Re: comprehending the heart's nationalism
PS, On "choice": every morning, between 8am and 8:17am, I "choose" to have a coffee, a fully free, first amendment style choice of my free will. Nope, nothing biological or preordained about it whatsoever. Nope, nuthin!
Speaking of free will, anarchism, russians and the like, here's an interesting read http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-man-society-and-freed...
That's an awesome read! Thank you. I put it into an OpenOffice file, 4 pages, 88KiB, numbered paragraphs, "tidy" layout by my standards. Email if you'd like a copy for easy printing. Quote: "Always and everywhere, when the masses are restless, even the most enthusiastic liberals immediately reverse themselves and become the most fanatical champions of the omnipotence of the State." I take exception to the historical absolute assertion "(They ["Liberals"] know very well that no state in history has ever been created by contract, and that all states were established by conquest and violence.)", in that around 1900, the Commonwealth of Australia, the federation of various states including New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria etc, was created by referendum and consent of the British parliament and the British monarchy, and not "by conquest and violence" even though it is true that the majority of states ("countries") in existence were created by conquest and violence. New Zealand and Canada and perhaps other Commonwealth states, I think share similar non violent histories, though I am no historian, so please do your own research if important. Setting aside this historical exception to the "conquest and violence" rule about the creation of states, the paper gives much to think and debate about. Quote: "Under the aspect of their earthly existence, the mass of men present so sorry and degrading a spectacle, so poor in spirit, in will and initiative, that one must be endowed with a truly great capacity for self — delusion, to detect in them an immortal soul, or even the faintest trace of free will."
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:18:56 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Quote: "Always and everywhere, when the masses are restless, even the most enthusiastic liberals immediately reverse themselves and become the most fanatical champions of the omnipotence of the State."
I take exception to the historical absolute assertion "(They ["Liberals"] know very well that no state in history has ever been created by contract, and that all states were established by conquest and violence.)", in that around 1900, the Commonwealth of Australia, the federation of various states including New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria etc, was created by referendum and consent of the British parliament and the British monarchy,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and our beloved US are all ex colonies/administrative divisions of the british empire - the quintessential state created by conquest. Even if some of the - partial - secessions were 'consensual' as far as state agents were concerned, the new states never got any consent from 'their' subjects. And even if a state is not created by literal 'foreign' conquest, it still operates exactly like an invading army. Which is actually worse since it's your own 'countrymen' the ones who are invading and plundering you.
and not "by conquest and violence" even though it is true that the majority of states ("countries") in existence were created by conquest and violence.
New Zealand and Canada and perhaps other Commonwealth states, I think share similar non violent histories, though I am no historian, so please do your own research if important.
Setting aside this historical exception to the "conquest and violence" rule about the creation of states, the paper gives much to think and debate about.
Quote: "Under the aspect of their earthly existence, the mass of men present so sorry and degrading a spectacle, so poor in spirit, in will and initiative, that one must be endowed with a truly great capacity for self — delusion, to detect in them an immortal soul, or even the faintest trace of free will."
Yes, the essay is interesting because it has a couple of very contradictory positions like that one =P Also, I like how Bakunin who is supposedly a 'collectivist' and does have a demagogical collecvtivist streak actually ends up siding with the indidividual and against society's 'authority'.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/07/2016 12:58 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:18:56 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and our beloved US are all ex colonies/administrative divisions of the british empire - the quintessential state created by conquest.
Even if some of the - partial - secessions were 'consensual' as far as state agents were concerned, the new states never got any consent from 'their' subjects.
And even if a state is not created by literal 'foreign' conquest, it still operates exactly like an invading army. Which is actually worse since it's your own 'countrymen' the ones who are invading and plundering you.
and not "by conquest and violence" even though it is true that the majority of states ("countries") in existence were created by conquest and violence.
New Zealand and Canada and perhaps other Commonwealth states, I think share similar non violent histories, though I am no historian, so please do your own research if important.
Setting aside this historical exception to the "conquest and violence" rule about the creation of states, the paper gives much to think and debate about.
By conquest, in every case listed. Ask the descendants of people who lived there before sea power in the ages of canvas and steam existed. Some have gone in for 100% compromise and accommodation in later generations, others are not quite so forgetful. Try Buffy Sainte-Marie: She's harmless, she writes country songs and was a regular on Sesame Street. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXf4ndAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuq+fYH/A49ZMGEiqSxdcmLqBEnlPpO i2Mj6TCKSu3h8iEg9cXi4vL9vuWT/Z/97EBIYkHR6FeCcZJ+gO5Kln7OZntp5EyU qDNCEpKMNcNJ/fOvdVdVYFrAXoWGd7+Cvw/C48aEMQuwqBsa4ER7G2xDLFYgMdc3 NZKhmqJ1PXT0mfpjUhEMd/ZLv6CwEpaNaWyG6uGAVQ8/4RJJTWN21irj05dUmwzw UO4JWyjj9MD39sYzngQ26kVufXCTYNWoJ4bqefu7QCk9d7PxxruJMiYS1RgoIqqc 192Yj5HGFe3sJ4TgIe7fuPmSTfF3+20qFK406BgmbYoi5tOumc0BmY9VtC27cRs= =IVsj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and our beloved US are all ex colonies/administrative divisions of the british empire - the quintessential state created by conquest.
By conquest, in every case listed. Ask the descendants of people who lived there before sea power in the ages of canvas and steam existed. Some have gone in for 100% compromise and accommodation in later generations, others are not quite so forgetful.
One land mass can be the place for more than one change in national boundaries. The point is, America had a revolutionary war to "free" themselves from Great Britain, whereas by the time the colonies of Australasia decided to secede, the Crown allowed for most powers going to the new country Australia, without any civil war, just a referendum. So, there is precedent for creation of a new state (country) by secession and referendum, rather than conquest and/ or war. This precedent, although benefitting mainly just the "landed gentry" (land owners), is still something we can view with significant regard as a better way than civil war. Today's Ukraine shows us a classic case of the two examples: Crimea managed to get support from Russia for a referendum and voted almost unanimously for secession, which Russia duly recognised. The Donbass however, were not granted this option and instead must continue to fight for their lives against the Ukro-Nazis from the West who would rather kill ever Russian speaking Ukrainian they can get their hands on - the ongoing war there is an absolute disgrace to Europe, France, Germany, UK and the rest of the Western regime's cabal who supported the overthrow of Ukraine (for the n'th time), and refused to demand that the new (Nazi-fied) government stop killing its own citizens in the East who want at least a federalization (like we have in Australia, and I believe is not too dissimilar to the North American United States). Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea". That's called bullshit word manipulation! If "illegal annexation" is all it was, then the citizens of Crimea are massively grateful for that "illegal annexation" and the citizens of the Donbass/ Novorossia sadly pine for the day they are not longer shelled, bombed and shot on a daily basis! If only Victoria Nuland's "fuck the EU" had the right intention behind it... the EU, like the US, is absolutely disgraceful!
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:12:50 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
So, there is precedent for creation of a new state (country) by secession and referendum, rather than conquest and/ or war.
No because the colonies were created by invasion/conquest. Australia is not a 'new' state. It's just a rebranded part of the british empire. And isn't the australian state still subservient to london, both 'legally' and as a matter of fact? But even more important, the australian state is the biggest criminal gang in the region known as 'australia'. The people who call themselves the gov't of australia are an invading army.
This precedent, although benefitting mainly just the "landed gentry" (land owners), is still something we can view with significant regard as a better way than civil war.
Today's Ukraine shows us a classic case of the two examples: Crimea managed to get support from Russia for a referendum and voted almost unanimously for secession, which Russia duly recognised. The Donbass however, were not granted this option and instead must continue to fight for their lives against the Ukro-Nazis from the West who would rather kill ever Russian speaking Ukrainian they can get their hands on - the ongoing war there is an absolute disgrace to Europe, France, Germany, UK and the rest of the Western regime's cabal who supported the overthrow of Ukraine (for the n'th time), and refused to demand that the new (Nazi-fied) government stop killing its own citizens in the East who want at least a federalization (like we have in Australia, and I believe is not too dissimilar to the North American United States).
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
That's called bullshit word manipulation! If "illegal annexation" is all it was, then the citizens of Crimea are massively grateful for that "illegal annexation" and the citizens of the Donbass/ Novorossia sadly pine for the day they are not longer shelled, bombed and shot on a daily basis!
If only Victoria Nuland's "fuck the EU" had the right intention behind it... the EU, like the US, is absolutely disgraceful!
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:45:52 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
People who want to join russia, join russia. People who don't want to, don't. And sane people who don't want to be governed by any mafia are left alone and 'stateless'. And this last kind of secession is the only meaningful one by the way.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:24:24PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:45:52 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
People who want to join russia, join russia. People who don't want to, don't. And sane people who don't want to be governed by any mafia are left alone and 'stateless'. And this last kind of secession is the only meaningful one by the way.
So then, why was the referendum in Crimea and the apparrently overwhelming "want" of the people of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and "join Russia", somehow "illegal"?
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:50:40 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:24:24PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:45:52 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
People who want to join russia, join russia. People who don't want to, don't. And sane people who don't want to be governed by any mafia are left alone and 'stateless'. And this last kind of secession is the only meaningful one by the way.
So then, why was the referendum in Crimea and the apparrently overwhelming "want" of the people of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and "join Russia", somehow "illegal"?
Was there an option to not join any state? Or even create an 'indepenent' state? Rhetorical question of course... Plus, 97% voted "yes"? That's very hard to believe. Plus, crimea was annexed by the russian empire in ~1780. That looks like a precendent of sorts...
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:47:33PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:50:40 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:24:24PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:45:52 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
People who want to join russia, join russia. People who don't want to, don't. And sane people who don't want to be governed by any mafia are left alone and 'stateless'. And this last kind of secession is the only meaningful one by the way.
So then, why was the referendum in Crimea and the apparrently overwhelming "want" of the people of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and "join Russia", somehow "illegal"?
Was there an option to not join any state?
I suspect not, but in the context, I think that would literally have been suicide. Or endless civil war as we see since then (the last two years) in eastern Ukraine.
Or even create an 'indepenent' state? Rhetorical question of course...
Supported by themselves? Again, I think contextually, they sought the support of mother Russia - we humans crave the perceived (correctly or incorrectly) safety of our 'parent' nation state. See subject.
Plus, 97% voted "yes"? That's very hard to believe.
May be so, and some reports that the Crimean parliament reps were 'encouraged' to vote for secession, but that's a miniscule percentage of the population. The Crimean population, who now have overwhelming gratitude for the "polite green men" who kept them safe from the Nazi Banderites who wanted to bring their "peace train" to Crimea - I assume you've seen -that- particular documentary - the voice of the Crimean average person appears to be strong, consistent, and certainly not "coerced" in any way by 'mother Russia'. As I see it, they were in genuine fear for their lives, families, homes and stability of "state", and as such it is no wonder to me that they voted overwhelmingly for secession from the new 'illegitimate' at that point in time "sovereign Ukraine". They tried (asked Russia for support for such a referendum) numerous times in the past, and were rejected every prior time. In fact, in the actual context of that point in time, it is in hindsight inconceivable that the people of Crimea would -not- have voted significantly for the protection of union with Russia - most of them are Russian after all, Ukraine was a very artificial 'state' created by the USSR at the height of its empire, when it would have been almost impossible to imagine the breakup of the USSR. And that internal war of the new Ukraine govt against its own people in the Donbass, still goes on, and Europe still turns a blind eye, not wanting to legitimize "federalist" secession tendencies in Europe, and irrationally wanting to keep 'pressure' on Russia for its multi polar intentions. Shows how 'democratic' the "West" is...
Plus, crimea was annexed by the russian empire in ~1780. That looks like a precendent of sorts...
Don't know that history yet - but we're talking here of course about the recent annexation, not that original one. Notwithstanding, there is interesting history for what it's worth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Empire " Count Alexander Bezborodko, then a close advisor to the Empress, wrote in his diary that Russia was "forced" to annex Crimea: The Porte has not kept good faith from the very beginning. Their primary goal has been to deprive the Crimeans of independence. They banished the legal khan and replaced him with the thief Devlet Giray. They consistently refused to evacuate the Taman. They made numerous perfidious attempts to introduce rebellion in the Crimea against the legitimate Khan Şahin Giray (Sahin Giray). All of these efforts did not bring us to declare war... …The Porte never ceased to drink in each drop of revolt among the Tatars... …Our only wish has been to bring peace to Crimea…and we were finally forced by the Turks to annex the area.[14] "
On 07/08/2016 08:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:47:33PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:50:40 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:24:24PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:45:52 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
> Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM > meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
People who want to join russia, join russia. People who don't want to, don't. And sane people who don't want to be governed by any mafia are left alone and 'stateless'. And this last kind of secession is the only meaningful one by the way.
So then, why was the referendum in Crimea and the apparrently overwhelming "want" of the people of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and "join Russia", somehow "illegal"?
Was there an option to not join any state?
I suspect not, but in the context, I think that would literally have been suicide. Or endless civil war as we see since then (the last two years) in eastern Ukraine.
I find it hard to imagine how anarchist societies could develop in our currently state-dominated world. Anarchist societies have survived through isolation, and some still do. But how does that work in places under active state contention? Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less equally powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology that eliminates states' power monopoly. Maybe it'll be the Singularity.
Or even create an 'indepenent' state? Rhetorical question of course...
Supported by themselves?
Again, I think contextually, they sought the support of mother Russia - we humans crave the perceived (correctly or incorrectly) safety of our 'parent' nation state. See subject.
Plus, 97% voted "yes"? That's very hard to believe.
Yes. But Russia has been exporting ethnic Russians to Crimea for centuries. And for other ethnic groups, voting against joining Russia would have indeed been voting for civil war, on the minority side. You can't vote your conscience when there's a gun to your head.
May be so, and some reports that the Crimean parliament reps were 'encouraged' to vote for secession, but that's a miniscule percentage of the population.
The Crimean population, who now have overwhelming gratitude for the "polite green men" who kept them safe from the Nazi Banderites who wanted to bring their "peace train" to Crimea - I assume you've seen -that- particular documentary - the voice of the Crimean average person appears to be strong, consistent, and certainly not "coerced" in any way by 'mother Russia'. As I see it, they were in genuine fear for their lives, families, homes and stability of "state", and as such it is no wonder to me that they voted overwhelmingly for secession from the new 'illegitimate' at that point in time "sovereign Ukraine". They tried (asked Russia for support for such a referendum) numerous times in the past, and were rejected every prior time.
That's just another gang, the one that NATO helped build. And sure, they also have grievances going back centuries.
In fact, in the actual context of that point in time, it is in hindsight inconceivable that the people of Crimea would -not- have voted significantly for the protection of union with Russia - most of them are Russian after all, Ukraine was a very artificial 'state' created by the USSR at the height of its empire, when it would have been almost impossible to imagine the breakup of the USSR.
And that internal war of the new Ukraine govt against its own people in the Donbass, still goes on, and Europe still turns a blind eye, not wanting to legitimize "federalist" secession tendencies in Europe, and irrationally wanting to keep 'pressure' on Russia for its multi polar intentions. Shows how 'democratic' the "West" is...
Plus, crimea was annexed by the russian empire in ~1780. That looks like a precendent of sorts...
Don't know that history yet - but we're talking here of course about the recent annexation, not that original one. Notwithstanding, there is interesting history for what it's worth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Empire " Count Alexander Bezborodko, then a close advisor to the Empress, wrote in his diary that Russia was "forced" to annex Crimea:
The Porte has not kept good faith from the very beginning. Their primary goal has been to deprive the Crimeans of independence. They banished the legal khan and replaced him with the thief Devlet Giray. They consistently refused to evacuate the Taman. They made numerous perfidious attempts to introduce rebellion in the Crimea against the legitimate Khan Şahin Giray (Sahin Giray). All of these efforts did not bring us to declare war... …The Porte never ceased to drink in each drop of revolt among the Tatars... …Our only wish has been to bring peace to Crimea…and we were finally forced by the Turks to annex the area.[14] "
Look, Russian governments have always needed an ocean port that's not frozen for much of the year. The rest of it is just bullshit.
From: Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net>
I find it hard to imagine how anarchist societies could develop in our currently state-dominated world. Anarchist societies have survived through isolation, and some still do. But how does that work in places under active state contention?
Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less equally powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology that eliminates states' power monopoly. Maybe it'll be the Singularity.
The pathway to the solution was described in 1995-95, by me: https://cryptome.org/ap.htm "Assassination Politics".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/09/2016 01:30 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net>
Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less equally powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology that eliminates states' power monopoly. Maybe it'll be the Singularity.
The pathway to the solution was described in 1995-95, by me:
"Assassination Politics".
A couple of years ago, Forbes reported that 400 billionaires owned 1/2 the capital assets in the U.S. In the face of this, I think AP may have a problem with scale: How many small investors does it take to redirect AP profiteers away from targets chosen by factions among the ruling class, beginning with anyone suspected of operating the AP infrastructure and/or promoting it effectively to a wide audience of participants? If an AP lottery is not "fair and honest" by allowing anyone to be targeted regardless of occupation or etc., how long until ones that do allow any human to be bet on appear, with inflated bounties on perceived enemies of the ruling class? Mind you, AP is a frightfully clever idea. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXgbCjAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqGZoIAICNaiMWRFIzrIIANUs2YC+w XtdUCCMgv0SIWiV+Xs5n7bpuTh4pyPBPdwT0nH13AJaGph9PBGSIUbFgWObP9v+3 jSqG9c9g04kXPA2FkVImS5d8LqiPH0kwfRBfjTKT2Hw51C5yw3t9i7ZKjAfShi2R +fhEKStDfM+ED9XvakbPu5bmCEOXg8hMFWOX4LZUAL1J7x+cnR8xTXCiEhnzAxqg h0E4w8SsMf+bOhIHdbZcDHIbGyCrMAyUtvj/LQ/j+2ZZHIlXtsxbpIWvJWxl5VVA lfnJV2Yy7vguQ8KlMBcPKMzxJgqPmQIlpg7/0KKZh743f0LYINfATpTtIwijIkw= =QHtt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net>>> Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less
equally powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology that eliminates states' power monopoly. Maybe it'll be the Singularity.
The pathway to the solution was described in 1995-95, by me: https://cryptome.org/ap.htm "Assassination Politics".
If an AP lottery is not "fair and honest" by allowing anyone to be targeted regardless of occupation or etc., how long until ones that do allow any human to be bet on appear, with inflated bounties on
"A couple of years ago, Forbes reported that 400 billionaires owned 1/2 the capital assets in the U.S." First, I should point out that to the extent that this may seem to be a problem,part of the problem is that behind the scenes, governments actuallymay be _promoting_ income inequality, rather than reducing it. I'veseen an article that indicates that considered over the entire world economy,income inequality may have peaked in the 1980's, and has been loweringsince then. To a great degree, that is because of world trade, and the fact that we (America) are getting manufactured goods from foreign countries, to anextent far different than in the, say, 1960's. This strongly contrasts with thekind of people (leftists) who selectively point to income inequality within a singlenation, saying it is increasing. "In the face of this, I think AP may have a problem with scale: How many small investors does it take to redirect AP profiteers away from targets chosen by factions among the ruling class, beginning with anyone suspected of operating the AP infrastructure and/or promoting it effectively to a wide audience of participants?" It's hard to target people when you don't know who they are. In today's political world, people try to make changes by being loud and complaining.Potentially, this makes them targets while AP is turning on. But I believe thatin a smoothly-functioning 'post-AP-transition' world, people simply don't needto complain.Or, they will be able to do so anonymously. Would a very rich person havesort of special advantage in an AP world? Well, he'd have a lot of money, but that would be just about the only advantage he has. AP would effectively shut down governments, not merely shutting down the need for government, but also making it virtually impossible to run a large,or oppressive (or both) government. This means that governments won't be able to funnel money to those people who (in today's world) eventually becomebillionaires. perceived enemies of the ruling class?" Long ago, I realized that a fully-functioning, 'complete' AP system would eventually haveto somehow replace both the existing national defense system, as well as theexisting 'criminal justice' system. "Did somebody actually aggress on somebody else?" But initially, to get there, I think it would be sufficient to have an AP-organization with a much-simpler standard: "Does the person named as the aggressor work for government atsome level?". He's already aggressed. No more proof is necessary. If, hypothetically, I was running such an AP system, I knew that I couldn't stop anyone else fromalso running a different AP system, different rules. I imagined that this wouldn't (couldn't) be a monopoly, it would amount to a competition. Some organizations (I'll label them "unethical") would accept bets on anyone. Others, such as my own, would initially just have the initial"does he work for government" standard. Over time, I believe that the "ethical" organizationswould have advantages, so they could do the equivalent of offering lower prices:The amount of their awards could be lower. The "unethical" organizations would "do" anybody, but it would cost much more. They would take higher profits, meaning that peoplewho had a genuine beef with someone else would tend to employ "ethical" systems. "Business"would tend to shift. Over time, the market will shift from "unethical" to "ethical". Eventually, what amounted to "court systems" would be included, to decide whethera complaint was valid. These "court systems" would, of course, be "voluntary",in the sense nobody would be required to appear, but the consequence of failure to appearwould be that 'bare AP' would operate: If enough donations appeared to motivate somebody,that would happen.
Mind you, AP is a frightfully clever idea. At the time I started writing the first part of AP in January-February 1995, I was entirely unaware of the existence of the CP list, or documents such as Cyphernomicon:I had no direct access to the Internet, and the WWW. In section 16.4.2 of Cyphernomicon is the paragraph: http://www.kreps.org/hackers/overheads/11cyphernervs.pdf "The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology, citingnational security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders, andfears of societal disintegration. Many of these concerns will be valid; crypto anarchywill allow national secrets to be trade freely and will allow illicit and stolen materialsto be traded. An anonymous computerized market will even make possible abhorrentmarkets for assassinations and extortion." Despite my forming the idea essentially independently, even then I was not under any impression that I was somehow inventing the concept of an "assassination market", which I assumed at the time to be obvious. Rather, I believed that what would usually be thought of such a market would be a system where "Anonymous Person A could hire Anonymous Person B to kill Person C." Certainly that was a sufficiently fascinating idea in the early 1990's to be worth discussing, but it occurred to me that if that was the only use made of it, few people want specific other peopledead enough to completely finance it themselves. Far more interesting, the thing I really broughtto the table, would be the idea where tens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of anonymous persons pool their donations, and offer to any number of potential assassins, such that the winning assassin gets his reward also anonymously. THAT, I thought and still think, was a new concept. That is not merely quantitatively different than 'your father's assassination market', but in fact qualitatively different: Combine enough donations, no matter how tiny the individual ones are, and that will be plenty to buy death. Further, offer those donations to an unlimited number of people, and the target will have no idea from where the killing blow will strike. Each potential assassin knows he competing with all the rest. And once I thought of that idea, I've always believed that it was absolutely inevitable. SOMEBODY was going to think of this, eventually. It just happened to be me. Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/10/2016 08:50 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net>
Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less equally powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology that eliminates states' power monopoly. Maybe it'll be the Singularity.
The pathway to the solution was described in 1995-95, by me: https://cryptome.org/ap.htm "Assassination Politics".
"A couple of years ago, Forbes reported that 400 billionaires owned 1/2 the capital assets in the U.S."
First, I should point out that to the extent that this may seem to be a problem, part of the problem is that behind the scenes, governments actually may be _promoting_ income inequality, rather than reducing it.
My own view is that the sole function of the State it to convert money into power, then back into money. Partial reinvestment of State partons' capital gains produces an accelerating feedback cycle, concentrating more money (=power) into fewer hands over time. I don't anticipate this changing as corporations become more sovereign and States less so.
I've seen an article that indicates that considered over the entire world economy, income inequality may have peaked in the 1980's, and has been lowering since then. To a great degree, that is because of world trade, and the fact that we (America) are getting manufactured goods from foreign countries, to an extent far different than in the, say, 1960's. This strongly contrasts with the kind of people (leftists) who selectively point to income inequality within a single nation, saying it is increasing.
I think that's a matter of perspective. Some of "poorest of the poor" have seen rising incomes, while the "middle class" in many industrialized jurisdictions has been taking a beating. But the billionaires, "statistically insignificant" in terms of head count, continue to dominate political activity due to the massive extent of income and assets inequality that appears at the very top of the scale. A couple of graphs based on U.S. statistics: http://www.lcurve.org/ (a real classic) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/this-depressing-c hart-shows-that-the-rich-arent-just-grabbing-a-bigger-slice-of-the-incom e-pie-theyre-taking-all-of-it/ - - or - https://tinyurl.com/gor6gdd (less extreme-looking aggregate numbers)
"In the face of this, I think AP may have a problem with scale: How many small investors does it take to redirect AP profiteers away from targets chosen by factions among the ruling class, beginning with anyone suspected of operating the AP infrastructure and/or promoting it effectively to a wide audience of participants?"
It's hard to target people when you don't know who they are. In today's political world, people try to make changes by being loud and complaining. Potentially, this makes them targets while AP is turning on. But I believe that in a smoothly-functioning 'post-AP-transition' world, people simply don't need to complain.
This raises the issue of implementation. In the case at hand, counter-anonymity is a question of money: How much money do you have, how badly do you want to prevent anonymous transactions? Remailers, onion and garlic routing, etc. are at present only somewhat resistant to an adversary who can observe much of the network, most of the time. I envision a briefing where a select group of U.S. billionaires and telco CEOs learn about AP and are told, "We must spend x trillion dollars over the next decade to keep this from happening." Rinse and repeat in other national and corporate jurisdictions. Ouch.
Or, they will be able to do so anonymously. Would a very rich person have sort of special advantage in an AP world? Well, he'd have a lot of money, but that would be just about the only advantage he has.
I believe that this advantage should be sufficient, given prevailing conditions as illustrated by the L-Curve graph mentioned above, and the imperfect nature of anonymity technologies available or envisioned today. The absurd spike at the top of the income scale gives a handful of individuals enormously disproportionate power, and they aim to keep it.
AP would effectively shut down governments, not merely shutting down the need for government, but also making it virtually impossible to run a large, or oppressive (or both) government. This means that governments won't be able to funnel money to those people who (in today's world) eventually become billionaires.
I think that should be preceded with, "If successful." Funding a global, directly democratic freelance mercenary force targeting "abusers of" power would not produce a post-AP world overnight. Exhausting the defensive and counter-offensive resources of today's ruling class would take time. Assuring that assets pass intact from deceased owners to their heirs and assignees is already a core function of the State, so killing individual billionaires might introduce turbulence but would not remove the problem of "minority rule by violent means." I think it would be likely to lead to wide scale ultra-violent responses.
If an AP lottery is not "fair and honest" by allowing anyone to be targeted regardless of occupation or etc., how long until ones that do allow any human to be bet on appear, with inflated bounties on perceived enemies of the ruling class?"
Long ago, I realized that a fully-functioning, 'complete' AP system would eventually have to somehow replace both the existing national defense system, as well as the existing 'criminal justice' system. "Did somebody actually aggress on somebody else?" But initially, to get there, I think it would be sufficient to have an AP-organization with a much- simpler standard: "Does the person named as the aggressor work for government at some level?". He's already aggressed. No more proof is necessary.
Over time, I believe that the "ethical" organizations would have advantages, so they could do the equivalent of offering lower prices: The amount of their awards could be lower. The "unethical" organizations would "do" anybody, but it would cost much more.
I have my doubts. The cost of overcoming the defences of a President would be astronomically higher than the costs and risks of overcoming the defences of, for instance, an independent journalist. This would mandate a much higher bounty on the former. Conversely, public demand for removing an unpopular President would also be proportionally higher - a mitigating factor. Conversely x2, that President's backers might consider certain journalists worth paying over-market prices to remove, as her efforts might eventually aim the AP process at them personally.
They would take higher profits, meaning that people who had a If, hypothetically, I was running such an AP system, I knew that I couldn't stop anyone else from also running a different AP system, different rules. I imagined that this wouldn't (couldn't) be a monopoly, it would amount to a competition. Some organizations (I'll label them "unethical") would accept bets on anyone. Others, such as my own, would initially just have the initial "does he work for government" standard. genuine beef with someone else would tend to employ "ethical" systems. "Business" would tend to shift. Over time, the market will shift from "unethical" to "ethical".
It seems to me that replacing an unjust and inequitable system of governance enforced by the threat of murder, with a more just and fair system of governance enforced by murder would not produce results that most would consider ethical. Not to say that, if successfully implemented as envisioned, it would necessarily be worse than what we have today.
Eventually, what amounted to "court systems" would be included, to decide whether a complaint was valid. These "court systems" would, of course, be "voluntary", in the sense nobody would be required to appear, but the consequence of failure to appear would be that 'bare AP' would operate: If enough donations appeared to motivate somebody, that would happen.
A "Court" is a forum governed by a sovereign authority, where petitions and arguments are heard and decisions on the application of sovereign authority are made. A Court whose sole function is to authorize murder could dispense revenge, but never justice: Every sovereign in every war throughout history has presented its casus belli as the defense of human life, and the fact that war is tolerated by enough people to make it possible demonstrates that application of a "non-aggression principle" in conjunction with decisions to hire and direct murderers can not be entrusted to either sovereigns or a peasant rabble.
Mind you, AP is a frightfully clever idea.
At the time I started writing the first part of AP in January-February 1995, I was entirely unaware of the existence of the CP list, or documents such as Cyphernomicon: I had no direct access to the Internet, and the WWW. In section 16.4.2 of Cyphernomicon is the paragraph: http://www.kreps.org/hackers/overheads/11cyphernervs.pdf
The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology, citing national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders, and fears of societal disintegration. Many of these concerns will be valid; crypto anarchy will allow national secrets to be trade freely and will allow illicit and stolen materials to be traded. An anonymous computerized market will even make possible abhorrent markets for assassinations and extortion."
Despite my forming the idea essentially independently, even then I was not under any impression that I was somehow inventing the concept of an "assassination market", which I assumed at the time to be obvious.
Ever since the appearance of hierarchical societies with capital assets to defend, assassination markets of a sort, e.g. military and police activities, have been the bedrock of political and economic systems. The anonymity element has traditionally been partial and figurative - decisions to commit State sanctioned murder are "nothing personal" in the sense that they are supported by consensus across committees and syndicates, automated to the fullest extent possible (law, policy, due process), and paid for by small payments from large numbers of peasants who have been persuaded to tolerate murder for hire "for the greater good." Those who do the actual killing are absolved of liability because they are "faceless cogs in the machne" only following orders. The AP model radically streamlines and democratizes, but does not remove, today's process of controlling people via murder "for the greater good of the greater number." If the practical barriers to its implementation could be overcome, AP might be an improvement over present methods. Revenge is not justice, but unlike justice it can at least be played as a formal game. AP markets would eventually provide great entertainment, in the form of assassin vs. assassin contests triggered by contentious "hits." Crowdfunding contract killers to identify and kill other contract killers could evolve into a full replacement for today's professional athletic amusements.
Rather, I believed that what would usually be thought of such a market would be a system where "Anonymous Person A could hire Anonymous Person B to kill Person C." Certainly that was a sufficiently fascinating idea in the early 1990's to be worth discussing, but it occurred to me that if that was the only use made of it, few people want specific other people dead enough to completely finance it themselves. Far more interesting, the thing I really brought to the table, would be the idea where tens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of anonymous persons pool their donations, and offer to any number of potential assassins, such that the winning assassin gets his reward also anonymously. THAT, I thought and still think, was a new concept. That is not merely quantitatively different than 'your father's assassination market', but in fact qualitatively different: Combine enough donations, no matter how tiny the individual ones are, and that will be plenty to buy death. Further, offer those donations to an unlimited number of people, and the target will have no idea from where the killing blow will strike. Each potential assassin knows he competing with all the rest.
And once I thought of that idea, I've always believed that it was absolutely inevitable. SOMEBODY was going to think of this, eventually. It just happened to be me.
The seeds were everywhere. Lots of twistid visionaries saw assassination markets coming, though none worked out the details to make it (nearly) practicable - that was waiting on applicable technology. - From Subvert Comix #3, by Spain Rodriguez, 1976: http://pilobilus.net/xfer/Subvert_no3_pg35.jpg But again, the devil is in the details: Thus far it looks to me like the twin problems of anonymity that is not reliably anonymous, and the vast scale of financial resources presently controlled by the segments of the population who are AP's likeliest targets, are outstanding problems complicating AP's implementation. Back in 1984 I was interviewed by a non-human intelligence, who briefly explained why it was self evidently necessary to remove 90% of the Earth's human population and asked for authorization to proceed. I could not fault his case, but I did impose a condition on my acceptance of his offer: Proceed only if everyone faces an equal chance of removal - no favoritism or exemptions of any kind allowed. Apparently a compliant solution is taking quite a long time to implement. But as and when it is, many of the problems AP would combat would be greatly reduced, as would the practical barriers to AP's implementation. Although a "better future" was not promised or even implied, I am cautiously optimistic... :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXhHBYAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqPyEH/RNxnDR6tlDwgsqDN1IZCqKk op1g/MCUQgpn/+UDGatCeVEeaBXoM4e3NQRIH8tlM6Jpxm51guviVbMlK+jGDg5t jVv8FvbDyWQkm7Pu+eSjYMFMHx9ctbdusP6ImTLhWrlxpHYdPfUGU5eA/hOpp3EV QnmVNZt8JbmRwhns4dIu6qnNY320loo9p2AvXgE/JxaP1Q+V3iGDla1isorH3gOd 5m6/WU3fzZo1wd9o+0srRZ+bwl7rxau2WTMrt1w1/54w2crtGEcPaOr4bv4oiDLt 3OATbof6mC5GddGNVv6cThCnnl1MxM0eO7UYO7YFWk2mEYYwr5mUGxkydG6YXcM= =1ial -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:21:44AM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 07/10/2016 08:50 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> Over time, I believe that the "ethical" organizations would have advantages, so they could do the equivalent of offering lower prices: The amount of their awards could be lower. The "unethical" organizations would "do" anybody, but it would cost much more.
I have my doubts. The cost of overcoming the defences of a President would be astronomically higher than the costs and risks of overcoming the defences of, for instance, an independent journalist. This would mandate a much higher bounty on the former. Conversely, public demand for removing an unpopular President would also be proportionally higher - a mitigating factor. Conversely x2, that President's backers might consider certain journalists worth paying over-market prices to remove, as her efforts might eventually aim the AP process at them personally.
Is this a fundamental weakness of AP? Descent into hell for anyone with intense motivation to change the existing system for the better - just one example being "no journalist safe from a vengeful William/ Bill Browder" for example: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/oh-browder-almighty-he-passes-laws-con...
They would take higher profits, meaning that people who had a If, hypothetically, I was running such an AP system, I knew that I couldn't stop anyone else from also running a different AP system, different rules. I imagined that this wouldn't (couldn't) be a monopoly, it would amount to a competition. Some organizations (I'll label them "unethical") would accept bets on anyone. Others, such as my own, would initially just have the initial "does he work for government" standard. genuine beef with someone else would tend to employ "ethical" systems. "Business" would tend to shift. Over time, the market will shift from "unethical" to "ethical".
It seems to me that replacing an unjust and inequitable system of governance enforced by the threat of murder, with a more just and fair system of governance enforced by murder would not produce results that most would consider ethical. Not to say that, if successfully implemented as envisioned, it would necessarily be worse than what we have today.
I agree. I am starting to see absolutely no guarantees of an outcome of "better".
Eventually, what amounted to "court systems" would be included, to decide whether a complaint was valid. These "court systems" would, of course, be "voluntary", in the sense nobody would be required to appear, but the consequence of failure to appear would be that 'bare AP' would operate: If enough donations appeared to motivate somebody, that would happen.
A "Court" is a forum governed by a sovereign authority, where petitions and arguments are heard and decisions on the application of sovereign authority are made. A Court whose sole function is to authorize murder could dispense revenge, but never justice: Every sovereign in every war throughout history has presented its casus belli as the defense of human life, and the fact that war is tolerated by enough people to make it possible demonstrates that application of a "non-aggression principle" in conjunction with decisions to hire and direct murderers can not be entrusted to either sovereigns or a peasant rabble.
Sounds correct. Is it possible to remove the emotional "revenge" element, and surely the extremely wealthy would be most able to act in accordance with any "emotional revenge" element that they personally experience, or that they can manipulate the public into experiencing by the oligarch's control of the media consumed by the masses... Looks pretty bleak on the face of it..
But again, the devil is in the details: Thus far it looks to me like the twin problems of anonymity that is not reliably anonymous, and the vast scale of financial resources presently controlled by the segments of the population who are AP's likeliest targets, are outstanding problems complicating AP's implementation.
Also, it "feels" 'unenlightened' - "surely there's a better way" etc
Back in 1984 I was interviewed by a non-human intelligence, who briefly explained why it was self evidently necessary to remove 90% of the Earth's human population and asked for authorization to proceed. I could not fault his case, but I did impose a condition on my acceptance of his offer: Proceed only if everyone faces an equal chance of removal - no favoritism or exemptions of any kind allowed. Apparently a compliant solution is taking quite a long time to implement. But as and when it is, many of the problems AP would combat would be greatly reduced, as would the practical barriers to AP's implementation.
Although a "better future" was not promised or even implied, I am cautiously optimistic...
I do not share your optimism on this one.
From: Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net>
First, I should point out that to the extent that this may seem to be a problem, part of the problem is that behind the scenes, governments actually may be _promoting_ income inequality, rather than reducing it.
My own view is that the sole function of the State it to convert money into power, then back into money. Partial reinvestment of State partons' capital gains produces an accelerating feedback cycle, concentrating more money (=power) into fewer hands over time. I don't anticipate this changing as corporations become more sovereign and States less so. Maybe the solution is to make States less able to restrict competition,particularly in hidden ways. The fight between Uber and Lyft and the'traditional' taxi service is a classic example. Historically, the monopolized "right" to operate a taxi in New York (a "medallion") has been bought and soldnearly a million dollars. That's the 'value' of a government-promoted monopoly,at least to the participants.
But the billionaires, "statistically insignificant" in terms of head count, continue to dominate political activity due to the massive extent of income and assets inequality that appears at the very top of the scale. Reduce the tax rate of "billionaires", and they will be much less motivated toget involved with government. And while that happens, states will not have the powerto benefit the people who BECOME billionaires, assisted by such government power.
A couple of graphs based on U.S. statistics:
http://www.lcurve.org/ (a real classic) For some reason I can't seem to "operate" the graph. The picture zooms, but allI see is a straight red line going from the left side of the box to the right side. Maybe there is intended to be a curve, but it doesn't appear that way to me.
https://tinyurl.com/gor6gdd (less extreme-looking aggregate numbers) One of the reasons there are terms, "lying with statistics", is that people cancarefully select the facts they choose to present, and exclude other relevant facts. I would like to see, on these graphs, a representation of the size of government atthe times involved: Put simply, I think of government as much more the CAUSE of these problems, rather than the solution. Another problem is that this data represents periods with a dramatic difference in America'sindustrial power: From 1945-1970+, America was a manufacturer to the world: Europe had been bombed out, and nations such as Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Mexico, China, and India weren't competeing with America. That effect was so extreme that in the 50's and 60's,many or most families got away with only one breadwinner, usually the husband. How muchdoes this change, to today, affect the numbers presented?
turning on. But I believe that in a smoothly-functioning 'post-AP-transition' world, people simply don't need to complain.
This raises the issue of implementation. In the case at hand, counter-anonymity is a question of money: How much money do you have, how badly do you want to prevent anonymous transactions? Remailers, onion and garlic routing, etc. are at present only somewhat resistant to an adversary who can observe much of the network, most of the time. I envision a briefing where a select group of U.S. billionaires and telco CEOs learn about AP and are told, "We must spend x trillion dollars over the next decade to keep this from happening." Rinse and repeat in other national and corporate jurisdictions. Ouch. That seems to assume that merely by spending money that outcome canbe avoided. Can it? If people are very dissatisfied, and they can by spending$10 dollars per person, help shut down a hegemonic system, how can thisbe resisted successfully?
AP would effectively shut down governments...
I think that should be preceded with, "If successful." Funding a global, directly democratic freelance mercenary force targeting "abusers of" power would not produce a post-AP world overnight. So far, it's taken over 21 years. I am not disappointed, however.Pay attention to Ethereum and Augur.
Exhausting the defensive and counter-offensive resources of today's ruling class would take time. Assuring that assets pass intact from deceased owners to their heirs and assignees is already a core function of the State, so killing individual billionaires might introduce turbulence but would not remove the problem of "minority rule by violent means." I think it would be likely to lead to wide scale ultra-violent responses. I don't think nearly anybody anticipated the rapid fall of the "Iron Curtain" in 1989. Yet it happened. Very quickly. Over time, I believe that the "ethical" organizations would have advantages, so they could do the equivalent of offering lower prices: The amount of their awards could be lower. The "unethical" organizations would "do" anybody, but it would cost much more.
I have my doubts. The cost of overcoming the defences of a President would be astronomically higher than the costs and risks of overcoming the defences of, for instance, an independent journalist. This would mandate a much higher bounty on the former. It's the old, "Just put a big enough defense on the top guy, and nobodycan get to him" objection to AP. That's one reason why AP isn't limited, even in theory, to merely thetop-level people. What about second, third, fourth, and fifth level people?Their families? Their friends? It wouldn't take much to keep virtuallyanybody from wanting to work for a government. They would probablyhave to pay an increasingly large amount to accept the risk, money that it would be increasingly hard for government to collect. The analysis for America is simple: The Feds collect $3 trillion in taxes peryear. Suppose each person who pays $1 in tax also pays 1 cent for a fundto get rid of his oppressors, or $30 billion. If a hit cost $100,000 (probably that estimate is very high), if you divide $30 billion by $100,000, that wouldpay for 300,000 hits. Do you think that the government could function effectively if even as few as 30,000 get killed over a 1-year period?Let alone 300,000?
Conversely, public demand for removing an unpopular President would also be proportionally higher - a mitigating factor. Conversely x2, that President's backers might consider certain journalists worth paying over-market prices to remove, as her efforts might eventually aim the AP process at them personally. Currently, "journalists" are seen as having very disproportionate power. Butwe've already seen that the situation is dramatically changed from the pre-Internet period (which I arbitrarily label as pre-1995, based on its accessibilityand influence.). With blogs, just abouteveryone is a "journalist" today. Why do we now need "journalists" to go after government, if we have a functioning AP system?
It seems to me that replacing an unjust and inequitable system of governance enforced by the threat of murder, with a more just and fair system of governance enforced by murder would not produce results that most would consider ethical. If they didn't understand the whole picture, sure they might believe that. One difference is, "who makes the decisions as to who get killed?"If a long and bloody war (for example the war between Iraq and Iran in theearly 1980s) could be stopped by purchasing the death of a few hundredIraqi and Iranian leaders, I think most people would view that outcomeas being highly ethical and beneficial to society. Just not beneficial to the leaderships, themselves. Not to say that, if successfully implemented as envisioned, it would necessarily be worse than what we have today. This should have been studied and debated extensively 20 years ago. Howmany INTELLIGENT such debates eventually occurred about AP. (I'm not referring to CP list discussions, of course). I could probably count themon one hand, or at most two hands.
Eventually, what amounted to "court systems" would be included, to decide whether a complaint was valid. These "court systems" would, of course, be "voluntary", in the sense nobody would be required to appear, but the consequence of failure to appear would be that 'bare AP' would operate: If enough donations appeared to motivate somebody, that would happen.
A "Court" is a forum governed by a sovereign authority, where petitions and arguments are heard and decisions on the application of sovereign authority are made. Currently, this is true. The history of "courts", I believe, included a kingmaking decisions about disputes of his people. Terminology such as a "court" ("a King's Court"), "pleadings", "arguments" survived. But soon enough I imagine that this got very boring and time-consuming for the King, sohe happily deligated this task to some trusted person, who eventually becamecalled a "judge".I use the term "court" to put this decision-making function in a familiar light.We think of a "court" as being a physical location (a room), and people, setup to make decisions. One modern analog is "arbitration", and I could haveused that analogy. An AP-type system will ultimately replace not merely regional defense, but also what we currently think of as "law enforcement"functions. But these will not necessarily be monopoly-operations.
A Court whose sole function is to authorize murder could dispense revenge, but never justice: Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on this? Every sovereign in every war throughout history has presented its casus belli as the defense of human life, and the fact that war is tolerated by enough people to make it possible demonstrates that application of a "non-aggression principle" in conjunction with decisions to hire and direct murderers can not be entrusted to either sovereigns or a peasant rabble." Effectively we entrust authority to do this to people chosen by vote, orappointed by these people, etc. Why not replace this with a different version of "wisdom of the masses"?
And once I thought of that idea, I've always believed that it was absolutely inevitable. SOMEBODY was going to think of this, eventually. It just happened to be me.
The seeds were everywhere. Lots of twistid visionaries saw assassination markets coming, though none worked out the details to make it (nearly) practicable - that was waiting on applicable technology. - From Subvert Comix #3, by Spain Rodriguez, 1976:
http://pilobilus.net/xfer/Subvert_no3_pg35.jpg Doesn't surprise me at all. I've long known that Science Fiction has beenused as a way to test out new ideas, rhetorically, without having to placethem (threateningly) in modern-day fiction.
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:03:00 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Was there an option to not join any state?
I suspect not, but in the context, I think that would literally have been suicide. Or endless civil war as we see since then (the last two years) in eastern Ukraine.
I find it hard to imagine how anarchist societies could develop in our currently state-dominated world.
Well, the statists can simply leave the anarchists alone. Sure it's unlikely, but it's simple. But my point was that the referendum wasn't especially pristine. The soundest pro russian argument here may be that the russians didn't raze crimea to the ground...which is something the NATO humanitarians were more likely to do.
Anarchist societies have survived through isolation, and some still do. But how does that work in places under active state contention?
Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less equally powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology that eliminates states' power monopoly.
What technologies? The only 'technology' I can imagine making a difference would be some sort of physical shield that would make it impossible for individuals to be physically attacked.
Maybe it'll be the Singularity.
The sigularity is singular bullshit. If anything it seems likely to replace(i. e. kill) humanity with a bunch of motherfucking psychos like kurzweil and the rest of master-race 'elite' lunatics.
On 07/09/2016 01:29 PM, juan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:03:00 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Was there an option to not join any state?
I suspect not, but in the context, I think that would literally have been suicide. Or endless civil war as we see since then (the last two years) in eastern Ukraine.
I find it hard to imagine how anarchist societies could develop in our currently state-dominated world.
Well, the statists can simply leave the anarchists alone. Sure it's unlikely, but it's simple.
Yes, very unlikely.
But my point was that the referendum wasn't especially pristine.
The soundest pro russian argument here may be that the russians didn't raze crimea to the ground...which is something the NATO humanitarians were more likely to do.
Anarchist societies have survived through isolation, and some still do. But how does that work in places under active state contention?
Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less equally powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology that eliminates states' power monopoly.
What technologies? The only 'technology' I can imagine making a difference would be some sort of physical shield that would make it impossible for individuals to be physically attacked.
Vinge's bobbles? But then we get to _Marooned in Realtime_.
Maybe it'll be the Singularity.
The sigularity is singular bullshit. If anything it seems likely to replace(i. e. kill) humanity with a bunch of motherfucking psychos like kurzweil and the rest of master-race 'elite' lunatics.
I like https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/last_trumpet/LTP.pdf :)
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 22:09:33 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I like https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/last_trumpet/LTP.pdf :)
A novel. Thanks! Let's see (or read...)
On July 8, 2016 8:50:40 PM EDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:24:24PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:45:52 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
People who want to join russia, join russia. People who don't want to, don't. And sane people who don't want to be governed by any mafia are left alone and 'stateless'. And this last kind of secession is the only meaningful one by the way.
So then, why was the referendum in Crimea and the apparrently overwhelming "want" of the people of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and "join Russia", somehow "illegal"?
That "referendum" was a fiasco. 90% turnout and 95% voted Mother Russia! Sounds like one of Koba's free and fair elections. -- John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/08/2016 07:45 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
In the sense that "legal" means compliant with orders imposed by the the State, "legal secession" is a logical absurdity: One does not gain immunity from a sovereign State's enforcement powers by submitting to them, nor independence by obeying its dictates. If the Sovereign stops being a Sovereign by abandoning the enforcement powers that define State sovereignty, that's different - but the order to "do your own thing" remains just a noise. Word games: To the extent that they control people's minds, they can be even more "real" than physical bullets, bars and chains - because they control the application of these physical tools. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXgEgJAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqacIH/A2f8ASKpKCjuIsRcY2TqION wzHxs5rK0xEPbWutTKcCFL1I2KYfrHMl4fX+z0/BJkF6O8CD1luUGpJSKfLL+02u Tzu+TQqANCWKafrQm2QW/IlUzwSI5Kwp9JRU/DVrF+G0zu6EO7yEPRwp9wBShZgm ySB053YpJlo9x5kD0YyAOgFDA673M7qeQml14nkJSPN2GKfeuTbaKuV8deH9nT5l iy6vTZBoIvKrOQVxqRb7mfjLI+xX+VaUfsVcgsfqsXdP/o37Z6qbdhsRflyG3i/T tAIMT0oPKSOv7VNdO2kRnV/rFQ+qc5bbmIlrR/2mab9NtOubmrS9Dkvw5bipXak= =ol6c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:40:41PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 07/08/2016 07:45 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
They did.
How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as "legal"?
In the sense that "legal" means compliant with orders imposed by the the State, "legal secession" is a logical absurdity: One does not gain immunity from a sovereign State's enforcement powers by submitting to them, nor independence by obeying its dictates.
Ack.
If the Sovereign stops being a Sovereign by abandoning the enforcement powers that define State sovereignty, that's different - but the order to "do your own thing" remains just a noise.
Considering George Friedman, president of STRATFOR's “really the most blatant coup in history.” ( http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/merkel-urged-temper-natos-belligerence... ), does the new/coup government of the "sovereign" state of Ukraine, continue "legally" as the same sovereign? Once the "democratically" ('normal' by OSCE assessments) elected pre-"Maidan coup" government of Ukraine was overthrown, non democratically, by United States of America government intentions and actions, does the "sovereign" "state of Ukraine" even exist any more, legally? Is it fair to say that the people of Crimea, voting at referendum, witnessing/ hearing of busloads of fellow Russian-speakers being murdered, brutalised and shot, essentially an internal civil war taking place, is it fair to say that when they (after the 5th or so request over many years) finally got consent and support from 'mother' Russia to help them run a referendum without being further shot, brutalised etc as was happening in other parts of Ukraine, they run their referendum, and then we say it was "just noise" or "illegal"? Such a position I just don't get and obviously cannot agree with...
Word games: To the extent that they control people's minds, they can be even more "real" than physical bullets, bars and chains - because they control the application of these physical tools.
participants (6)
-
jim bell -
John -
juan -
Mirimir -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness