[WAR] ...

Razer rayzer at riseup.net
Thu Sep 1 18:00:06 PDT 2016



On 09/01/2016 04:04 PM, juan wrote:



> No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to collapse. That's why we are fucked.


Doom and gloom... You're the narc Juan. You're the one ALWAYS saying
don't bother trying your efforts at (X) are wasted (unless ofc we take
your pov as ours). Disruption agent. Fed. Have you ever managed,
operated, or been involved in a MKUltra CULT Juan?

Rr



> 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
>>
> 



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list