[From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 24 01:57:39 PDT 2016


On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:50:00 -0000
xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:

> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:35:31 -0000
> > 	Yes indeed. But there are very important differences between
> > 	physics - a 'hard science', medicine which could be
> > 'scientific' but since it deals with incredibly complex systems it
> > is mostly a joke (and fraud) at the moment, and then psychiatry
> > which is just...an attemtp to give a 'scientific' veneer to
> > 	witch-burning.
> 
> In my experience, the people who are so rabidly anti-medicine, and
> anti-psychiatry are usually ridiculously religious, or fearful they
> are mentally ill. 

	Medicine and psychiatry are conceptually different. The problem
	with medicine is that knowledge in the field is very limited,
	but at least in theory, knowledge is possible. Also, not much
	debate is needed regarding what being healthy means - it's a
	physical condition. 

	Psychiatry is radically different. Being 'mentally healthy'
	simply means being 'well adapted' to a society of crazies. For
	instance, so called western 'civilization' is choke full with
	religious lunatics who think that blowing brown children up is
	their sacred duty. And those people are not locked up in a
	nuthouse. They are the ones running the show. 



> You don't strike me as either, so this seems really
> odd to me. Obviously, psychiatry is mis-used by the state, but I just
> cannot fathom this idea of a "scientific veneer" .. certainly, there
> is a great amount to question in what the doc's say.. but.. certain
> things seem obvious?
> 
> Like the idea that people tend to operate from a position of
> protecting the ego. That just seems so.. obvious.. I don't know, I
> just don't know what else to say.


	The fact that psychiatrists and the like may sometimes say some
	sensible things doesn't counter this other fact : they also
	say very crazy things. And do very criminal things. 


> 
> > 	Treating shy people taking into account their shyness seems
> > like common sense and decency to me. You don't need the
> > 	psycho-charlatans to teach you that.
> 
> You obviously know shit about autism. She is.. oddly sensitive to
> certain things, and prone to emotionally crippling "tantrums" because
> of it. Certain smells, the smell of freshly cut grass, makes her
> slightly ill feeling. She doesn't like things around her feet, like
> normal shoes or sneakers, and its genuinely distressing, not just a
> matter of preference. Consequently, the sight of lawnmowers, and the
> need to wear sneakers for gym glass, can cause her to get panic
> attacks, basically, which result in those tantrums.


	Maybe she doesn't like gym class. And maybe the tantrums are
	caused by some other reason. 


> 
> It isn't just a matter of her being shy, and needing to take shyness
> into account. Those differences, and people looking at her like she's
> all fucked up, made her shy. When she was much younger, she was very
> curious and outgoing. People treating her like a weirdo because she
> IS different, made her shy.

	So, the issue is not any mental problem on her part, but
	having to deal with less than fully civilized people...

> 
> She really does have different neurology.

	...whatever that means.


> 
> > 	And that's what really should be called fucking crazy.
> > Poisoning people because they are not comfortable with their
> > 'peers' who do conform to totalitarian 'social' 'norms'.
> 
> Sorry, but this is idiotic. It's not about fucking "totalitarian"
> norms. When a kid freaks out about the smell of grass, its normal for
> other kids to tease, thinks she's weird, and so on. This is +not
> impressed on them by the fucking state.


	It is impressed by parents not really caring for their
	children, sorry to break it to you. Some children may tease of
	bully other children sometimes but one would expect their
	parents to teach them not to.


> 
> It's how primate humans treat people who they see as different and
> not in their in-group.
> 
> But since that's all bullshit, sure.. it's the government.

	In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of
	model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny
	states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from
	pater)...that kind of thing...

> 
> C'mon. Granted, we agree on the silver-bullet drug thing. Drugs are
> over prescribed. I don't see that as state totalitarianism, and the
> "veneer" of science on a sham discipline.
> 
> That's economic corruption. Doctors getting kick-backs from drug
> companies, and shit. That's just good old fashion greed at work.


	Exactly. Greedy STATE LICENSED doctors working as salesmen for
	the greedy pharmaceutical mafia that exists only thanks to
	STATE GRANTED patents and other IP shit. Furthermore, they drug
	up children who are not 'normal', i.e. they are actually
	healthy children who don't get along with 'normal' savagery.

	So the state seems to play some sort of role in all that...

 
> 
> >> The trouble with that view from an anti-authoritarian perspective
> >> is that, lets face, there is a lot of irrational stuff out there.
> >> So IF people were basically rational, then it would mean most
> >> people are just inherently stupid.
> >
> >
> > 	I'm not fully following...
> 
> Well, presumably we can agree that there is a lot of irrational shit
> out there in society. Right? So, pick something that you are sure is
> just straight irrational.
> 
> If people were so fundamentally, at their core, rational -- why does
> this irrational thing exist?


	Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able to
	impose their views on the rest. So, many things that happen are
	things that benefit those in power but look absurd if we assume
	that the majority is directly responsible for them. For
	instance, if you are going to have to pay taxes no matter what,
	then you won't pay too much attention to rational arguments
	about taxation because you *know* that arguments don't count.
	And let me borrow a theory from you =) - After people have been
	*forced* to pay taxes they come up with the rationalization
	that 'taxes are good'

	Also, I'm not saying all people are completely rational all the
	time. Obviously we are not. But rationality still plays an
	important role. And if there's a choice between encouraging the
	rational side of people or the emotional side, I think the
	rational choice is the first =P



> 
> If we're all so rational, and yet irrational things exist, then that
> means that some people (the creators, facilitators, etc) - while
> rational - are not competent and smart enough to UNDERSTAND that its
> irrational. The scope of their intellect is just not there. People
> are stupid.
> 
> And if people are so stupid as to not see these irrational things,
> clearly you, or I, or others who DO see the irrationality of them,
> out to be in charge to deal with.

> 
> We should be the state. We obviously know better than the stupid fucks
> that can't reason their way out of a paper bag.

	Even if we were cleverer than the rest, it doesn't follow
	we should be in charge. And a group of stupid people controlled
	by a minority of marginally less stupid people is a recipe for
	tyranny and disaster.

> 
> I find all this to be problematic. So, for me, I tend to reason this
> way: Yeah, irrational stuff exists because humans aren't entirely
> rational. Some really irrational shit exists to meet emotional needs
> people have. It doesn't mean, I or anyone else, should necessarily be
> "in charge" .. because I can't decide what meets someone else's
> emotional needs any better than they can... if I can reason more
> clearly.


	Well at least I agree with the conclusion...



> >>
> >> And if they are not capable of reasoning through shit, it really
> >> calls into question whether they are capable of, for example,
> >> maintaining their affairs without State intervention, so some type
> >> of big brother checking up on them.
> >
> >
> > 	I didn't fully get what you were saying a couple of
> > paragraphs above, but this last one is mistaken anyway. If people
> > are not rational, then who is going to 'check up' on them.
> 
> I'm not following.
> 
> The point is that if "rationality" is the metric for "good" then the
> "most rational" people should be in charge. They should be the agents
> of the state.


	Except that the state is a criminal organization so by
	definition it's not "good".




> 
> 
> > 	Fine, So what's the cause/source of statism? =)
> 
> Social mammals have a herd instinct, and more specifically humans
> naturally select leaders at a subconscious level in social situations.

	/some stuff deleted


> 
> You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select
> "popular" kids, 


	Did I mention that children (and 'teenagers') are well known for
	defying authority? The 'authority' of their shitty parents, for
	starters.

	You seem to be focusing on facts that validate your theory but
	ignore the facts that don't fit...



> For people deeply attached to the state, when you call into question
> the state, in an emotional way, you're sort of insulting their
> father, 

	Yes, fuck their parents. 

>or maybe "big brother"

	And of course, fuck big brother too! Now I'm kinda wondering
	what's your take on 1984? An example of heretical and misguided
	rational thinking? 


> would be more apropros, and you're
> calling into question the entire structure of what they know. They
> find it difficult to believe a world without the state is possible,


	So the answer to the problem is obvious. Don't bother with
	grown ups.


> 
> So, what do we do about all this? 

	The way you describe the situation? We do nothing because
	nothing can be done. You can keep repeating your deterministic
	views, based on...'biology'? 'psychology'? but if you
	keep repeating that alpha/beta thing, at least face the
	logical consequences of your own theories.


> Well, it should be immediately
> obvious that we're up against something much larger than a mere
> principality. It may seem daunting to consider, but it's really not
> that big of a deal. Humans have organized in fantastically diverse
> ways in history. 

	Hm. Now the 'herd instinct' has vanished? 



> 
> The emotional ties people have are important to consider, when trying
> to "win a convert" to an anti-authoritarian view, make your arguments
> against the state .. "gentle" .. couch it with "I wonder if people
> could organize without it.." 

	But I don't wonder. I've studied the subject =)

	And actually I do listen to statists first, and then yes,
	shred their 'arguments' to pieces. Seems to me that's the
	intellectually honest way to talk to people.


> when they object, AGREE, but continue
> with the "wondering." 

	...pretend to agree with nonsensical stuff? 


> We should feel compassion for people so
> enamored with authoritarianism, and be gentle with them. 


	Feel compasion for people who advocate all sort of attrocities?


> Many
> anarchist writers of the past have looked at them as some sort of
> debased beast who is content to lick their chains, and this view is
> why we don't have more people. 
	
	Oh, so it's bakunin's fault now? =)


> Be compassionate: the statist is one
> that is weary, and feels weak. They get brow-beat with orders from
> superiors regularly. Our job is to give them respite. Don't brow-beat
> them with arguments designed to make them feel inferior.


	Arguments are not meant to make people feel inferior. Arguments
	are used to get at the truth. On the other hand if two people
	are arguing and the one who loses feels bad, then...don't
	argue? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?


> Gently
> encourage new thoughts. Make them feel strong. Ask for their
> opinions, and don't be quick to dismiss. If you disagree, nudge them
> towards your view.
> 
> It is more effective, persuasion wise today, and one day, without a
> state, those would need to be social norms so that the "betas" get
> uplifted, and feel like they too can lead, in some areas.


	And what kind of 'leading' would the 'betas' do...?


 
> Take note when people are being deferential towards you, and putting
> you in a subtle position of social power, and ABDICATE that power.
> Ask for their opinions, and defer to them. When someone comes to you,
> for advice, or a solution.. Be content to say you don't know, and
> encourage them to use their own understanding. Encourage them to see
> that you aren't their superior.


	I'm not sure what that is about. I'm not a politician nor I
	believe in authority...


> 
> With those types of norms in place, the roots of power have less
> surface to take hold, and in the absence of a state (either self-made
> collapse, or insurrection) we're more likely to be able to fill the
> power vacuum 


	There shouldn't be any 'power vacuum' absent the state. That's
	like saying that absent the mafia there would be a 'crime
	vacuum'. Well, yes, actually that's the point of the whole
	anarchy exercise, a power vacuum, meaning nobody has power.



> with something better than the current notion of the
> state.
> 
> 

> The only way, that I see, to really make a society where people don't
> have to conform to an insane litany of arbitrary social norms is to
> have very few social norms that are very flexible and adaptable
> towards people.

	Well, yes.


> 
> > 	There may be a mix of causes, but as a libertarian I would
> > 	say : 1) being lazy is a virtue 2) by far the most important
> > 	problem is the rigged economic system.
> 
> I must say, I'm surprised by #1. Most libertarians I've met are very
> enamored with the self-made-man trope and the idea that people should
> be ambitious, and do well for themselves.

	Those are conservatives, puritans, people who babble about
	protestant 'work ethic' and the like. The self-made-man part is
	OK, but it doesn't necessarily mean making money. 


> Or did you mean libertarian
> in the old-school sense, and not so much the modern "objectivist"
> sense?
	
	I meant it in the bastiat-adam-smith-old-liberal sense. Yes, the
	stuff that the randroids stole and mutilated. 
 

> 
> I don't entirely disagree with you here. Certainly, people deserve
> more time for slack, and sloth, but I don't know that I'd say
> laziness is a virtue.

	Consider that the 'classical liberals' devoted a good deal of
	time to 'economics' and in turn 'economics' deals with
	'economizing', optimization of resources. You can optimize for
	maximum free time...


> 
> The rigged economic system is a problem, true. Providing alternatives
> to that system is another thing that needs to at least have seeds
> planted if we're to get through a power vacuum.
> 
> > 	Again, I don't understand. If rationaliy was the core
> > feature, then people WOULD be capable of decent logic? So this...
> >
> > 	"If I thought that rationality was the core feature of the
> > 	human mind, I'd be forced to conclude most people are just
> > not capable +of decent logic"
> >
> > 	...doesn't make sense to me. And you further add that in
> > that case a nanny state would be 'needed' - that's also absurd? Even
> > 	if the nanny state was 'needed', WHO would run it?
> 
> Well, lets put it this way. A child can reason, and utilize
> rationality.. but they won't necessarily come to TRUE conclusions.


	They won't?  
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUZud3OLgg


> Their minds are not developed enough, there will be variables and
> conditions that they can't keep track of. You might think of it like
> chess. And inherently rational game, well defined rules. Easy to
> learn. But not everyone can play at the same level, and its not a
> matter of practice.

> 
> So, irrational things exist. If rationality is the core human feature,
> then I must conclude that a great many people are too feeble of mind
> to come to correct, true, conclusions. People trade their queens for
> pawns, regularly.

> If rationality is the prime reason for this, then there is no hope to
> win the game. But I don't believe that. They make irrational trades,
> for non-rational reasons. Those reasons, nevertheless, can be
> understood, and compensated for.


	Well, I already gave my take on that.


> 
> As far as who would run a nanny state -- anyone popular, savvy, and
> ambitious enough to get the job. Just like now. Certain people would
> be able to look around, with a keener mind, and say "These stupid
> fucks can't see that X will never work. I'll fix it, do Y, they'll be
> amazed, and I'm on easy street." It's compelling, for the
> self-interested.
> 
> >
> > 	Only after extensive brainwashing and outright violent
> > 	coercion.
> 
> Well, with a wide enough definition of brainwashing, I guess this
> works. But its not really brainwashing.. not in the way cult leaders
> or the like do it. It's just being .. "pro-social."



	Well, I still call it brainwashing and coercion, and I think
	it's a more accurate description of what's going on... 

	Sure, totalitarian societies are pro-social in that they
	reinforce their own totalitarian/authoritarian views. 


> 
> >> We just have to turn the emotional valve for people, to inspire
> >> them.
> >
> >
> > 	That sounds a bit too manipulative for my taste...
> 
> You know, I was in agreement with you on that for a long, long time.
> And, in fact, I've greatly enjoyed this conversation, because its
> like arguing with the 20 year old me.
> 
> So, yeah, I get it. But, suffice it to say that, over the years (and
> please don't take this as some appeal to aged wisdom here, its just my
> experience) I've come to really learn the meaning of "you catch more
> flies with honey than vinegar."


	Not the kind of metaphor I'd use, though the point may be
	partially true. But since it's figurative language, I'm not
	really sure what it alludes to. Are rational arguments 'vinegar'
	and they should be avoided? Or is it just a suggestion to be
	always polite, or what. And what does it mean to catch flies?
	One catches flies in order to get rid of them...They are caught
	and killed.


 
> It depends on what you're "manipulating" them to do, I'd say. If
> you're manipulating them to your own ends, against their wishes..
> yeah, its terrible. But often times, people lack the courage to do
> what they want. They lack the confidence. If you're inspiring them to
> be true to themselves, I see nothing wrong with it at all, and rather
> see it as a virtue.
> 
> I've met people that were "manipulative" in this way. It turned me
> off, at first, until I began to realize that.. it's really just a
> tool. How that tool is used, really is up to the person and if its
> used for good, then its good. I've seen people be "manipulative" in
> this way, and nevertheless really inspire genuine love and affection
> in others, and genuinely inspire them to chase - and more importantly
> - fulfill dreams.
> 
> By making people FEEL GOOD, of course they are going to want to be
> around us. We're providing them with a real positive aspect to their
> lives. If, as a community, we did this for each other, we'd have more
> members. Just a thought.
> 
> The time I'm thinking of, in particular, a friend I'll call Alice,
> used some emotional manipulation to convince another (Betty) to go
> back to school, get a degree, and really helped her get into a much
> better path in life. At the graduation party, Betty introduced Alice
> to some other people, and - her face just beaming - told how she owed
> everything to Alice, and she wouldn't have been able to get the
> degree, and go back to school without her, and so on. Alice just
> smiled, and said "Sweetie, I didn't do your homework. Everything
> you've accomplished, you did on your own. You just forgot that you
> could and I reminded you. If anything, you inspire me!" Then the
> tears and laughter started flowing.


	And don't think that 'manipulating' or 'causing' or
	'suggesting to' somebody to get a degree is a good thing. So
	both the means and end strike as less than ideal. 



> 
> It was a genuine, human moment. If inspiring each other to be our best
> selves is distasteful, then I would suggest that you don't actually
> like humanity very much.

	Yeah. I'd tell people that academy is a disguting mafia and
	that they shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole =)


> 
> > 	OK - That is seriously wrong. Taxes are not collected by the
> > 	state to help people, altough a tiny bit goes to 'help'
> > people as a propaganda effort.
> 
> You're missing the point.
> 
> People pay them, justify it to themselves, because of the helping
> part. 

	I commented on that point above. People pay them under
	coercion. What they say after being forced to pay doesn't
	matter much. Even if they say that they want to pay, the remark
	is meaningless because they CAN'T prove it, because taxes are
	NOT voluntary...



> Statists will say, we NEED taxes, to help with welfare, to
> build roads, and so on.
> 
> We know thats bullshit. Ok. So we can spend time.. going on hundreds
> of years now.. trying to argue against this perception, OR we can
> just build alternative institutions that mitigate the entire fucking
> idea.

	So, you are going to build roads. How are you going to deal
	with the fact that road building has been monopolized by the
	state, including land title registration. Plus the problem that
	you'll have to pay taxes for 'official' roads, even if you
	build your own, thus having to pay twice for roads. 


> 
> >
> > 	But it is impossible to both pay taxes AND try to fix the
> > 	problems that taxation causes by putting even MORE money and
> > 	effort into the system.
> 
> Like I said, we try real hard, and are mostly effective, at not
> needing government dollars for our work with the disabled.

	There  already are sizable 'charity' efforts. They don't
	change a thing, IMO. 


> The two
> areas where tax money comes into play is when we get people jobs. The
> employers get tax subsidies. We try to encourage them not to take
> them, but are mostly ineffective with that. The other area is
> education. We don't have always have the private funding to pay for
> schooling, so we help our "clients" file for the government programs
> to get it. I actually disagree with that.

	It's good that you disagree because I can't think of anything
	more fucked up than sending people to schools, let alone state
	schools (which is what virtually all schools are today anyway)


> We'd be able to pay for
> them if we took money from religious charities, then we wouldn't need
> the government grants. I get out voted on that by some rabid atheists
> in the group though, so it is what it is.

	As if theocracy was anything but the most brutal sort of
	statism? 


> 
> Food not Bombs provides food without tax money.


	People should be able to provide food for themselves?

	Also,

	http://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/faq.php

	"Military contractors are worried that we might influence the
	public to realize our taxes could be spent on human needs
	instead of war" 

	"The government and corporations find our message – that we
	could redirect the taxes that currently are used on the
	military to fund things like education and healthcare – a
	threat to their profits and power." 


	That seems  ambiguous. Although it would be better that
	stolen money be used to 'educate' people instead of outright
	killing them, it would still be statism. And as matter of
	obvious fact, the welfare-warfare does both. They keep right
	wingers and left wingers 'happy'.

	"No one should need to rely on a soup kitchen or charity when
	we have food in great abundance." 

	So they are not a charity...I don't get what's the point of
	giving 'free' food is then. 
	
	I don't think that poverty would be a problem at all in a free
	society, but the impression I get from fnb is that they think
	that economic problems can be solved by giving away 'free' stuff
	- which is of course sheer commie nonsense.


> 
> There are plenty of anarchist social services building infrastructure
> independent from the state.


	They don't seem to be interfering with state power too much,
	if at all...


> 
> > 	Not in the way you described.
> 
> What way? People helping people? People getting programs together
> that are independent from the state?

	Only to a very limited extent. Because the state knows pretty
	well that if their power gets really challenged, they can 'fix'
	the problem. 

> 
> > 	Actually you can't. There's a obvious rational explanation
> > you missed, and worse, you are trying to 'psychoanalize' me.
> >
> > 	Instead of realzing that your anti rationalistic bias
> > prevents you from thinking correctly, you are...messing with me =)
> 
> Your obvious rational explanation is nonsense. There is no reason
> alternative to state programs cannot be made without taking tax
> dollars. 

	There are various problems with that. One is that your
	alternative statist programs are just that. Giving 'free' stuff
	to people is obviously NOT the way to encourage people to be
	independent. Second, even if you can give some free stuff away,
	it will never scale. 


> There is no reason you can't boot strap an independent
> program using tax dollars initially.

	Lol. Not only you are playing state, you are also using state
	money? It doesn't get any more 'anarchist' than that...

> 
> And I'm not trying to mess with you or analyze you. You're obviously a
> loner, and have said as much. 


	What I said is "mas vale solo que mal acompañado" - but whether
	I'm a loner or not, my points stand on or fall on their own.


 
> If you're rather focus on ways to destroy the state, rather than
> create alternatives.. that's fine too. Destruction can be an act of
> creation.

> 
> I choose differently. And it has nothing to do with an
> "anti-rationalist" stance. I'm not, even, anti-rationalist, despite
> what you want to think.
> 
> I just incorporate more axioms into my logic, and I'm aware of the ..
> larger.. implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. =)


	I suspect that your grasp of math is way better than mine.
	However your overall political analysis doesn't strike me as
	good. 



> 
> >> But, as far as I can tell, its the only
> >> viable option.
> >
> > 	Too bad that simple economic analysis shows it's actually
> > not viable at all.
> 
> Lulz. Economic analysis, generally, is horse shit.. or at least
> confined to a frame of reference. Economics is all predicated on
> theory of value. Socialist theory of value says, roughly "A thing is
> worth the labor gone in to produce it." 

	It's well known that socialists stole that one (from smith and
	co.), and got it wrong anyway. Cart before the horse and all
	that. Valuable stuff usually requires labor to be created,
	that's why it looks as if labor is a measure of value. (but
	there are valuable stuff that don't require labor). 


> Capitalist: "A thing is worth
> what someone will pay." 

> Anarchist: "A thing is worth what it is being
> used for."

> 
> From each of these theories of value, one can derive economic
> "laws" .. like the "law" of supply and demand. It's a law.. only so
> long as people operate according to the theory of value.
> 
> But people can choose to value things however they like. Goes with the
> whole free will thing, actually.


	I think you are hand-waving...



> 
> >> > 	All the services that the state has monopolized like
> >> > education, 'health care', whatever. can be provided by the
> >> > market/the people/the commune once the state is gone.
> >>
> >> Cart before the horse, man.
> >
> >
> > 	Yes, exactly. That is exactly the reason why your analysis
> > 	isn't right.
> >
> > 	You cannot compete with the state, providing all the garbage
> > 	services the states provides, if you don't deprive the state
> > 	FIRST of their monopoly powers.
> 
> It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an
> alternative. 

	I call that competition. I think it's the correct word =)

	You can go to grocery store 'A' or to grocery store 'B'. 'A' is
	an alternative to 'B'. And viceversa. And both stores are
	'competing'.

	People can use state services, or your alternative services.
	You are competing with the state.


> It doesn't need to be a complete, viable alternative. It
> just needs to be a working model. A proof of concept.

	Of what concept? That cooperation can exist without the state?
	That's self-evident. Oh wait, thinking about stuff for five
	minutes is too much for the poor masses...

> 
> Why? Because I'm not trying to destroy the state.. directly. I'm not
> trying to blow it up, and start from zero.

	Start what from zero? You seem to believe that the state needs
	to be replaced with something. I don't think that's the case.
	The state is a criminal organization. An UNnecessary evil.


> I'm trying to grow
> alternatives that will, over time, allow the state to wither.. 

	It will NEVER wither. You will NEVER be allowed to provide an
	alternative. Seriously. The state is all about COERCION. If
	people could voluntary choose an alternative, WE WOULD ALREADY
	BE LIVING UNDER ANARCHY.

	The people who call themselves the government are criminals.
	They need to be stopped. They will never 'wither' and
	'voluntarily' relinquish their power. If your plan is based
	on the idea that you will catch them unaware and outsmart
	them...they've already outsmarted you.


> the
> same way it didn't appear overnight and slowly grew. That is how it
> will be replaced.

	Non sequitur.
	

> 
> At bottom, a state is just a human activity. PEOPLE DO it.

	Of course. A particular kind of activity. Crimianl activity.
	And it's some people who do it, not aliens, but what of it?


> We just
> have to attract a critical mass of people doing something different.

	Agreed on the critical mass part.



> > 	Consider the example of stuff banned by the state like 'some
> > 	drugs'. What is your plan? Sell drugs on the black market?
> > And you think that would limit state power? It obviously never
> > 	does.
> 
> Uhm. The cartels run Columbia dude, so I'm not sure what you're
> exactly getting at there.


	Drug dealers and the state run colombia. And drug dealers need
	the state to outlaw drugs, otherwise prices would be
	ridiculously low and selling coke would be as profitable as
	growing potatos. 

	My point is, how would you solve a quintessential statist
	problem like the 'war on drugs'? What kind of alternative can
	you provide to the 'war on drugs', apart from ending it ASAP? 



> 
> But you're making a subtle error. Helping disabled people isn't
> illegal. The state has their hands in it anyhow. We can take that
> over, and get them out of it.

	You can take it over only if they allow you. And I'm not making
	an error. I'm switching to an area (drugs) where it's not clear
	how the 'provide alternative options' strategy can be
	implemented. 

> 
> By appropriating social services, there is also a propaganda effect
> involved..

	Yes, that's true. But do notice that before the state ITSELF
	appropiated social services, they were mostly provided by
	'private' mutual aid societies and the like. 


> the state will have a difficult time blasting away at
> anarchists involved with helping disabled, the homeless, etc. Food not
> Bombs gets shit, usually out of health-code nonsense, but even still,
> they are relatively immune because of the propaganda effect.
> 
> You lose that when you get into overt crime areas. 

	They are crime areas only because they've been made so by the
	state. But yes, they are more problematic and the only solution
	is to get rid of the outlawing. But how? 



> This is what fucked
> over anarchism at the turn of the 20th century. The "propaganda by
> deed" horseshit is what inspired robberies, crime, assassinations, and
> associated "anarchy" with "chaos" in the public mind.

	I don't know...


> 
> It is, essentially, why I am politically pacifist. In theory, I'd be
> up for good old insurrection, but I'd have to KNOW we'd win. Fuck the
> self-interest of it, I don't care about that.. but the potential for
> centuries of setbacks is too great if we let the victory write our
> history.
> 
> 
> > 	And it doesn't even have to be an army. It's just a matter
> > of getting a big enough number of people to say "no".
> 
> AGREED! Critical mass of people living without the state. That's what
> I'm working towards.

	Well, that's a lot harder if people are living in a statist
	society. You can have your alterative help system for disabled 
	persons but you will still be subjected to taxation, regulation
	and whatnot.


> 
> >> We're not there yet. In order to fight, people need something to
> >> fight for. Thats where the OTHER non-state services come in, in my
> >> view.
> >
> >
> > 	As you said, cart before the horse =P
> 
> Perhaps. But I like the smell of this horse better.
> 
> 




More information about the cypherpunks mailing list