USA To Require Govt Issued ID To Use Internet, No More Anonymous

Zenaan Harkness zen at
Sun Feb 7 06:15:43 PST 2016

Jerzy's comments notwithstanding, I say that you two (rysiek and Juan)
made some great progress in this thread, and I really appreciate the
effort you both put in. Been a bit busy, and so had this thread in my
mind to prod again, since there are some questions raised which are
in, and have been in my mind for some time, so thanks for the efforts.

I'll crop the text down to what interests me personally...

On 1/24/16, rysiek <rysiek at> wrote:
> 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?

Excellent point. I don't think anyone disputes that Google, Facecrack
and Twatter working with the NSA and CIA is a good thing for us common

And there's an underlying question "in political anarchy, wouldn't
these companies tend to conspire together, against the people, just as
they do now?" Or perhaps "paint me a picture of how these companies
might -actually- be better if political anarchy were our way."

> Do you see no potential problems/dangers in private sector having
> such huge databases of who was moving where, when?

Regarding the OP, waay back, I assume the DMV would not exist, except
for a small percentage of vanity vehicle number plates or perhaps
diplomatic plates etc - there can be no dispute that private sector OR
public sector omnipotent databases will sooner rather than later be
abused against the people.

>> 	"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.

Juan was not unqualified there - he says that when the money for "the
good" comes from taxation or inflation, that's theft from the people.

I find it hard to disagree that it's theft.

>> > 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?

Small point, but this was a searching for shared meaning (excellent
intention btw), and you suggested the second term which you then ask
"why use two terms" - point scoring can be fun, but more important (I
say) that we reach shared meaning/ understanding.

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

Finding shared meanings can be a great challenge, so I really applaud
the attempt to do so. The process of doing so may involve multiple
attempts, and yes that can look like a One True Scotsman "failure".

Top down: freedom, civil society, anarchy, good

Bottom up: So IWF caused Wikimedia to remove XYZ, is this good or bad;
what principle arises from IWF's action/attack?

>> > > 	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

It's excellent progress and even thinking about how to define these
terms is interesting, in the face of IWF, WWF, GreenPeace and endless

Juan, your ongoing willingness to jump in boldly, use terms and
attempt definitions etc, is bloody awesome - it's always easy to cut
down the tall poppy and so many don't speak up, remaining meek and
polite and PC all the way to heaven<snort>

>> > 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?

I found this question quite interesting. But again, we might be back
to definitional road blocks.

Can we say with any certainty that any thesis regarding any political
ideology, can be "shot to pieces"?  The sanskrit-era principle "the
mind is the great trickster" comes to mind.

>> 	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?

Definition of corrupt needed here perhaps?

"Can a private company be corrupt without government's help?" is for
me the elephant in the room of political anarchy -> but the question
is too simplistic, since a corporation is an entity created by
sanction and force of the state (copyrights, patents, trademarks,
obligations to pay tax, report finances, etc).

In a political anarchy society, how might a corporation manifest?

Company -> a group or "company" of individuals acting in self interest.

Yes, current large western governments have become pathologically
evil, and perhaps USA is getting close to the "any change is better
than more of the same" point where revolution shakes it all up.

But it's that "acting in self interest" bit which has me thinking ...

>> > > 	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?

Anarchist Google would offer free email right? I still get my free stuff?

>> > 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.

That looks like it would be the start of a whole nother, and very
useful, conversation. If power needs to be checked, how is it checked
in an anarchistic society? - (a new thread perhaps)

>> 	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.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list