juan wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:19:10 -0500 grarpamp wrote:

...

"When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate," false

Spoken like a true right wing jackass me-first sovereign citizen. I'll bet you think you're an anarchist too! -- RR "Freedom is the capacity to pause between stimulus and response." ~Rollo May

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/21/2016 12:25 AM, juan wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:11:51 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

...

juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:19:10 -0500 grarpamp wrote:

...

"When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate," false

Spoken like a true right wing jackass me-first sovereign citizen.

I'll bet you think you're an anarchist too!

Dude. You're the one who quotes doug casey.

As to anarchist, I don't know. You not only quote doug casey but also think that the state owns the highways and the people on it? Oh my...

Anyway, the point I made, though granted, not explicitly, is that 'implied consent' is bullshit. The point goes way over your head perhaps?

As an anarchist, I have no problem recognizing the difference between consent, and making accommodations to coercive demands as a matter of tactical discretion. Calling compliance with arbitrary orders from people who carry guns and radios "consent" is like saying that every person who has ever been raped "was asking for it." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWoHUtAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LJOsP/3gcjV6PeA1DWq8ri9zrT/+9 LpFZ5+olV4C+D3xXcOwEAePczCW2S0vYBbPvwLdEoENMcx+qIy9ZKX6D7iTqn86o HVZmpJdg/Sjponmvu+ihUs5XTWlmPew6KSQtcgpp97W4BMahqBWgK63ak6WI9jqD YiOv5NWLry8Cg4nCV8nI1ncCQthgU5wnmCrZ+VFPnZ7R9ApD/m38Xfr9+7QlQp6o Y81l8G4m7xDa3fjGdguENPY49KctMTcnN3r2CEvdjN6G38qL2pWjyDR1ySi1abHb EBtfXTvN3DUGd4tzOXURRH918nSNJAh9/MME3vnX0ecaUFnRz1s2RxI5y7L21GAe ESIioo6WdiBJPAcQnu0jrRiI5IFsHYCnevraO33TyT0BKE625k+6U4VeB9HEhIcz /H6DG7zGTJ51/N1xGgcMdAj6MKNjtxJxFNTTpb2Nl8AZjMZisZU3GBXywAsAjAs9 3QaffrCU+wCw9bJXHRivVcDFwyKmoscGoGgadHW0pY+dOA3K9/bJePoAb4N7PCPE W157q93mijpMCGBGOjB/i01N1UmifkYO9RyOqMEL13pU37sa9Vg7zmkDR7LIMPSj TR2PnhrfHJqg1HUjAn56VhYA7RIKQ39HKXKueWCruk3ePTIHGsnSwUJb8p+N46oS XzkP19CMwjjX4BRGN0cj =d+c8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:47:42 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

It doesn't matter WHO one quotes. The only thing that matters is one's WORLDVIEW, and I stick to what I said. You're a right winger and don't even know it.

Dude! I am a 'liberal'. The consistent version of 'liberal' is nowadays called 'invididualist anarchist'. I don't like academic jargon though, but that one should set you straight. I'm wondering, Razer...perhaps you didn't like my comments about the All American New Fascist Deal? At any rate, the fact that you call a radical libertarian a 'right winger' says a lot more about you than me...

Steve Kinney wrote:

...

As an anarchist, I have no problem recognizing the difference between consent, and making accommodations to coercive demands as a matter of tactical discretion.

Calling compliance with arbitrary orders from people who carry guns and radios "consent" is like saying that every person who has ever been raped "was asking for it."

So can we get a consensus that someone operating a 1-2 ton weapon of environmental and generally Mass Destruction, including but not limited to taking someone's life, should not only prove to 'the herd'

No, we can't. And what if we apply your 'logic' a bit more consistently. Should all knives and forks be registered with the Department of Amerikan Cutlery, and their owners tracked in realtime? And while we are at it, what's the name for your political 'philosophy' Razer?

they're capable, or at least KNOW how to operate said WMD properly (license), and have responsibility for that WMD, their personal property, evidenced (registration) for the rest of us ?

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:56:16 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

juan wrote:

...

invididualist anarchist

ROTF! Fuck the collective right?

Exactly. You don't sound like you read much on anarchism in particular or political philosophy in general.

So... tell me. What's the diff between an 'individualist anarchist' and a Libertard

I don't know what you mean by 'libertard'. Then again, you don't know either... Do you remember some bullshit comment you made about 'working class' somethig or other, and that I asked if bakunin and kropotkin were 'working class' ? I'm still waiting for some meaningful reply from you. Ha ha ha. I know I'll wait forever. And what about that dumb nazi marx, was he 'working class' too?

when one of it's leading Merican proponents (pretty much the only nation contributing to this school of 'thought')

...if you say so...

, ol Ben Tucker, said "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."

tucker's quote is correct, what's your problem with it? And it's based on liberal rights theory. Hardly an 'american' invention. Now tell me rayzer, you are a 'true' 'anarchist', and the proof that you are a 'true' 'anarchist' is that you worship the american DVM becuase embodies the will of herd, correct? At least you got something right. A herd is a collection of animals.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:35:57 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

juan wrote:

...

Now tell me rayzer, you are a 'true' 'anarchist', and the proof that you are a 'true' 'anarchist' is that you worship the american DVM ...

Haven't had a DL in 20 years and my ID is 15 years expired.

Doesn't your fucking herd have the divine collective right to identify you? The information is irrelevant bullshit anyway assuming it's true. The discussion made it clear that you are an 'anarchist' who sides with the american state and one of its arms of total surveillance, operating on roads. But yes you are also an hypocrite since you both defend surveillance while not complying with it yourself.

On the other hand, I don't drive a smogbox anymore, and when the police ask for ID, I IDENTIFY myself with my name. That's all I'm legally required to do.

Keep the ad homs comin' rube.

Dude. You are a stupid joke. You had the cheek to call me a 'right winger', a claim that you obviously can't substantiate, and instead what you did is shown that you are intellectually bankrupt. You : 1) fancy yourself a 'true' 'anarchist' 2) are actually an apologist of the american state when it bullies people 'aka' individuals. Fuck you.

NEXT!

Dude, you are a stupid fraud who ignores anything you can counter.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:33:02 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

juan wrote:

...

Doesn't your fucking herd have the divine collective right to identify you?

Existence shouldn't be regulated by the society you are part of but your actions and behaviors might very well be to ensure the survival of the 'herd' if not the species.

Safer you sit alone in a dark room in front of a glowing screen as a 'socialization process' Juan. The "herd" would instinctively trample you.

Here's one of my herd, at rest: http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/126592562829

I'm not really following. You think the collective can trample 'selfish' individuals? That's exactly why the US is a police state that aims at becoming a global police state. You think it's not 'ok' for the police to become 'militarized'? On what grounds? 'Militarization' of the police is the will of the collective and is needed for the survival of the (american) species. Police 'militarization' is of course mostly bullshit, in the sense that the police were always the same murdering shitbags. The fact that now their true nature is a bit more obvious (to some) because they have bigger guns, is, if anything, a good thing. J.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 12:31:02 +0000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 1/21/16, Rayzer wrote:

...

juan wrote:

...

Doesn't your fucking herd have the divine collective right to identify you?

Existence shouldn't be regulated by the society you are part of

Sounds a good start - you advocate for no birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates then?

...

but your actions and behaviors might very well be to ensure the survival of the 'herd' if not the species.

In this statement is a subtlety that catches most people:

Regulation of lawful/acceptable behaviour, vs regulation of unlawful/unacceptable behaviour.

Looks to me that the political philosophy that Rayzer nicely summed up in one sentence is nothing but crass totalitarianism. 'True' 'anarchists' are supposed to be anti-authoritarian, yet what we have here is an apology for the unbounded 'authority' of the 'herd' (in practice of course, the authority of the 'herd's' 'representatives')

Should the state "regulate" sex by issuing Fucking licenses, with RFID chips to ensure appropriate locations only are used, with infringements and points loss for excessive fucking or fucking under the influence (won't someone please think of the foetuses that might be damaged)?

Next a breeding license, again with penalties for infraction?

Or should "the state" regulate intolerable/unacceptable behaviour such as rape, when that occurs?

Should the state regulate individual travel by issuing drivers licenses?

Or should the state regulate intolerable/unacceptable road conduct, when that occurs?

The consequences of one are satisfaction of the expectation of the herd and curtailing of vigilante justice, the consequences of the other are ever greater violations of individual rights, freedoms, etc.

Zenaan Harkness wrote:

its a much harder job to raise the standards for the collective.

Lead by example. Expect to be ejected from the collective for (snigger) out-performing. -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/21/2016 10:47 AM, Rayzer wrote:

Steve Kinney wrote:

...

As an anarchist, I have no problem recognizing the difference between consent, and making accommodations to coercive demands as a matter of tactical discretion.

Calling compliance with arbitrary orders from people who carry guns and radios "consent" is like saying that every person who has ever been raped "was asking for it."

So can we get a consensus that someone operating a 1-2 ton weapon of environmental and generally Mass Destruction, including but not limited to taking someone's life, should not only prove to 'the herd' they're capable, or at least KNOW how to operate said WMD properly (license), and have responsibility for that WMD, their personal property, evidenced (registration) for the rest of us ?

Can we get a consensus that no one should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle without proof of income, in the form of regular payments to a privately owned casino? And that this constraint should be imposed by deadly force in the event that someone persistently refuses to comply? Now we have an "Affordable Care Act" that serves the sole purpose of using State power to mandate payments to privately owned casinos, again backed by deadly force in the event that someone persistently refuses to play. It's a matter of perspective. A fear based world view that imposes a constant 'need' for protection by ersatz parental figures is the consensus reality in Amerika. Should the State service this need by violence or the threat of violence (same thing actually) against those whose world view is not predominantly fear based? The victims of this grand deception will of course say 'yes', as will the private backers of State authority who realize massive profits guaranteed by the State. "Fear is the great teacher." - Charles Manson :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWoVDLAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LNM4P/1cprGdme10C90JYsoUUzdhG BSzsoSbklO8qunjV29CioGQc0pTlYJ4+tgBdWfWIrGmSNrHWV1Dm3ICIW7uHqC2m 7V333TRXnlm5dE+vDa03bIdneQ5AhBidG7xoLlTfvyjGWlOQpqwn5HhoO3Zb70NN rZJKbH3Sv1OK9E9iC7TjV4MyKjf//SpD5dk58WhgNFSsg6I4rAz/LZkZtLr6ZGsI hVchlcQMPXNamZCUK0/HylH+KA/1/lgbqxhc3f4aNXxgX6k9GNoWpYu9JHiY8tzY EVwdeMx99xHQ4Uw/OOwWnWeeQsqmhOQFlm2MSs4OKX7zUWjV5apGCYEj0Uqhb2bB Gx/jFakTJQpcoZbe5sTWSHFzDa5gd1CgsffWMmxCOm2CyfmGKlW9JN5Hs+5+Zqhe yx1H3SIU0p6WgZHzdUzu1xCYstogjMtMN3MCFxEzVRRhcXY/2754yk1zyrAxg+/T PpwpuDxwyKeRPh3GbYjMHVvQooqf8DTcu3yvx5apd1WuCGcJMWy9RwCiGnjuEVOP mt6cAhvHimZNNFEh0XmiyAzn/BNRrkG6GH0VRCixlF9uqPIoX45TYmYdFTnQ32VU cSKbJgOsZFtkoxjhJuRSOYVhtgbH/o9NTXJtfyP4FOM3IFloY4v7P+4V8cdR57R8 SpiVlUdF6nQ+/Jbtwa7M =1m/D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/21/2016 05:45 PM, Rayzer wrote:

Steve Kinney wrote:

...

Can we get a consensus that no one should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle without proof of income,

That what happens in states with optional insurance regulation. You're required to produce proof of ability to compensate someone in case you crush their legs or some other stupid thing that me-firsters never consider until it's THEIR legs that get crushed.

You want insurance against loss or injury from motor vehicle accidents, therefore I will pay for that insurance. And if I don't, hired thugs will kidnap or kill me on your behalf. As long as I choose to obey traffic laws in a manner consistent with public safety, I can not be held liable for any injury to you resulting from my operation of a motor vehicle. Therefore, I must pay for your insurance. The logic is inescapable: You are a thief.

...

And that this constraint should be imposed by deadly force in the event that someone persistently refuses to comply?

ROTF! The option is ME pulling out a gun and putting a bullet in your head immediately if your car threatens my life.

This "extrapolation" suggests that my position can not be disputed by rational argument.

Your choice dude. Keep extrapolating and not answering my direct question with a direct answer.

Demonstrating that an argument is dependent on a forced, irrational context refutes the said argument.

The question IS:

...

So can we get a consensus that someone operating a 1-2 ton weapon of environmental and generally Mass Destruction, including but not limited to taking someone's life, should not only prove to 'the herd' they're capable, or at least KNOW how to operate said WMD properly (license), and have responsibility for that WMD, their personal property, evidenced (registration) for the rest of us ?

Evasion was a local 'zine by the OG Dharma Punk, but not an appropriate way to answer a legitimate question.

Nice try, but I am not obligated to refute an argument while staying within the bounds of the irrational context from which it emerges. Relevance is always grounds for objection. Calling an automobile a "weapon of mass destruction" does not do much for your argument except to show that it emerges from a context of irrational fear.

...

Now we have an "Affordable Care Act"

It can't run you over.

It can steal your money, on behalf of the industry that lobbied to have it put in place. Exactly like compulsory motor vehicle insurance.

...

It's a matter of perspective. A fear based world view that imposes a constant 'need' for protection by ersatz parental figures is the consensus reality in Amerika.

The worldview in Merica, as illustrated by the responses I'm seeing is 'denial of responsibility' and a touch of sociopathy... Given that, "a constant 'need' for protection" seems prerequisite.

Progress! We agree that you are arguing within a context where a constant need for protection by (armed) third party authorities is assumed. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWoW6gAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LQ24QALwMIig6WJvQzdlu33qGN6yQ ocKVGzUk9c2rOpBYw3UCQvvH1hY0PUXNmp1cH70mlhMM8bd3eRNXj1Fl89eRAMsX 5kYw8GlgR6a3UOmje+73mxCRdiyoo6tySkVOw3wUiZOR3wTckPzU5B3T03a1ajdm 75q1x/Ufwb364XNwTZxkMaEZEY9sNirisnrnfvdUXISBPYMG0sc7wOuhZc90zkXr qqwLEZL0TxX7J10VGNpfdxqg9waPR0vhxwZkFEuRi4v9ar2f1S6gVHD9CVIqY6VG CRJ8zLQhQBNd17B10yxjAbI4ts9FNk2ddBUs/y+doN5qjCDCCke3RnNgEggWTGt4 UugAB35OizjMu7JAceHx6UwqylJLgSS27GydCVSaIRUi8Kvrj2HVSqkXix3kPmXr zbgCqXNmsIzrXqzhOcQ3FMFC7wXKpinLJGLNldv+GtP+s2tcTT0syjLg+6msNA0L IAv6axULr9Gj/0wzPLbSolPiUkmnNg0O+hqPTC1fhdDzzZnkCS5H+Cgx3KgiMPnW 5sdEysTPSssaR4K/dsnwNxMXc4wfkpvrQNBlrFW46ciWRRCMuVowXZIsHCsJLD6w HQxYtsRQTKEiAzg8o62vsyMhAlZ7MD3dMS6zwMnDUMOuMN55oeFPWQRAU1jlylBP vIT5H3PV5QXA8uz28WFJ =oqAT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 1/21/16, Rayzer wrote:

Steve Kinney wrote:

...

It's a matter of perspective. A fear based world view that imposes a constant 'need' for protection by ersatz parental figures is the consensus reality in Amerika.

The worldview in Merica, as illustrated by the responses I'm seeing is

I'm from Australia.

'denial of responsibility'

Not at all. It's about appropriate responses, and responding appropriately, with responsibility. Your assertion is unfounded.

and a touch of sociopathy...

Now that's just inflammatory - such an allusion needs facts in support, if you want a serious discussion, but now I'm stating the obvious.

Given that, "a constant 'need' for protection" seems prerequisite.

And I thought -I- was cynical. If you fundamentally mistrust 'most' humans, you might want to look at that. It may be good to live with a little paranoia, but that's personal, not how to run a state. It would be nice if the state -were- in fear of the people - now that would be a mighty fine day :D

On 1/21/16, Rayzer wrote:

On 01/21/2016 12:25 AM, juan wrote:

...

...

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:11:51 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

...

juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:19:10 -0500 grarpamp wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

"When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate,"

false

Spoken like a true right wing jackass me-first sovereign citizen.

This simply does not follow. Juan made a simple logical response that "no, just because I choose to drive on a public road, does not mean I actually agree to display a license plate" As a fact, Juan's logic is true. This can also be extended: - driving on a road does not mean driver -wants- to display a license plate - driving on a road does not mean driver displays a license plate (this might result in certain consequences that from various view points might be desirable, and or un-desirable) Neither of these two positions, nor the one Juan stated above, warrant being classified as "a true right wing jackass me-first sovereign citizen". "I don't have to be doing anything wrong to want my privacy." This one time, an associate was asked by a Magistrate/Judge, "well Mr Redacted, how would you feel if a driver had no number plate and did a hit and run on your child?" to which he responded "pretty bloody bad, and frankly, just as bad as if someone -with- a number plate had done a hit and run". The point here is that the number plate does not stop people doing the wrong thing. Although there may be some encouragement towards better behaviour by mandating number plates, such a correlation is not public knowledge, and more importantly, the costs are manifold: - our right to travel anonmyously is sacrificed (yes, anonymous wrt most individuals, but no, not anonymous from the state, which is arguably much more important) - the state intrudes into our private lives - economic bias - fines charged (eg for parking longer than 'allowed') unfairly target the poor - many more reasons It is the bad action which ought be punished/ sanctioned in some way by society.

...

...

...

I'll bet you think you're an anarchist too!

Razer, your reaction to suggestion that "there is no agreement to display a number plate when one drives on a public road" is way out of proportion to the suggestion. Some people have such reactions because they had a love one who suffered from some egregious road crime.

...

...

Dude. You're the one who quotes doug casey.

It doesn't matter WHO one quotes. The only thing that matters is one's WORLDVIEW, and I stick to what I said. You're a right winger and don't even know it.

Frankly I don't really know what "right winger" means. I really wish I did, but it's different for different people, so your definition is unlikely to be useful in this thread. What I believe -is- useful is to handle a particular issue at a time - if an issue gets too big, perhaps additional threads are required.

Steve Kinney wrote:

...

As an anarchist, I have no problem recognizing the difference between consent, and making accommodations to coercive demands as a matter of tactical discretion.

Calling compliance with arbitrary orders from people who carry guns and radios "consent" is like saying that every person who has ever been raped "was asking for it."

So can we get a consensus that someone operating a 1-2 ton weapon of environmental and generally Mass Destruction, including but not limited to taking someone's life, should not only prove to 'the herd' they're capable, or at least KNOW how to operate said WMD properly (license),

Here you are conflating capability (training) with tracking and control (license). And, we can debate whether control via license is abused by the state, whether control by court order and/ or punishment by the courts for violations of the public standards/expectations of "the herd", and compare any purported benefits put forward, with the many costs involved, some of which I outlined above. I wholeheartedly disagree with the incredibly simplified assertion "car bad, state control good".

and have responsibility for that WMD, their personal property, evidenced (registration) for the rest of us ?

No. We can not. The lack of depth/ assumption that we can, might be worth analysing though.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 12:45:18 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

This simply does not follow. Juan made a simple logical response that "no, just because I choose to drive on a public road, does not mean I actually agree to display a license plate"

As a fact, Juan's logic is true.

This can also be extended: - driving on a road does not mean driver -wants- to display a license plate

NO one but you gives a fuck what YOU or Juan wants and it's obvious your lives are quite sheltered or you would have discovered that by now.

I would be hardly surprised if 'anarchist' rayzer is in the same category as 'anarchist' chomsky. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/noam-chomsky-ne... http://www.hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist (I on the other hand live a relatively poor life in a 'third world' country...) Regardless, it's quite obvious that 'anarchist' rayzer doen't have much of a clue about political philosophy. It's not clear why he joined a mailing list that isn't a 'commie' mailing list, and why he whines when his sick 'collectivistic' garbage gets the treatment it deserves.

Growing up and taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY by 'whatever means necessary' for the humans around you, is something you and Juan apparently need to learn, before, in real life, someone 'schools you'. Albeit my experience is most people who think like you get stomped on the second you broach 'me uber alles' to someone you've damaged in some way.

So, by extension, I assume neither of you 'get out much'.

You couldn't come up with more content-free bullshit even if you hired the likes of chomsky to write bullshit for you.

In other words, for your own personal safety, if you injure someone with your uninsured smog-belcher, make sure you kill them or at least injure them so they can't do the same injury back to you.

The only vehicle I bought in my whole life was a bicycle. Then again, that has nothing to do with the fact that the only thing you can do is parrot collectivistic garbage - garbage you can't justify. Problem is, this not your riseup echo chamber...

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:00:47 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

The problem is when you ON YOUR BIKE, or someone in a car, decides to run into me.

Now it turns out that bicycles are a mortal threat too and bicycle users must be regulated by the 'collective', or for the time being, by the state? And why would I or anybody else decide to run into you? You are not talking about accidents anymore? The thing is, there are quite a few different means people could use if they consciously decided to harm you.

(Take my word for it, you're VERY vulnerable Juan. Ride carefully. Like your life depends on it.)

Thanks for your concern...Yes, anybody can slip in the bathroom and break his neck.

That's the hazard of a me-first society that's jettisoned proof-of-liability.

Are you willing to require 'proof of liability' for people engaging in any allegedly dangerous activity?

It becomes "my tire iron is bigger than your knife but his Glock trumps both" Libertardianist feudalism.

So you see nothing wrong with collectivism - the 'anarchist' authority of the 'herd' (in practice a de-facto state of course) over individuals and your analysis of the alternative system is just...a lame caricature of it?

Dnia sobota, 23 stycznia 2016 01:31:13 juan pisze:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:22:45 -0500

dan@geer.org wrote:

...

In a world of circulating *private sector* plate readers

dude, the private sector, unlike you and your pals, don't go around murdering people for fun.

Awww, that's so quaint: http://www.alternet.org/story/146579/coca_cola's_role_in_the_assassinations_of_union_leaders_explored_in_powerful_new_documentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi#Incidents It's cute how some think that power only corrupts and brings out evil in people if it happens to have a form of a government agency; and conversely, that no good can ever come from a government agency. Power corrupts whenever people have unchecked power. Wether or not it is private sector, mafia, government, or civil society, if it has enough power, it *will* corrupt people. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

juan wrote:

A bunch of assholes who sell colored water don't have any power unlike the fucking psychos who claim a monopoly on 'justice'. Same psychos you gallantly support.

DUDE! You've LOST it! Who do you think finances the people with the guns who enforce the just-us? -- RR "Freedom is the capacity to pause between stimulus and response." ~Rollo May

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 07:44:55 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

juan wrote:

...

A bunch of assholes who sell colored water don't have any power unlike the fucking psychos who claim a monopoly on 'justice'. Same psychos you gallantly support.

DUDE! You've LOST it!

Who do you think finances the people with the guns who enforce the just-us?

Razer, do make an effort. How do *you* think is government financed? Maybe this is news to you : governemnt is financed through a mechanism called 'taxation'. And another called INFLATION. And 'borrowing' repaid(if ever) by more taxes and inflation, And the inflation/borrowing bit is done partly through the 'private' banking mafia...that can't fucking exist unless they get LEGAL PRIVILEGES from the government. The government is a criminal organization by its own nature (something any anarchist worth his salt doesn't even start to question). Businesses operating honestly on the other hand have absolutely nothing to do with 'governing'. You go to the supermarket, buy stuff you need, pay for it and that's it. It's supposed to be a 'mutually beneficial exchange'. But if a business were to FORCE you to 'buy' their stuff or services, exactly like GOVERNMENT DOES, then it wouldn't actually be a business...

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:48:33 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

Scientific American ‏@sciam calling Juan. "You don't know as much as you think":

"New research suggests that people who think they are experts tend to fall into the trap of overclaiming"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-don-t-know-as-much-as-you-thin...

But you prolly reject that b/c 'booshie-sci", and besides, you know better.

Congrats Razer. You used a time honored commie/fascist tactic. Invoking 'science' to 'prove' that there's something wrong with people you can't refute. Yes Razer, nothing says 'anarchist' like parroting pseudo scientific garbage from the establishment. You truly are a master of anarchism. A real free thinker. Free as in free refills. "New research suggests that people who think they are experts tend to fall into the trap of overclaiming" Does that claim include your 'intellectual' masters, the scientists themselves? Well, maybe they don't just think they are 'experts', They truly are!

Dnia sobota, 23 stycznia 2016 17:23:20 juan pisze:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:48:33 -0800

Rayzer wrote:

...

Scientific American ‏@sciam calling Juan. "You don't know as much as you think":

"New research suggests that people who think they are experts tend to fall into the trap of overclaiming"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-don-t-know-as-much-as-you-th ink-false-expertise/

But you prolly reject that b/c 'booshie-sci", and besides, you know better.

Congrats Razer. You used a time honored commie/fascist tactic.

God, I believe we have a win! :D -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

So, let's recapitulate a bit, the self parody is almost unreal. First Razer asks : "Who do you think finances the people with the guns who enforce the just-us? " I answer his question and explain to him how his 'anarchist' government, including DVM is financed. Taxation, robbery, bla bla. What's his comeback? "This asswad thinks he's telling me something I don't know." Well, that's funny because you didn't suggest you knew it. As a matter of fact what you were apparently saying was that gov't is financed by corporations. Which is, of course lefty nonsense. > But the BEST part? > > He starts with a question, and like a true fascist, answers it himself Yes, that's the best part - in a way. **Razer** asks a question, and when I answer it, he calls ma a fascist. Because I answered his fucking question. Razer can't keep track of the stuff he wrote ten minutes ago.

with his own opinion, the only opinion he doesn't do a blackshirt-like shout-down in response to.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:35:37 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

juan wrote:

...

gov't is financed by corporations. Which is, of course lefty nonsense. Funny... It's right-wingers who think the 'banksters' control the gubmint.

Any sensible person knows that banksters and government are partners. Not only 'right wingers' know it, whatever you think you mean by that term (hint : you don't have a clue) Anyway, are you showing your true colors again razer, and like a good 'progressive' american fascist, are you defending the banking mafia? So let me explain it again, so that you can't 'quote me out of context' like you just did. Your progressive government is financed by taxation, and financial scams like inflation. Those scams are partially arranged by the nominally 'private' baking mafia that can only do what it does because your government backs them. With guns. Now, true master of DVM 'anarchism', tell me again that you 'know all that'.

Heck! They even think the Rothchilds (about the only "Jewish bankers" anyone can name since WWII) run the whole fucking show! Banks, almost every single one of them, from thrifts to GoldmanSachs, are corporations.

Yes, and? So you actually didn't get a single thing from my post explaining to you how your loved DVM, and all the rest of your 'anarchist' herd-of-monkeys government is financed. Or are you playing dumb? Which in your case doesn't take much effort.

More evidence you just spew.

rysiek wrote:

It's cute how some think that power only corrupts and brings out evil in people if it happens to have a form of a government agency; and conversely, that no good can ever come from a government agency.

Power corrupts whenever people have unchecked power. Wether or not it is private sector, mafia, government, or civil society, if it has enough power, it *will* corrupt people.

+1 -- RR "Freedom is the capacity to pause between stimulus and response." ~Rollo May

Dnia sobota, 23 stycznia 2016 15:55:41 juan pisze:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 07:41:16 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

rysiek vomited:

...

...

Power corrupts whenever people have unchecked power. Wether or not it is private sector, mafia, government, or civil society, if it has enough power, it *will* corrupt people.

+1

Anybody(rysiek) who equates 'civil society' (voluntary organization) with the mafia/government - a criminal organization by definition - shows that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Are you saying criminal organisations never are (or at least start of) as voluntary ones? Are you saying no voluntary organisations can ever be or become criminal? Also, I never "equated civil society with mafia/government" (making such sweeping comparisons seems to be your job here). I said that even within civil society, if a given organisation has too much power, it might corrupt said organisation (or rather, people within it). Might I offer an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation#Blacklist_of_web_pag... /me now waits, eating popcorn, for the inevitable No True Scotsman -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

Dnia sobota, 23 stycznia 2016 18:23:57 juan pisze:

...

Are you saying criminal organisations never are (or at least start of) as voluntary ones?

The targets/victims of those organizations are not, by definition, 'voluntary'. Like you know, government subjects. Subjects. As in, being subjected to. Against their will.

The mafia is a 'voluntary organization' only if you look at the mafiosos. Their VICTIMS, who are extorted, are not 'voluntary' extorted. (...)

I did not say a single word about victims. But hey, let's play: if a mafia outlet kills a member of this very mafia outlet (due to some internal business), does that make that (dead) mafioso a victim? If so, does that suddenly make the mafioso a "non-voluntary" mafioso? Also, I would say that Wikipedia became a "victim" of Internet Watch Foundation's Internet censorship. I am perfectly happy to agree that Wikipedia was not a "voluntary" victim of it. However, does that make IWF suddenly not a civil society organisation? Or, perhaps, we can actually have civil society organisations that (sadly) show signs of being corrupted by the power (over *something*)?

...

Are you saying no voluntary organisations can ever be or become criminal?

A voluntary organization can stop being voluntary. At that point it's not voluntary anymore. It's becomes a state or state-like organization attacking people.

Shouldn't be too hard to understand eh?

Well, at what point a voluntary organisation stops being voluntary? When they commit their first crime? I am confused about your usage of the word "voluntary" here. Are you not actually looking for "non-criminal"?

...

Also, I never "equated civil society with mafia/government"

Dude, your whole quote and post are there. You listed mafia and civil society in the same sentece. If your writing is sloppy it's not my fault.

If that's your standard for "equating", then I have to ask... Why are you equating civil society to mafia? After all, you just "listed civil society and mafia in the same sentence". Here it is again, for your distinct viewing pleasure:

You listed mafia and civil society in the same sentece.

:)

...

(making such sweeping comparisons seems to be your job here). I said that even within civil society, if a given organisation has too much power, it might corrupt said organisation (or rather, people within it).

Begs the question, what kind of power do they have and how they got it?

That's actually a valid point. Your default answer will be "Teh Gubmint", and in the particular case of IWF, you'd actually be right. Thing is, does that mean that we have: - a civil society organisation - that *you agree* has been to some extent corrupted by power they got? It's a "yes/no" question.

...

Might I offer an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation#Blacklist_of_web_p ages What do you think those idiots stand for? They look like a typical right winger puritan assholes to me.

And yet they are a civil society organisation. My point stands: *even* civil society can be corrupted by power. Do you not agree?

...

/me now waits, eating popcorn, for the inevitable No True Scotsman

Sure. That coming from such a master of state logic like you. As in, power bad, but government good.

Governments are not good in and of themselves. But seeing *everything* that a government touches as evil/bad/criminal/your-word-here is akin to seeing everything that contains mercury (the element) as toxic. If that doesn't ring a bell, let me help you with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy So basically, yes, I am now calling your anti-Tor bullshit akin to the anti- vaccine crowd bullshit (or, as I prefer to call them, "pro-disease").

Or is it, "power actually good" when your team uses it?

Power bad always, needs to be checked, *regardless* of whether or not it (power) happens to be in the hands of a government, mafia, private sector, civil society, or pixies and unicorns. Problem is, there are many, many different power structures. Governments are one kind of these. But there are many more, and they emerge on their own, all the time. Looking *only* on governments (and mafia) and missing the broader picture is just plain silly. Still, sometimes I would love to have your simple "gummint bad, private sector good, remove gummint and the free market will cure cancer" view of the world. One can dream... -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

Dnia niedziela, 24 stycznia 2016 15:22:09 juan pisze:

...

I did not say a single word about victims. But hey, let's play: (...) As far as I'm concerned the discussion is about the highly stupid and misleading comment made by CIA capo mafioso dan geer regarding the 'private sector'. A high ranking capo of the CIA mafia is 'kindly' 'warning' 'us' about the dangers of the 'private sector'. Please.

Does the source of the warning make the warning less relevant? Do you see no potential problems/dangers in private sector having such huge databases of who was moving where, when?

(...) "It's cute how some think that power only corrupts and brings out evil in people if it happens to have a form of a government agency; and conversely, that no good can ever come from a government agency."

I am well aware that the government psychos can do some 'good' with all the resources they steal.

Ah, so we established that *sometimes* the outcome of government action can be good. Cool.

A government can invade and destroy a country and then give some free candy to the surviving orphans. That's really touching. The overall outcome of government intervention is of course a disaster.

Fair enough. Let's work with that. Does that mean that orphans should not take the government's candy? Does that mean that orphans that *do* take that candy are "sellouts" and are to be ostracized or considered akin to government agents?

But even if some government plan 'looks good' on some bullshit utiltiarian terms, imposing the plan by force is just ordinary crime on an industrial scale.

Again, fair enough. Never been a fan of "imposing a plan by force".

...

if a mafia outlet kills a member of this very mafia outlet (due to some internal business), does that make that (dead) mafioso a victim?

Perhaps. Maybe he wanted to quit and found out that not even the mafia is a 'voluntary' organization...

So we have a mafioso that became a *victim* of the very mafia he was a (voluntary) member of. Cool.

...

If so, does that suddenly make the mafioso a "non-voluntary" mafioso?

Maybe. Or maybe they quarrelled over the spoils. So?

Okay, let me be more specific. Imagine if you will a situation, in which the mafioso in question does not *know* that the mafia gave out orders to kill him. There was no clear beef between him and the mafia, but some external circumstances cause the capos to decide that this guy has to go. So the mafioso in question does not *know* that he is going to be killed. And let's assume he has been killed while he was sleeping. So that he had no chance of realising what's going on. My question is: does the sheer fact of being killed by the organisation the mafioso was a *voluntary* member of, without him knowing that he's going to be killed, change his "membership status" from voluntary to non-voluntary? :)

Why is this important to political theory? How does it affect the analysis of the criminal nature of the state?

We're trying to establish what does it mean to be a "voluntary organisation", and if all victims by definition are not voluntary. You seem to put a lot on that, so I am trying to understand how you use those words.

...

Also, I would say that Wikipedia became a "victim" of Internet Watch Foundation's Internet censorship. I am perfectly happy to agree that Wikipedia was not a "voluntary" victim of it.

That's good because "voluntary victim" doesn't make much sense except maybe as some kind of poetic license.

Cool, so we agreed that Wikipedia is an "involuntary victim" of a civil society organisation. Wonderful!

...

However, does that make IWF suddenly not a civil society organisation?

Formally they may look like part of 'civil society' (that is, non-governmental) but their aims are typical of government.

A-ha! Aims! So we arrive at the dreaded "No True Scotsman". :)

But I think there's some mutual misunderstanding caused by different definitions of 'civil society'...

So, what's *your* definition* of "civil society", then?

...

Or, perhaps, we can actually have civil society organisations that (sadly) show signs of being corrupted by the power (over *something*)?

If the organizations we are talking about have coercive aims

WorldWide Fund and Greenpeace seem to have "coercive aims", as in: they are trying to influence decisions of other people in a certain way. Sometimes even using intimidation. Yet many would agree that these are civil society organisations. So: - could you define "coercive aims"? - are Greenpeace and WWF civil society organisations, or not?

I wouldn't consider them part of 'civil society' but rather part of 'militant society'.

Interesting. Could you define "militant society" and perhaps draw the line between the two?

Also I wouldn't say that this IWF thing was corrupted by power, if that means that they started as not-corrupt. IWF is a corrupt from day zero, by design. Exactly like all government.

Okay, still needing a definition of "civil society", "coercive aims" and "militant society".

...

...

...

Are you saying no voluntary organisations can ever be or become criminal?

A voluntary organization can stop being voluntary. At that point it's not voluntary anymore. It's becomes a state or state-like organization attacking people.

Shouldn't be too hard to understand eh?

Well, at what point a voluntary organisation stops being voluntary? When they commit their first crime?

It stops being voluntary when it starts coercing people...

Like Greenpeace and WWF?

...

I am confused about your usage of the word "voluntary" here. Are you not actually looking for "non-criminal"?

In this case voluntary and non-crimal point to the same idea.

Okay. So why use two words for it? Also, does that make the Internet Watch Foundation "criminal"?

Sorry if you don't like my terminology. I think it's fine but you can change it if you want...As long as you retain my meaning...?

How can I retain your meaning, if I do not understand it? Well, apart from the "shitbag" part, of course.

...

...

...

Also, I never "equated civil society with mafia/government"

Dude, your whole quote and post are there. You listed mafia

and civil society in the same sentece. If your writing is sloppy

it's not my fault.

If that's your standard for "equating", then I have to ask... Why are you equating civil society to mafia? After all, you just "listed civil society and mafia in the same sentence".

Here it is again, for your distinct viewing pleasure:

...

You listed mafia and civil society in the same sentece.

Ok, ok. Part of the problem is that our definitions of 'civil society' differ.

Thank goodness we were able to get to that conclusion. Eventually.

...

...

Begs the question, what kind of power do they have and how

they got it?

That's actually a valid point. Your default answer will be "Teh Gubmint", and in the particular case of IWF, you'd actually be right.

Thanks...So looks like this particular example doesn't help your case, it helps mine =P

Well, it actually highlighted the definition problem. So, how do you define: - civil society - militant society - coercive aims

...

Thing is, does that mean that we have: - a civil society organisation - that *you agree* has been to some extent corrupted by power they

got?

It's a "yes/no" question.

That's not how I would describe it. It's an organization with coercive aims and more or less obvious ties to government/anti-sex puritan theocrats.

I don't think the IWF are libertarian voluntarists...

Wait, does your definition of "civil society" *require* an organisation to be a "libertarian voluntarist" one? And what would that mean?

...

...

...

Might I offer an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation#Blacklist_of_w eb_p ages

What do you think those idiots stand for? They look like a typical right winger puritan assholes to me.

And yet they are a civil society organisation. My point stands: *even* civil society can be corrupted by power. Do you not agree?

There's some misunderstanding because I'm using 'civil society' as a synonym for free society or a society based on voluntarist principles.

So basically you make up your own meaning of words/phrases and call people names because they use it in a different way, without first explaining your way of using these terms? Uh-huh.

As opposed to government which operates on the principle of obey or die.

if on the other hand, by civil society you mean anything that isn't explicitly and officially part of the government, then yes, IWF is an example of a corrupt (or criminal-like) 'civil' organization.

Then again, I never said that the private sector is free from corruption.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! So we can have private companies that are corrupt? Can they be corrupt without government's help?

You might have caught some of my rants against the baknking mafia, or the google mafia, or the pharmaceutical mafia, or...

I try to avoid most of your rants, to be honest.

What I consider a laughable and sick insult is that a high ranking government mafioso like geer has the cheek to pretend that the private sector is a bigger threat than his employeers, the C.I.A.

I don't see where he said it's a "bigger" threat. He just points out that it is a threat that needs recognition.

...

...

...

/me now waits, eating popcorn, for the inevitable No True Scotsman

Well, that one was fast. :)

...

...

Sure. That coming from such a master of state logic like you. As in, power bad, but government good.

Governments are not good in and of themselves.

Of course they are not good 'in and of themselves'. And they are not morally neutral either. In and of themselves, governments are bad, despite their good deeds propaganda.

Why just governments? What makes Teh Gummint so different from mafia on one hand, and a huge multinational corporation with their own armed security force and/or an effective way of coercing governments to do their bidding on the other?

Bottom line : crime can't be 'justified' (that is, proven to stick to justice principles)

...

But seeing *everything* that a government touches as evil/bad/criminal/your-word-here is akin to seeing everything that contains mercury

I already pointed out that gov't can do some 'good things', paid by all the resources they steal.

Fine.

But your 'argument' can only work if you put words in my mouth.

...

(the element) as toxic. If that doesn't ring a bell, let me help you with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

So basically, yes, I am now calling your anti-Tor bullshit akin to the anti- vaccine crowd bullshit

Oh fine. That wasn't the topic of this discussion at all.

No it wasn't. But then, it was in a way. :)

But since you mention it, you can't counter anything I say about tor and you never did =)

Before we dive into this rabbit hole, do I understand correctly that above you just agreed that: 1. in and of itself the fact that a project (say, Tor) takes government money, does not *automagically* mean that the project is corrupt/coercive/in bed/etc? 2. that it is *possible* that such a project (not necessarily Tor; some hypothetical project) can have good outcome *despite* taking money from the government?

"open source" therefore "magically great" doesn't count.

Because Juan Says So.

...

Power bad always, needs to be checked, *regardless* of whether or not it (power) happens to be in the hands of a government, mafia, private sector, civil society, or pixies and unicorns.

Fine. Sort of...

Elaborate on the "sort of" please, as I'm afraid I'm gonna be called a "shitbag" soon enough if you don't.

...

Problem is, there are many, many different power structures. Governments are one kind of these. But there are many more, and they emerge on their own, all the time. Looking *only* on governments (and mafia) and missing the broader picture is just plain silly.

Not at all. Government is by far the worst problem.

But you do agree it is not the *only* problem?

Focusing on things that are not as bad as government while constantly denying the criminal nature of government is...government propaganda.

What about focusing on things that are not as bad as the government, but *not* denying that government is a big problem?

And is exactly what you are doing here as far as I can tell.

Apparently.

...

Still, sometimes I would love to have your simple "gummint bad, private sector good, remove gummint and the free market will cure cancer" view of the world. One can dream...

That isn't exactly my view. Part of my view is that the government has to go because of *moral* reasons, not for utilitarian reasons. Of course there are good utilitarian arguments too that statists can't counter, but I personally don't much care about them.

What, in your view, would happen once Teh Gummint is gone, then? Also, it's cute how you divide the world into statists and yourself. :)

Let me try this...Do you think encryption systems should be backdored by the US government, or perhaps the 'united nations'?

Absofuckinglutely not.

Or should encryption systems be as unbreakable as possible, in practice making it impossible for government to enforce 'laws'?

Now now, let's not bundle two distinct things. Nice try, but no bone. I do hold that encryption systems should be as unbreakable as possible, or perhaps even more. And at the same time I hold strongly (and have data to back it up) that this will not seriously hinder governments' ability to "enforce laws". That's exactly why I call LEA's "argument" of "we need backdoors because HURDURRISTS" bullshit. No, no they don't. They have more than ample resources and means to do whatever it is they're doing without breaking encryption. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

Dnia niedziela, 24 stycznia 2016 21:26:58 juan pisze:

Ok rysiek, I'm not sure when/if I'm going to reply to all your evasive bullshit.

Well, would you call "evasive bullshit" a situation where somebody does not reply to simple yes/no questions without a good reason? :)

What I'm certainly going to do is use one of your 'tricks'.

What tricks? I am trying to ask precise questions to understand your point of view.

Tell me rysiek. How does your government or any government operate.

What happens to people who don't obey your government. Show some decency and intellectual honesty and give a concise, honest answer.

They get fined, jailed, or (worst case scenario) killed. Your point? While you ponder this, here are some questions that I have asked you in the previous e-mail, for your consideration: (regarding private companies getting licence plate data) Do you see no potential problems/dangers in private sector having such huge databases of who was moving where, when? (regarding governments doing bad shit and then giving the orphans candy) Does that mean that orphans should not take the government's candy? Does that mean that orphans that *do* take that candy are "sellouts" and are to be ostracized or considered akin to government agents? (regarding mafioso being killed by mafia he's a member of) My question is: does the sheer fact of being killed by the organisation the mafioso was a *voluntary* member of, without him knowing that he's going to be killed, change his "membership status" from voluntary to non-voluntary? (regarding civil society) So, what's *your* definition* of "civil society", then? (regarding Greenpeace and WWF) - could you define "coercive aims"? - are Greenpeace and WWF civil society organisations, or not? (regarding "militant society" as opposed to "civil society") Could you define "militant society" and perhaps draw the line between the two? (regarding the definition of "civil society") Wait, does your definition of "civil society" *require* an organisation to be a "libertarian voluntarist" one? And what would that mean? (regarding possibility of corrupt private companies) So we can have private companies that are corrupt? Can they be corrupt without government's help? (regarding governments being "bad") Why just governments? What makes Teh Gummint so different from mafia on one hand, and a huge multinational corporation with their own armed security force and/or an effective way of coercing governments to do their bidding on the other? (regarding projects taking government money) Before we dive into this rabbit hole, do I understand correctly that above you just agreed that: 1. in and of itself the fact that a project (say, Tor) takes government money, does not *automagically* mean that the project is corrupt/coercive/in bed/etc? 2. that it is *possible* that such a project (not necessarily Tor; some hypothetical project) can have good outcome *despite* taking money from the government? (regarding "power always bad, needs to be checked, regardless of who has it)

Fine. Sort of...

Elaborate on the "sort of" please. (regarding the government being the "by far worst problem) But you do agree it is not the *only* problem? (regarding government propaganda) What about focusing on things that are not as bad as the government, but *not* denying that government is a big problem? (regarding "government has to go") What, in your view, would happen once Teh Gummint is gone, then? -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:01:59 -0800 Rayzer wrote:

rysiek wrote a luv note to Juan:

...

(regarding the definition of "civil society")

Wait, does your definition of "civil society" *require* an organisation to be a "libertarian voluntarist" one? And what would that mean?

If required it would mean you're 'outside' (and we're back to a hinting of fascism...)

You are a self described collectivist, for fucks sake. And fascism is a variety of collectivism. The 'nation', 'race', 'society', the 'workers' or whatever 'collectives' you fancy, have absolute 'authority' over individuals. And it's not just that as a collectivist you are quite close to the 'fascism' you whine about. You've clearly shown that when people criticize crass state actions like the harrasment on people on roads, YOU SIDE WITH THE FUCKING STATE. Again, you are nothing but the typical social democrat pretending to be an anarcho-who-knows-what. Ah, yes! You are the true kind of anarchist. The DVM-Anarchist! You are as fake as the libertarians who vote for reagan and bush. Granted at least you've argued against american wars in the middle east...

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:56:16 +0100 rysiek wrote:

...

Tell me rysiek. How does your government or any government operate.

What happens to people who don't obey your government. Show some decency and intellectual honesty and give a concise, honest answer.

They get fined, jailed, or (worst case scenario) killed. Your point?

That is exactly my point and you know it. That is the *theory* and *practice* of government. Now where do you, a statist and apologist of 'good' government stand with respect to the crimes that enable the very existence of your government? Further point : the theory of government is radically different from the theory of *voluntary interaction* and the 'free market' or 'civil society' if you prefer. In *theory and practice* the government is nothing but the bigest, sicket criminal organization.

While you ponder this, here are some questions that I have asked you in the previous e-mail, for your consideration:

(regarding private companies getting licence plate data)

Do you see no potential problems/dangers

Yes I do. Then again, I never said the private sector is perfect. That's a position you pretentd that I hold because the only way for you to 'win' the argument is by arguing against something I never said nor I would ever say.

in private sector having such huge databases of who was moving where, when?

(regarding governments doing bad shit and then giving the orphans candy)

Does that mean that orphans should not take the government's candy?

Does that mean that orphans that *do* take that candy are "sellouts" and are to be ostracized or considered akin to government agents?

The orphans do have a legitimate claim against your government psychos. But *victims* of government claiming restitution have nothing to do with *government employees* pretending to 'fight' government from the inside. Like your beloved tor mafiosos for instance. Those assholes certainly are pentagon sellouts and state agents (by defintion - they are paid by the state).

(regarding mafioso being killed by mafia he's a member of)

My question is: does the sheer fact of being killed by the organisation the mafioso was a *voluntary* member of, without him knowing that he's going to be killed, change his "membership status" from voluntary to non-voluntary?

That is irrelevant bullshit. And I already answered it anyway. At least partly because you keep chaging the 'scenario'. If you can clearly make whatever point you are trying to make, go ahead, make it, and I'll reply to it. I'm not wasting time with contrived 'edge cases'.

(regarding civil society)

So, what's *your* definition* of "civil society", then?

I already gave in a previous message. Now it's clear that you don't read my replies. As to the rest of your 'questions' they are of course the same evasive bullshit as before. You can keep playing dumb forever while accusing me of not explaining well the basics of anarchist theory. Funny because you also pretend to be an expert on political theory PLUS, you are posting in a FUCKING CRYPTO ANARCHIST mailing list.

(regarding Greenpeace and WWF)

- could you define "coercive aims"? - are Greenpeace and WWF civil society organisations, or not?

(regarding "militant society" as opposed to "civil society")

Could you define "militant society" and perhaps draw the line between the two?

(regarding the definition of "civil society")

Wait, does your definition of "civil society" *require* an organisation to be a "libertarian voluntarist" one? And what would that mean?

(regarding possibility of corrupt private companies)

So we can have private companies that are corrupt?

Can they be corrupt without government's help?

(regarding governments being "bad")

Why just governments? What makes Teh Gummint so different from mafia on one hand, and a huge multinational corporation with their own armed security force and/or an effective way of coercing governments to do their bidding on the other?

(regarding projects taking government money)

Before we dive into this rabbit hole, do I understand correctly that above you just agreed that:

1. in and of itself the fact that a project (say, Tor) takes government money, does not *automagically* mean that the project is corrupt/coercive/in bed/etc?

2. that it is *possible* that such a project (not necessarily Tor; some hypothetical project) can have good outcome *despite* taking money from the government?

(regarding "power always bad, needs to be checked, regardless of who has it)

...

Fine. Sort of...

Elaborate on the "sort of" please.

(regarding the government being the "by far worst problem)

But you do agree it is not the *only* problem?

(regarding government propaganda)

What about focusing on things that are not as bad as the government, but *not* denying that government is a big problem?

(regarding "government has to go")

What, in your view, would happen once Teh Gummint is gone, then?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/23/2016 10:41 AM, Rayzer wrote:

rysiek wrote:

...

It's cute how some think that power only corrupts and brings out evil in people if it happens to have a form of a government agency; and conversely, that no good can ever come from a government agency.

Power corrupts whenever people have unchecked power. Wether or not it is private sector, mafia, government, or civil society, if it has enough power, it *will* corrupt people.

"It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced - in a word, insane." "Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible." - Frank Herbert Our Mr. Herbert was deep into ecology - including what the think tank boys and PsyOps shops call 'human ecology.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Herbert#Ideas_and_themes =================================== Recommended reading: =================================== National Security and Double Government, Michael J. Glennon "U.S. national security policy is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional constraints." Full text, 114 pages: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf =================================== Rogue Agents, David Teacher A history of what could be termed "The New Right" in NATO block covert influence operations from the Cold War through the 1970s. This quote might influence present company toward reading it: "In February 1959, Van den Heuvel led a study group to America to visit the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, a CIA front group founded in 1955 which changed name in 1961 to become the Human Ecology Fund, "human ecology" being at the time the official euphemism for psychological warfare and deprogramming. Both American organisations were funding conduits for the CIA's MK-ULTRA programme of research into mind control and brainwashing (32)." PDF, 564 pgs, most of it in source doc annexes https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Rogue_Agents =================================== Attacking Faulty Reasoning, T. Richard Damer Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Samuel Clemens "Good arguments play a particularly important role in helping us to make difficult moral decisions. Not only do they help us to decide what positive action to take but also to avoid actions with harmful con- sequences. False beliefs, to which faulty reasoning often leads, blur our moral vision and often result in actions that cause considerable harm to others. Since we are all re- sponsible for the consequences of our actions, it is incumbent on us to base our beliefs and decisions on the conclusions of good arguments." 257 pgs. Buy online, or inquire with Textbook Liberation and/or your Postman =================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWpUc9AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LvLsP/jswCA+us0tLkwNuZ40m9bMf Yt2i9tx7z9kz8e5RDrPK9akpWll0lKcTsT6JuzA6xuN89oD+1EopgkpMifNxldoc sM1Q84byzsW2gv20HN0NGRXkv52DoXeEPCFySuEdv+Qgo+CJDElWuAqdkzVKfR1W jkl0fKKNAeB8IWxGEpj1agpEZtIv3CqYQZzJXyTx/EdbHHi802KQozwYKFk9PjSz zVtxqo0dsH6pWrzfqHEjKY7fKU9ne/+WOGRWYn74WNMKI8B/lMJBRhlH1uCeRNVt X5eY8XY6oQ2FDnugwX4ulTFvRpb98s3Il5r5slvuH7sCRXfJNtEz02x7yWCiTZsf CSDva+ABRJ50Z4PLmf1tiJHjlaAbCF+5a3dgRG3EZ51bMUMLeCb21BPQqcLHUcJ4 N1U3ebmB+w0rRkE1vBy8+J4ZBItxgDKevM2T+tfiK3UzKtzRFEQCI2Us/AdBK8/K 7Z8SzBVHyQ0hywYefRG/3EzB+I4scKcA1fAhVR6lpxgZG2bvOEwI7kfu5p2DnvVc AK8cVXMV8cbh6DGGIUog+djDxk3zWGlvTSfgSiUULW51aemg4WXvcvAozy0cyuzc NKcvrr0M3SMCRiFKYQGhYZxVotr4JL/FWrjvAglXKlz7WHfj9b3tRSbjXWRrctRi Wx4U3wBvO/wxGoWrJ/TA =D3c6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I think its a great idea All in the protection of America people. On Jan 22, 2016 8:28 PM, wrote:

| A senior Homeland Security official recently argued that Internet | anonymity should outlawed in the same way that driving a car without a | license plate is against the law. "When a person drives a car on a | highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate," Erik Barnett, | an assistant deputy director at U.S. Immigration and Customs | Enforcement and attache to the European Union at the Department of | Homeland Security, wrote. "The license plate's identifiers are ignored | most of the time by law enforcement. Law enforcement will use the | identifiers, though, to determine the driver's identity if the car is | involved in a legal infraction or otherwise becomes a matter of public | interest. Similarly, should not every individual be required to | display a 'license plate' on the digital super-highway?"

In a world of circulating *private sector* plate readers and cameras fed to databases where it is dollars, not writs, that open the door, the analogy above is bullshit. As they say in the law, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

--dan

wrote:

this thread is hijack before even start! juan and rayzer working for american 50 cent party?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/china%E2%80%99s-paid-t...

horrible :( i think you try to make this group not useful, full of shit

grarpamp:

...

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/01/20/1321243/senior-homeland-security-offi... A senior Homeland Security official recently argued that Internet anonymity should outlawed in the same way that driving a car without a license plate is against the law. "When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate," Erik Barnett, an assistant deputy director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and attache to the European Union at the Department of Homeland Security, wrote. "The license plate's identifiers are ignored most of the time by law enforcement. Law enforcement will use the identifiers, though, to determine the driver's identity if the car is involved in a legal infraction or otherwise becomes a matter of public interest. Similarly, should not every individual be required to display a 'license plate' on the digital super-highway?"

Greg Moss wrote:

+1 - this whole news group is a fucking Joke. Fakes with multiple handles.

I don't use multiple handles on this list. If I'm joking I make it pretty fucking clear ... and I didn't hijack this thread as the troll quoted claims. -- RR "Freedom is the capacity to pause between stimulus and response." ~Rollo May

what I try to say is, appears two men attack each other for 50 messages. every message is short and only attack. maybe you are fake or not but point is: this sucks for everyone else, the list becomes pure garbage pile. two ideas: 1, make longer and more detail arguments. consider reader. 2, avoid personal attack. if not for respect to other man then respect other reader that have made offended you (yet) if who is anarchist and who is not is important to you, ok, but i ask you please "take it outside." if any mods here, agree? sorry for my english. juan:

So you think that discussing the nature of the political system you live in is not useful?

What kind of 'useful' topics you think we should be allowed to discuss?