Russia and China crack Snowden Cache

Juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 13:13:38 PDT 2015


On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:56:48 -0400
Tim Beelen <tim at diffalt.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 6/17/2015 8:31 PM, Juan wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:57:35 -0400
> > Tim Beelen <tim at diffalt.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> 	So, pay attention : human/natural rights exist PRIOR TO
> >>> ANY FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

> >> I concede to that point.

> > 	Fine. Now work out the logical conclusions that follow from
> > that premise. Here's one : any violation of such rights is criminal.

> Well, it's not necessarily immoral. So not necessarily criminal.


	Au contraire. Any violation of natural rights is morally wrong
	and criminal. Morality, rights and crime (violation of rights)
	are all facets of the same idea.



> Even your own dictionary definition of anarchy provides mentions a 
> government. Albeit a minimal one. 

	The definition I quoted explicitly rules out government. But
	even if you want some kind of 'government' it has to be
	'voluntary'. So in practice it doesn't govern anything.

	And, we were talking about existing governments, especially the
	US government - an organization which isn't 'minimal' by any
	means and which is fully criminal/coercive. The US government
	like any other 'official' 'national' government operates on the
	principle of "obey or die".



> Governed you are. Whether it's by 
> consensus, opt-in or otherwise.


	No, because I don't consent* to being governed. So as
	as far as I'm concerned I'm choosing ZERO government - or
	anarchy.

	
*Consent, you know. The ability to say "yes", or "NO" GO FUCK YOURSELF.


> > 	
> > 	They are people who kill other people when ordered to.
> > That's all that counts.
> >
> 
> ? There is lots of that going around amongst humans. How do you
> suggest people defend themselves against /any /hostile force? Do you
> think that calling it a militia makes a difference? Having trained
> defenders of your homestead is no bad thing. It's actually quite
> smart.


	Not smart, not the point and do your own homework.



> 
> Many of them suffer from a massive, violent even, cognitive
> dissonance if you talk about what they are actually doing. Once you
> turn back on the cause and effect part of their humanity it's all
> tears, anger and confusion. PTSD, shitty coping mechanisms. And you
> just put them all in a hole, categorizing like a common Nazi.
> 

	Yep, that's exactly what they are. But actually no, they are
	worse than nazis. In case you were not aware, your friends
	(you?) are volunteers.


	But yes, tell your sob stories to the people your military
	murder for fun and profit. I'm sure the victims will fully
	appreciate them. 

	


> >
> > 	And since you like dictionaries
> >
> > 	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism?s=t

> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

> 1*:*  a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority
> to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on 
> voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

	

	By the way, anarchists don't only reject governmental
	authority. They tend to reject all kinds of authority. For
	instance, 'religious' authority.




> 
> GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY; i.e.: Government as in a society's 
> organizational form, but not it's authority. I.e. Direct Democracy.


	How do you think direct democracy works? What do you mean by
	that? What kind of things can be put up for a vote? Burn the
	witches, yes, no? And what happens when the witches are
	outvoted? 



> 
> > 	"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or
> > governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full
> > social and political liberty. "
> >
> >
> > 	Oops. Government and anarchy just happen to be mutually
> > 	exclusive concepts. (That of course shouldn't be news...)
> >
> Government OR governmental restraint. Government non-the-less. Learn
> to read you illiterate :D


	A government that can't enforce its dictates is not a
	government. Also, the definition mentions plain government

	"a doctrine urging the abolition of government...as the
	...condition for...liberty"

	They could have just said "abolition of governmental restraint"
	but they didn't.

	I'm willing to admit that definition isn't as polished and
	consistent as it should be, but no more.


	

> 
> But yea, I agree that for the sake of the argument they could be 
> considered mutually exclusive. 


	Fine, and let me repeat, the disussion was about clearly
	coercitive governments - like the US government. 


> If you want to abolish government.
> Which is kind of strange because every form of anarchism usually has
> an adjective regarding it's organization. 

	I want to abolish the use of crime as an allegedly legitimate
	and legal way for people to interact. 


> Federated, syndicalists.
> All of them are organized in some fashion shape or form.
> Now, I don't mind NOT calling that form a form of government. But I 
> don't want to confuse people in to thinking that anarchism is some
> kind of synonym for chaos.


	Well, if somebody was led into thinking that anarchy is chaos
	it's because he was not paying attention.
	


> 
> >
> >
> > J.
> 




More information about the cypherpunks mailing list