Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech

[jim bell]

    On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 10:04:15 AM PST, coderman <coderman at protonmail.com> wrote:  
 
 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 5:45 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
> ...
>> well, tyrannicide is a moral obligation. And the right to defend oneself from govcorp is the obvious extention of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. And so, killing govcorp agents (unless let's say, they surrender) is legitimate.

>to murder
Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing that the government declares is illegal.  If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder!   Merely for self-defense.

> is to forfeit the moral argument. 
I don't think so.  If killings committed by government people are going to happen anyway, and responding by killing them is labelled "murder", how does that 'forfeit the moral argument' to engage in self-defense?
> in terms of cognitive bias alone, better to err towards never killing - i could cite ethical reasons as well, but they are well worn. (we condemn state orchestrated murder, AP is just a decentralized tyrant doing same)

Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be involved in these two hypothetical situations.  I wrote my AP essay about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995.   Later, I frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose?   The fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice.  

Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying!   Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the ability to defend themselves.  You can morally choose to be a pacifist for yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice for themselves.



> Using 'crowdfunding', anonymous comms and virtual 'money' to coordinate defensive actions against govcorp would be typically cypherpunk, obviously. Though my personal view is that there's no way govcorp would allow THEIR 'technology' to be used against them.

"the street finds its own uses for things"

the beauty of mass resistance is that the tools are already prevalent.

we have a beautiful reference case unfolding before us:
 Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests


choose no murder
choose mass resistance


best regards,

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests

This is a list of tactics and methods used by the protesters during the 2019 Hong Kong protests.
 |

 |

 |



  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 9620 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191116/db34cf54/attachment.txt>