[WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net> wrote:


> 
> Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms?  Do you
> understand it?

> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

	And here's [3]
	http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

	"We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large,
	faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their
	beneficence"

	"We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. " 

	Again, a typical anarchist position. Governments and businesses
	don't provide service X (they actually destroy X) so we need to
	provide X ourselves. 



	


		




> 
> Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?  

	Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.

> Did
> you understand it? 

	Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to
	believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in. 


> What about the point I just made about adapting
> and adopting solutions to emerging changes?

	...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian
	governments can also adapt to change.



> 
> Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the
> implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them.  Even in May's
> quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a
> system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility.  I think the
> attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other
> security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free
> speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so
> be it. 

	Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.


> All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think
> that makes the US any close to collapse?


	No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to
	collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include
	you)


> 
> Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems
> should adapt and flourish.  Do you disagree with that?


	I agree that morally good stuff is good...

	

> 
> >> Especially prove that it isn't true for
> >> Americans.  The US government kept functioning normally even
> >> through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all
> >> kinds of corruption, etc.  Here, I'm not talking about
> >> exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it
> >> into power, they are limited and don't last.  Point out a better
> >> system.  (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our
> >> political system as of Brexit. ;-) )
> >>
> >> I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the
> >> exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is
> >> overblown in some key ways.  We have evidence that certain things
> >> work and certain things don't.  There is a big interplay with
> >> culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it
> >> could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we
> >> have open debate to try to fix that.  We regularly fix things that
> >> aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable.
> >> It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'.  It is more
> >> like "we have this cool open source government project, why not
> >> fork it and see if it works for you better than that old
> >> governmentware you're running".  We are tired of being asked to
> >> fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on
> >> running VMS and Windows.  Or your cousin's obsolete system because
> >> you can't support them well.  Or whatever.  If you can make it
> >> work, then do it.  Otherwise, upgrade.
> >>
> >> sdw
> >>
> >>>> sdw
> >>>>
> >>
> sdw
>