anarchy was : Silk Road founder arrested ...

Thu Oct 3 05:48:30 PDT 2013

2013/10/3 Juan Garofalo <juan.g71 at gmail.com>

> --On Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:12 AM +0200 Lodewijk andré de la porte <
> l at odewijk.nl> wrote:
>
>> 2013/10/2 Juan Garofalo <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
>>  I think you need to research the ABC of political theory before saying
>> anything about anarchy. Your belief that anarchy is chaos is as unfounded
>> as it is laughable.
>>
>> Anarchy as a word does not mean a thing.
>>
>
> Right, it doesn't mean one thing, it means *two* different and mutually
> exclusive things. It is vulgarly used to mean 'chaos', and it's used by
> advocates of voluntary interactions to describe a social system based on
> voluntary interactions.
>

This system fails in the sight of coercion by force. In fact coercion of
any kind reduces the ideals *i think *you hold it to have.

The other way around is not true, a system of force is not destroyed by
acting in only voluntary means. Merely by there being no opponents to those
that act forcefully. An essential proposal of government is monopoly on
violence. For if there is none able to combat a singular forceful actor
force is no longer a viable means of coercion.

And other means must be used to coerce. These means are defined in that
same government. In the simplest case an oracle is used to provide right
from wrong, the king or emperor. Nowadays we see faux-democratic
organizations that, ideally, enforce the tyranny of the masses. There's a
contest between tyranny of the masses and exploitation/corruption by those
with financial incentives or a desire for power.

The idea that coercion can be communicated about fairly I support strongly,
it guarantees a minimum amount of power one can have.

> You know, voluntary interactions : The opposite of cheering the drug laws
> of the american state.
>

I'm not cheering the US (drug) laws. Please try to understand. I simply
recognize the arrested man continued to live in an area where people comply
fully to US laws. And I recognize that Americans consider their government
to have the intended functionality for else they would be compelled to
revolt against it. An exercise also guaranteed by their constitution.

Part of it should feel quite provoking to Americans themselves. I hope it
is. If I were American I would be beyond disgusted by my governing and it's
systems. And I would be patriotic, defending the original values by which
the US were founded.

This all is quite unrelated to cryptography or cypherpunkism, which is not
in question for the law instances have not shown the ability to break the
hiding methods used. They might have applied "intelligence laundering" but
it seems they did so effectively, and thus we cannot extrapolate from
anything.

>  It's the people in it that shape it. This is as much as risk as it is a
>> feature. From chaos men makes shapes, structures. These structures must, by
>> the very absence of it, reimplement what otherwise a government does. Of
>> course the extends and all will depend upon the people.
>>
>
>         A government is a criminal organization that violates rights to
> life liberty and property. Those criminal 'functions' of government can't
> exist in  a voluntary society.
>

Non sequitur. Criminal is defined precisely by government. If you intend to
use it any other way you should define it. You're trying to transfer the
emotional experience of "crime" towards "government". Rights are the very
same.

If you want to say something, say it clearly. These statements are of
exclusively emotional value, and they contain no reasons. If you wish to
express your anger you may, but do not confuse it with logic.

I would also propose that in fact most governments now are voluntary
societies. However they exert force on those who choose to participate
partially, and choose for some unable to choose. These things I consider
despicable but also to some extend necessary and unavoidable.

As to this man, he was capable to halt his participation in the Union but
he was not willing. This argument does not apply to him.

If 'people' 'reimplement' what government does, then we are not talking
> about anarchy.
>

So in anarchy there is no maintenance of dykes, no roads, no legal tender
or banks, no armies, no system of justice and no encouragement of certain
economic operations?

Reimplement, in anarchy, just means do it. For a profit or charity in all
likelihood. I don't really see why you'd be better off with a "private
cooperation" fighting a war over a government fighting a war. You also
recreate the problems of governance in those "private co-operations".

Note that any union of people for a purpose constitutes a cooperation or
business.

Economically I can fairly say that every function will be taken over by
>> the group that can do the task as financially efficient as possible.
>> Combining that with the historic fact that kingdoms and empires, due to
>> people's ignorance, are the easiest structures to conjure. And that ease
>> makes it have a good return.
>>
>
> Not sure what you're getting at...
>

Anarchy turns into monarchies for economic and humanitarian reasons.

>  So. My thinking is that anarchy that remains anarchy is in fact quite
>> chaotic,
>> as no rel leaders are permitted to arise.
>>
>
>         I don't see the connection between leaders and their sheep on one
> hand and 'chaos' on the other.
>

As soon as structures arise, be it following those that sound right, be it
financial returns, be it newspapers. Influence and ability to decide move
towards individuals. Without control not to quorums but to actual
individuals.

If you prevent these structures from arising at all there is not even the
ability for two person interaction. If you permit these structures to a
certain level you have (a political problem with no means to deal with it
and) leaders, to the extend you permit.

You are making a very binary distinction between a leader and the
followers, but you must understand that one must always follow an idea.
Whatever presents the idea becomes the leader. That leader may be fair,
however, and this is what governments nowadays pretend to be. In fact, most
people do agree that the way it is done now is the best way we can.
*
*
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world
of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." and
Churchill was certainly a leader.

> It's quite possible to have 'order' without 'leaders'. It's called
> self-government. Or doing what you like and leaving your neighbor alone.
>

You will find that everyone becoming his own country is not a more pleasant
form of governance. Especially not when you will form unions.

I have speculated about that extremism. Of course it is possible to have a
"United Peoples" instead of "United Nations", where every person is
required to contributed the way the UN requires it, and every person must
enter into treaties of his/her liking.

Sadly it fails due to the people's ignorance. The likelihood you will have
a fruitful life, lived pleasantly, becomes lower.

>  Of course it's
>> possible to have discussions together, to rule as a non-forcible
>> collective. That's a very unstable situation however. Just like chaos.
>>
> Individuals can interact as individuals, voluntary and with no 'chaos' in
> sight. I don't see why it should be 'unstable'.
>

Taking what I said above as the starting point, doesn't it seem likely a
large group of people will enter into a "Trade Union of Amsterdam
Constitutional Treaty" where those people may exclusively trade with each
other, lest explicitly mentioned in the treaty, and there is a committee
assigned for the justitional needs of the union, etc, etc ,etc. You
recreate government with peculiar overhead.

The step towards warring between people is oh so very small. It will be
legal, certainly, but some treaties may demand retribution or punishment of
the war starter. Not unlike a murdered would now be judged and charged and
punished.

Freedom is not served by this system. Neither is wealth or comfort.

Now, you can say of course that that's not supposed to happen. Or that that
would make it "not anarchy" anymore. But the truth is then that it is easy
to become "not anarchy" and hard to stay anarchy.

That's what I mean with "That's a very unstable situation".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 12567 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131003/19d5d871/attachment-0001.txt>