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

[jim bell]

 On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 06:21:01 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
 
 
 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.

How did you come to that conclusion?  I have long believed (probably as early as 1995, though somebody seems to have LOST the archives!!!) that except for a relatively short transition period (maybe a couple of years?) there will eventually be formed a set of courts, at least vaguely similar to today's courts, but VOLUNTARY to both the "plaintiff" and "defendant".   
Why?   The alleged 'perp' might arguably be innocent,.  Or, he knows he's guilty, but he believes that death should not be his punishment.  (and maybe he's right?)   Or, the public who is willing to donate to see evil people dead knows that the facts are often not clear,  Or, maybe one person is clearly guilty, but others who are not known are likely to exist.
The jury system may not be perfect, but it is probably the best system devised by man to learn the truth..,.IF it is actually allowed to function properly,  
If you don't understand this concept, you must not actually have thought about the implications of an AP-type system. _I_ did!!!  Long before I published Part 1, I worked through the implications, probably far better than most people on the CP list ever attempted.  I feel certain that discussion of my AP essay on the CP list eventually included these possibilities.  But now, SOMEBODY has LOST the archive!   Or, maybe it has been deliberately tampered with by somebody or somebodies.

> 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.

Well, people can and do misuse terminology.  Yes, I believe that a large fraction of people who call themselves 'anarchists', or who are called by others 'anarchists', are merely died-in-the-wool Communists, Socialists, or leftists whose favorite ideology miserably failed over the period of 1917 through 2019.  


>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.
YIKES!
I suppose it doesn't occur to you.   Why do we NEED "dissidents"?   And by "dissidents", I mean a person to openly and publicly opposes some existing system.  TODAY'S society needs "dissidents", because policies adopted by GOVERNMENTS need (with the existing system) to be publicly opposed, in order to force change.    And that means public protests, including on the streets,  What other tools do most people recognize?
In an AP world, "protesting", in the classical sense, isn't necessary.  If the government has a policy you don't like, donate to a fund to see your un-favorite politician DEAD DEAD DEAD.   And you will be able to do so ANONYMOUSLY!!!   Did you simply forget that straightforward concept?  Will that necessarily result in a dead politician?  No, but it will most likely be a politician who has resigned, or who changes the hated policies he previously had supported.
WHY DID I BOTHER to write AP, when people misunderstand it so?  I thought it was all quite clear!    You are apparently stuck in the 1994 world pre-AP.  You assume that AP changes NOTHING.  In contrast, I claim it changes just about EVERYTHING.  
As I said in AP Part 2:        "Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes." 
Do you REALLY not understand this?

>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:
The work that used to be done by "dissidents" will be done by AP.  Nobody will need to stand up, raise their fist, march in the street, or protest.  

 > - peacefully
>  - who protest peacefully
And oftentimes, "peacefully" doesn't work.  

 > - 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

Why do you keep forgetting what AP is DESIGNED to do?



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

How much "fear" will he have, to donate a few dollars to see crooked politicians dead?  


>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?

I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about.  But unfortunately, if you really don't understand how AP will work, none of your hypotheticals will likely be relevant.  


>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.
I realize that you may think this is true, but that is clearly because you DON'T UNDERSTAND AP!   NOT AT ALL!!!

>Put another way, notwithstanding what most say:

 > "Humans absolutely crave hierarchy."

People used to say, "Nature abhors a vacuum"But it wasn't true.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)



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

One major problem with your idea is that, the reality is that most people grow up under such heirarchical power structures.  Raise people under such circumstances, and they LEARN to live with that system.  But that does not mean that this is a rule that cannot be changed.  

 > "Humans, when they believe a hierarchy they exist within is under
  attack, will often go out of their way to protect that hierarchy."
So what's your point?


>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.

I think you don't understand David Friedman's "The Hard Problem" from his book, "The Machinery of Freedom".   Yes, in a pre-AP world, nobody (else) could figure out how to get rid of heirarchical power structures.   Even I didn't figure it out, until January 1995.  But then I did.  


>Again, due to our biological (and emotional etc) nature, this
tendency for bunches of humans towards hierarchy, is absolutely
unavoidable.
"Nature abhors a vacuum".
Prior to January 1995, nobody else knew how to do that.   Not since then.  


>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!

Which is pretty much a perfect statement of David Friedman's "Hard Proble".   You haven't learned.  


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.

Many "we anarchists" clearly  don't understand my AP essay.

>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.

There's nothing "magic" about it, although it might seem that way to people who don't understand AP.


>This is a fallacy of the first order no less!

I'm amazed you don't understand AP.   I'd tell you to "read the archives", but SOMEBODY FUCKING LOST IT!!

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

<sigh>


>The things we can hope for:

I hope you actually do the mental work to understand how AP is supposed to function.   I did.  And unlike you, I had nobody else around to help me, or explain it to me.  

 > - a peaceful revolution rather than bloody and destructive
    revolution

I suppose you are assuming that there is some clear distinction between these alternatives, or which is which.  I've long argued that AP, once operating smoothly, will not shed a lot of blood.  The reason is that if 'the bad guys' know that it is virtually 100% certain they  will be targeted, they will realize that they will have no alternatives other than:1.  Die.2.  Resign.
Can you explain what third alternative they have to choose?


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

I think that many people who actually UNDERSTAND AP think of it as being a major improvement on any proposed alternative, and certainly over the status quo.  .

 > - 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

Put people in a system which destroys heirarchical power structures, and I am quite confident people will adjust and adapt.  Why do you think they won't?

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

I do "have an idea".  And I wrote it into my AP essay 1995-96.   https://cryptome.org/ap.htm  

Have more respect for people who actually take major risks to bring you freedom.  

>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".

Wake up!  WAKE UP!   "Dissidents" are not necessary!!!    (with apologies to late Portland Oregon retailer Tom Peterson.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUKjbUrxXE     "Wake up!  Wake up!"
DONORS are necessary.   Dissidents are not.   

> 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."

If you know who they are, target them.   If you don't know who they are, offer rewards anonymously to find out who they are and where they live and work.,   Then target them.  Then watch them run.  

>As a consequence of my own thinking on this,"

Which, sadly, cannot be very consequential.

> 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.?

Given your clear lack of understanding, I am not surprised you say that.

>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:

How will the "good guys" be identified if they don't need to stand up and protest?


  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?

Please learn what AP actually means, and call me back.  

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

Call me when the existing alternative actually begins to work.  It hasn't yet.  

          Jim Bell


  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 39780 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191101/e7289e17/attachment.txt>