Anarchist Bibliography, please? (was Re: Deconstructing an Institutional Slander...)

Cari Machet carimachet at gmail.com
Fri Aug 5 17:38:44 PDT 2016


there are numerous types of anarchy

one has direct democracy > horizontality as a formulation like in
switzerland

its a process (like life is a build so is the anarchic form) and the
hierarchical forms of government are eroded by its functionality

we made formulations for assemblies and developed new methods within
different geographies for structure > new structure for decision making >
participatory

there are many actions within the erosion process one is participatory
budgeting >>>> most sectors can have actions in this way



On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:37 AM, jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> *From:* Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net>
>
> On 08/04/2016 03:00 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> >> I asked Steve some suggestions in private, but it's better to ask
> >> publicly, so more people can profit the clues.  Oh, you know, he
> >> loves books, uses cute emoticons and makes oink oink.  He's a good
> >> reference for me, hahaha!!  ;)
>
> >When dredging the Internet for information, I am sure you won't have
> >much trouble picking out the State sponsored anarchist literature and
> >pseudo-radical propaganda fronts:
>
>
> I hope people will forgive me for tooting my own horn.  I was a minarchist
> Libertarian in 1994,
> not an anarchist Libertarian.  But it wasn't because I somehow wanted to
> keep around some
> minimal government.  Rather, it was because I couldn't figure out a
> logically-consistent method'
> to entirely get rid of those last vestiges of government.  Lacking such an
> plausible method,
> I chose the intellectually-honest route of accepting (at the time) that
> some residual government
> would be necessary.
>
> While not specifically aware of David Friedman's (son of famous economist
> Milton Friedman)
> "Hard Problem"  http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/04/will_david_
> frie.html   , from his
> book, "The Machinery of Freedom" (1973; revised in 1989; again 2014),  I
> was effectively
> aware of the  same barrier, and like Friedman, I could not see any
> solution.  Anarchy, I
> concluded, was impractical, and unachievable.
>
> It's a good thing that I wasn't aware of Friedman's "Hard Problem", or the
> idea it was "hard".
> In January 1995 I because to contemplate the idea that turned into my
> "Assassination
> Politics" essay.   https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
>
>   I wasn't intending to solve that problem:  Rather, I was trying to
> figure out how
> an otherwise-powerless public could defend itself from bad acts, mostly
> from government
> employees.  I realized that to combine the contributions of anonymous
> individuals,  allows
> that public can deter and prevent those bad acts.  I further realized that
> this system would
> be extremely economical, allowing (for instance) the region known as
> "America" to defend
> itself, not merely from external threats, but also internal crime,
> probably for a total cost of
> under $1 billion per year, far less than the $600 billion in defense
> spending currently done.
>
> A simplistic, initial analysis (which I initially assumed, even before I
> wrote the first part of the
> AP essay) was that AP would simply fix government.  But the ultimate "fix"
> was actually far
> more powerful than I'd initially realized, not merely fixing governments,
> but destroying all
> governments, and thus protecting an anarchist or minarchist region from
> threatening
> neighbors.
>
> Put simply, I solved David Friedman's "Hard Problem".  I haven't yet seen
> the 2014 revision
> of his book, Machinery of Freedom, to see if he has acknowledged this yet.
>    I think it would
> be extraordinarily strange if he doesn't do so:  After all, ostensibly we
> are on the same side
> of this matter.  He advocates a zero-government solution:  Why wouldn't he
> cite a proof
> that a zero-government solution is actually possible, contrary to his
> apparent previous
> opinion?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom
>
> But in effect, I think I was quite correct, pre-1995, for me  to believe
> that anarchy was
>  impractical.   I don't know how people who labelled themselves as
> 'anarchists'  resolved
> the apparent contradiction.  Were they aware that anarchy wasn't stable?
>  (At least not
> absent my 1995 invention, AP).   Most likely I think they were simply
> unaware that anarchy
> wasn't going to be stable.  Or, perhaps they assumed that then-future
> events would somehow
> solve the problem.  As, ultimately, they did, but it didn't have to be
> that way.  I, virtually by
> accident, solved that problem.  But things could have been very different.
>
>                 Jim Bell
>
>
>
>


-- 
Cari Machet
NYC 646-436-7795
carimachet at gmail.com
AIM carismachet
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
Berlin +49 152 11779219
Reykjavik +354 894 8650
Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without
permission is strictly prohibited.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8311 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160806/7b4b7d26/attachment-0002.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list