anarchy was : Silk Road founder arrested ...

Juan Garofalo juan.g71 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 3 17:21:33 PDT 2013


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


	Well, of course. And your point is?


>
>
> The other way around is not true, a system of force is not destroyed by
> acting in only voluntary means.

	Not sure what you mean? Actually I think your sentence doesn't make any 
sense.


> Merely by there being no opponents to
> those that act forcefully. An essential proposal of government is
> monopoly on violence.

	What governments propose is to define 'right' and 'wrong' (an absurd 
proposal, of course)

	Governments do not have the monopoly on violence. They  *pretend* to have 
the monopoly of what they call 'legitimate' violence, according to their 
own baseless  definition of 'legitimate'


> For if there is none able to combat a singular
> forceful actor force is no longer a viable means of coercion. 

	What?


>
> 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.

	Isn't that what your precious democracy is all about?

> There's a
> contest between tyranny of the masses and exploitation/corruption by
> those with financial incentives or a desire for power.

	OK.

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

	Again, I don't understand what you say. "coercion can be communicated"? 
What does that mean?



>
>
> 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.

	What? People in the US (or in any other country) do not 'fully comply' 
with the dictates of 'their' governments at all. It's actually impossible 
to do so (there are virtually tens of thousands of 'laws' and regulations 
in the books).

	Furthermore, lots of people don't agree with, or explicitly disobey lots 
of state 'laws'. And some end up in jail because of doing so.


> 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.

	Hand waving. Like I said, (and you ignored) the US was founded as a slave 
society. Tell me about the constitutional right of slaves to revolt?


>
> 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.


	SLAVERY. That was the original value. And it still is.


>
>
> This all is quite unrelated to cryptography or cypherpunkism,

	It is obviously unrelated to cryptography. It is obviously related to 
anarchist political theory. Considering that 'cypherpunkism' is kinda 
related  to anarchy, I see how the discussion might be relevant.


> hich 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.


	Ah yes. And that is so, because...you asserted it?

	Here's news for you. "Crime" is defined by common moral sense. Government 
has nothing to do with the origin of concepts like "natural law" "rights to 
life, liberty and property" and the like.

	This is of course the core of the disagreement here. You're assuming that 
legal positivism is a valid doctrine. Too bad it isn't.


> 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. 


	Only for legal positivists.

	Government is the biggest violator of natural rights, thus the biggest 
criminal. That's a fact. Of course, if you don't care about justice, you 
may not feel anything about that fact, but your lack of feelings is not 
really the point here...

	 And no, 'natural rights' are not the creation of government.

	"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" 
<--- natural rights, regardless of the 'god' nonsense.

	
	"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, 
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

	See? Governments do NOT create any right. And, they are supposed to 
protect them, and FURTHERMORE, governments are supposed to be 'consensual'.


>
>
> 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.


	...

	Right back at you?

>
>
> I would also propose that in fact most governments now are voluntary
> societies.


	I would propose that you are completely out of touch with reality?

	Plus,  notice that you are thoroughly confusing 'government' with 
'society'...


> 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.  

	
	DPR didn't sign the constitution nor the 'social contract'...
	

		
>
>
>
> 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?


	I suggest you research the topic yourself. Are you criticizing a system 
which you seem pretty ignorant of?

	
>
>
> 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.


	Note that I'm talking about voluntary cooperation and respect for the 
natural rights of third parties.

	But feel free to come up with a caricature of what you think libertarian 
anarchy is, and 'debunk' it...



>
>
>
>
> 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.


	Yeah well. If you say so....



>  
>
>
>
> 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.

	
	Hard to know what you're saying...



>
>
> 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.
>
	
	And your "argumentum ad populum" matters, why, exactly?



> "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.



	Okay. Now you're quoting a bit of meaningless garbage from one of the 
worst fascists of the 20th century. That's too much for me =P


	I suggest you research all the subjects that you are clearly ignorant of 
(like the nature of government and rights). Them you'll realize that all 
your criticisms so far are baseless.

	
	If you feel like re-stating your position in a short and clear paragraph 
or two, go ahead and I might reply. Otherwise, I see no point in further 
communication.


>  
>
>
> 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".
>








More information about the cypherpunks mailing list