sanctioned by the state is wrong, according to this school of thought, so anybody has a moral right to steal or smash anybody else’s property. Because I don't believe in "the state", I don't believe 'sanctioning property by the state' is right, either. "In fact, anarchists believe that they have a moral right to steal or destroy other people’s property. " Some people might claim that... "Anarchist ideology partially inspired the Occupy movement, whose members claimed that they had a right to take over public and even private property for their own use." Again, a misuse of the label "anarchist", both by those in the Occupy movement and this writer. Bombshell New Book Reveals… How To Survive The Coming Martial Law In America | | | | | | | | | | | Martial Law Survival - New manual reveals what you can do to prepare Martial Law - How to survive the coming martial law in America | | | "The FBI thinks anarchists are a threat"I think the FBI thinks that A LOT of people are 'a threat', including many people who merely call themselves 'anarchists'. "; the agency has been investigating them and conducting surveillance of some of their activities. Yet even the interest from the FBI hasn’t convinced the media that there’s a threat here." Because, I suspect, that "the FBI" investigates A LOT of people for things that have nothing to do with "anarchism". [end of quote and comments.]
participants (3)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Punk-Stasi 2.0