[zen at freedbms.net: Re: [WAR] ...]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:30:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
>  My comments follow:
>     On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:45:00 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:  
>  
>  ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> -----
> 
> From: Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net>
> To: cypherpunks at lists.cpunks.org
> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
> Subject: Re: [WAR] ...
> List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org>
> 
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > How about we implement a working AP system?
> 
> As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally
> flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in
> the long term.
> 
> Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher
> level of education and discourse.
> 
> "When all you have is a hammer ..."
> 
> 
> In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
> "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of
> power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent
> "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and
> certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best
> a hammer to completely destroy society.
> 
> 
> I support anarchism, not chaos.
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> 
> While it may seem to be over 23 years 'too late', I will indeed answer this last line of comment, assuming that I did not do so in September 1996:.  
> >From above, "I support anarchism, not chaos."
>
> To equate "anarchy" with "chaos" is the classic error.   In my AP

I agree with that.

That was not my question though.  Yes the colloquial use of the term
"anarchy" is generally chaos, thus my use of the term "anarchism"
etc.

What I am equating is as follows: AP, with a very great potential for
chaos, and if not chaos per se, for a significant increase in fear in
the average dissident

And I further note, that dissidents are the exact folks actual
anarchists ought be supporting - at least it should not be
objectionable to support dissidents who diss:

  - peacefully

  - who protest peacefully

  - who peacefully conscientiously object to some arbitrary rights
    suppressing statute law and therefore choose to not obey that law
    when "failing to obey that law" harms no one


The issue I am raising here is the threshold issue - the marginal
dissident is the dissident who is on the border line being:

  - actually acting (doing something) in pursuance of his dissidence
    (opposition to systemic problems/ corruption etc), vs

  - not doing anything in pursuance of his dissidence, due to fear


And the inescapable question which presents itself is, will AP move
the line of marginal dissidents, way back to an extreme position,
where only extremely dissident and extremely courageous dissidents
DARE TO ACT in pursuance of their contrary positions and views in
relation to the dominant structures present in society at that point
in time?


Again, we cannot escape the natural human desire, or at least
tendency, to immediately establish hierarchies of authority,
capacity, authority, will and any other vector we analyse, where none
presently exists.

Put another way, notwithstanding what most say:

  "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy."

  "Humans desire the sense of stability that externalization of
   authority provides to their feels."

  "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under
   attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy."


And this is why we use the word "revolution" (or even evolution) when
discussing any concept which might upturn the entire present systems
of hierarchy (power) - there is nothing but a revolving from one
system of hiearchy to some other system of hiearchy.


Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this
tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely
unavoidable.

No matter how utopian the socialist Marxist collective, no matter how
anarchic and free of statutes, no matter how blank the slate we can
achieve with our glorious resent due to $FUNKY_ANARCHY_SYSTEM_XYZ,
humans will, absolutely, immediately go about creating new
hierarchies!


I am emphasizing this point, because this point seems to be lost on a
lot of actual (or at least self proclaimed) anarchists.


We anarchists most often fail to grapple with basic human nature.

We tend almost ubiquitously to being technocrats, presuming our
wonderful system

  - social system

  - non-system system

  - computer crypto overlay funk

  - digital next gen fiat 2 point 0

  - AP or any other system etc


will somehow, if instituded widely and in short order, somehow
magically cause existing present-day humans to live in freedom, free
of fear, and allowing one another (our neighbours) to be in peace.

This is a fallacy of the first order no less!

Humans crave hiearchy and will FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH to claim their
own version of utopian hierarchy!


The things we can hope for:

  - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive
    revolution

  - a revolution to a new hiearchy which is a little more sane than
    the present hierarchy

  - a new system which somehow achieves a greater level of
    "inculcation with the average human" of a valueing of fundamental
    human rights and a knowledge of what freedom actually means, to
    live freedom on a day to day basis


Such peaceful revolution may be not possible, I really have no idea.

I am hopeful of the following basic premise being true though - that
a system providing a useful level of privacy and anonymity for free
speech will help to move the courage line for marginal dissidents, in
the direction of "more folks experience more courage to speak their
own truths".



> essay, I quoted somebody whose identity I never recalled:   In part
> 5:
> 
> "Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember:
> "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS." "-------end of AP quote-------
> Sadly, I never remembered who I was quoting, but the person is probably one who I met in person in libertarian circles in the Portland/Beaverton area in the 1990-1994 time frame.
> The idea that society NEEDS government to properly function is well-described by the term "statism".    But we, the Cypherpunks, should understand more than any people that the 'traditional' mechanism to intermediate a society, a "government", can be replaced by computers, similar to the concept that "cash", or "currency", can be replaced by the various forms of 'digital cash'.   That fact wasn't so clear in 1996, and some people simply weren't able to (or willing to?) work through the implications of an AP-driven society.


I continue to see that those with the power to print unlimited fiats,
shall have the upper hand against all dissidents, anarchists, and
peaceful protesters.

As a consequence of my own thinking on this, and this which I see, it
appears to me inescapable that there is zero certainty, and great
uncertainty, that AP shall usher in anything other than the
unleashing of a great evil.

When unleashed, the list of those who dedicate their lives to
opposing powerful evil in a way which draws the interest of those who
print the fiats, is the immediate list for those printing the fiats
to target/ game/ dispense with in short order:

  Richard Stallman

  Julian Assange

  Jim Bell

  Jacob Applebaum

  Andrew Breitbart

  Dmitry Sklyarov

  Aaron Swartz

  John Young

  Zenaan Harkness

  Juan

  and an endless list more


Jim, were AP in play, and you invented some concept of similar
notoriety which was designed to dish out justice to the elite fiat
printers, why would those elite fiat printers not have, instead of
subjected you to 13 years of jail and illegal appeal behind your back
etc, instead just whopped a few fiat on one of the various AP
markets, and had you, Jim Bell, dispensed with in short order?

(And so the final question, why is unleashing such "freedom to pay
 for killing other humans", wise?)