[WAR] ...

[juan]

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


> >>
> >> Prove that isn't true.

> > 	You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However
> > 	since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you
> > can't do it. 
> 
> I did prove it: History is packed full of evidence.  By induction,
> proof.


	What you call 'history' is just official propaganda / group
	dellusions.


> 
> >
> > 	And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of
> > stuff that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can
> > write. 
> >
> > 	And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton
> > 	supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing
> > list. The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of
> > 	touch with reality (i.e. crazy)
> 
> Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms?  Do you
> understand it?


	May's manifesto is more like a bunch of wrong predictions. But
	anyway one of the ideas is to prevent the state from collecting
	taxes and regulating markets. An obviously 'anarchist' goal.
	Other things like a market for hitmen goes even beyond what's
	usually understood by anarchy, but it's not a government
	friendly idea either. 

	Et cetera.

	What is your point? Are you going to argue that crypto anarchy
	is not anarchy? 


> 
> What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply? 

	Crypto-anarchy, as its name suggests, implies anarchy. I could
	leave it at that, but I'll kindly add that 'anarchy' in turn 
	implies voluntary social organization. Among other things.


> Are
> you sure that everyone else agrees? The people who think that
> "anarchy" in "crypto-anarchy" means "*" aren't really thinking too
> hard.

	That would be your case precisely? Crypto-anarchy doesn't mean
	crypto-anything, it means crypto...ANARCHY.

	That's why your laudatory comments about the *fascist* United
	**States** are so unrelated to crypto-ANARCHY.


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