Topic: BitCoins for Edward Snowden. - page 11. (Read 30961 times)

I guess it's easy to become an economic superpower when you murder and displace the indigenous people of a whole continent.

And then there is Bitcoin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhR1bI7ecT8

You've got this backwards. Citizens around the world have each others back AGAINST their governments... Even if they don't realize it.

Sadly too many on this thread, especially runam0k, have no clue what anarchy is; only what GOVERNMENTS tell them it is...

Anarchy, a lack of rulers, has many times throughout history, resulted in peaceful coexistence. Even in the "Wild" west, the only instances of wildness were due to government intervention, on an otherwise peaceful and harmonious existence.

There are volumes written on this subject, but I guess reading would be too much of an inconvenience, especially when you believe that the state is good for you. (For those of you who don't, hop over here and be amazed: Historical list of anarchy without lawlessness)

Seriously, it makes me really sad for the human race sometimes. I guess there is nothing to do but break out the instructional tools once again. Check out this vid runam0k:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoPBDz5ycA

That perfectly defines what anarchy is, and what it isn't.

It's in everyone's best interest to have each other's back by nature... Only something as evil and twisted as government can change that.

Edward Snowden truly is a hero for freedom. Anyone who donates, props.

Last time I checked the "Wild West" period of US history coexisted with something called the federal government. The fact that there were areas where the rule of federal law was tough/impossible to enforce is another matter altogether.

Hey by the way, did you ever notice how the period of the Wild West coincides with one of the biggest growth spurts of any national economy ever and witnessed the transformation of the US from mostly agrarian colonies into an economic superpower? That personal and economic freedom was very high during this period must have been pure coincidence, other, less free nations around the world have been doing as well or better...oh wait...

and for the last time:


No! "We" do NOT know what would happen. If you truly believe that YOU (please refrain for speaking for everybody) know what would happen...well I guess there is no way and no point in trying to convince you otherwise, just let it be known that there are tons of people who subscribe to their own dogmas (and will argue with you to death about them) and a select few who have exchanged the concept of dogma (permanent absolute belief) for the much more fluffy and nice concept of catma (temporary relative disbelief)

I think we do know and we did try. That's what the wild west was all about. It's how and why countries and governments formed in the first place; people banding together to maximise their chances of survival and the survival of their offspring. The bigger the group, the more obvious the need to delegate decision making to a subset.

I think we know exactly what would happen if we suddenly dispensed with government or the dollar or western society crumbled: the group of people with the most guns would quickly declare itself the new government! Maybe Mexico and Canada would acquire some new land.

Anyway... bitcoins. How's the collection coming along?

This is why I say that conflating society with government is a dangerous delusion.

What I am talking about expressed in your terms is abandoning government. Or more to the point, abandoning the idea of a single institution endowed with the power to create and enforce rules binding for absolutely everyone.

I can make a strong argument that by abandoning this idea you are not abandoning society. To the contrary, as has been pointed out, people tend to like social structures. Funnily enough, this has been mostly pointed out by people using it as an argument to support regulation and government - but again, they seem to be conflating government and society.

So what might happen if more of us decided to abandon this idea of government? Who will "have our back" then? We can't know for sure, until we try. Visions of chaos and destruction seem inappropriate though, possibly fueled by mass-media and public education sponsored culture which, guess what, is interested in preserving the status quo. One of the ways it can achieve this is by making alternatives look immoral or scary.

My personal opinion on this is that without the false sense of security provided by government, people would look for other options how to secure their well-being, defense, health care, retirement and education. Can we at least entertain the notion that people faced with the need to provide those things for themselves (as opposed to believing the promise that they will be taken care of by government) might feel a stronger sense of responsibility toward them and thus come up with better solutions? Add to that the observation, that needs and styles with which people satisfy them are varied. Who's going to provide a better fit in terms of servicing those needs? One universal system which is the same for all (except those sitting in the chairs of power, of course) or many many individuals trying lots of different approaches?

+1

"The downside, of course: you abandon society and nobody has you back. Good luck with that. " - I don't know about the U.S but here in the U.K societies are that divided this tends to be the case anyway.

Back to topic: DOUBLE AGENT!!!!

Chow,
S110RE

The dogma of statism seems to run deep within you so I'll just leave you with the following observation: please do not confuse assumptions like

"society would never survive with his concept of unlimited rights"

with facts. Fact is you have no idea what would happen. Neither do I. The difference between the two of us seems to be that I'm (more than) willing to find out. For many reasons but mostly because I find the current system of centralized power to be laughably ineffective and in disgusting style. Many people would add that it's "morally wrong" but I don't care for that argument.

You know, if I want to protect myself from "evil people" then setting up an institution with legal monopoly on the initiation of force and by extension unlimited funding, which is sure to attract the most evil people of all...just doesn't seem like such a good idea to me. As for the other "services" government provides, I think we're better off without them and/or we can do better on the level of individuals and voluntary cooperation.

In the end it all boils down to whether you have trust in human beings or not. Of course if you don't trust people in general you're going to concoct some paranoid scheme how to protect yourself from the perceived threat they pose.

Good news, though! This condition is curable! Suggested cures include but are not limited to: traveling, hitchhiking, couchsurfing, meditation and the use of hallucinogens.

Yes and that is a good start, but not many people using .bit yet and going into other TLDs is needed (not trivial I know), :-)

Make it happen!

"He's wrong though. Society would never survive with his concept of unlimited rights. Instead we have (and this is the point you are making) lots of privileges."

Yup. You have the privilege of owing hundreds of thousands of $ for debt the government racked up. You owe several hundred thousand more for the unrealistic promises made by your government to baby boomers. You have the privilege of paying your taxes to start wars all over the globe, face it YOU pay to kill brown people, women and children. You have more debt for the trillions spent on war to "protect your freedoms", despite the fact that you are a hundred times more likely to be killed by lightening, or peanuts, or snakes, than you are by terrorism. If you think what the government is doing in your name is OK, you are either a moron, or a coward. If you hide inside when it's raining for fear of being struck by lightening, then you are on the coward side. If you don't, and you agree with what the NSA is doing, then you are a moron.

All great societies start off free, but as the centralised power branches gather more and more power for themselves, they start to drain more and more resources. Like a parasite that goes from being helpful to one that destroys the host, all central governments eventually go the same way. Face it, the USA is totally broke, and the only way the government is going to be able to keep control as more and more of the population slips into poverty, is through oppressive means.

And all the good will the rest of the world had toward The United States of America, the greatest nation the world has ever seen, has been pissed away. When the other shoe drops, the dollar collapses, and you are all plunged into abject poverty, people that 30 years ago would have rushed to your aid, will laugh and say you reap what you sow.

The chains of your enslavement seem to rest comfortably around your mind. What's curious is why you feel the need to try so hard to convince others that it should be the same for them?


Edit: in other news DuckDuckGo private search engine sees 33% rise in usage since widespread secret govt. surveillance revelations. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825956

Great, love it.

He's wrong though. Society would never survive with his concept of unlimited rights. Instead we have (and this is the point you are making) lots of privileges. Temporary or not, we have lots and lots of them. Even better, we have the chance - albeit primarily through our elected officials - to increase the number of privileges we enjoy. Or, indeed, as an individual we can choose not to live with "privileges" and instead to go elsewhere and take our chances. The downside, of course: you abandon society and nobody has you back. Good luck with that.

Keywords highlighted; if you decide right now to leave the country, you are free to do so - UNLESS you are a person of interest against whom an order (as you hint at) has already been made. So don't pretend you're stuck here. If you don't like it (it being the system within which the group of people that call themselves the USA has decided to live), without wanting to sound overly harsh: fuck off go elsewhere. You have that freedom! Even Snowden had that freedom; had he chosen to do so, he could have quit his job quietly and left the country. (Ignoring for a second whether, morally speaking, that would have been the right thing or the wrong thing to do.)

Obviously I don't expect you or anyone else here to up and leave the US (unless, perhaps, you already live abroad and taxes are an issue). The vast majority sitting at their keyboards will weigh-up the opportunity costs and very quickly decide it makes absolutely no sense.

As to the tyranny of the majority statement... Really? You don't see how protection of US national interests has ensured and affords you the freedoms you enjoy today? Are you serious? Without these protections every other country that DOES actively protect it's own interests would quickly dominate the US. Try to remember, this is not just about terrorism. For decades now the US government has tackled - on a day to day basis - political and corporate espionage, hacking, spying, sabotage, etc. Without government level protections, the US simply would not exist in the form it does today. You certainly would not be enjoying the freedoms you enjoy today.

None of this means we should let the NSA or any other branch of the government run wild. But the question becomes, "how do you keep X in line, operating within the boundaries we set?" So instead of indulging in your plight, why not suggest a viable answer?

(All this is way off topic. Sorry.)

This is profoundly delightful.

I'll let Saint George Carlin explain to you that you don't have any right or any freedoms. What you have is temporary privileges. Freedoms are no freedoms if there is someone who can just take them away.

Namecoin project has recently got TLS (https) working for names in the namecoin blockchain, "NAMESEC" ... i.e. TLS without CA's is now possible using namecoin blockchain and .bit domains.

http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4285#p4285

.... the "NAMESEC" protocol

I'm not sure I follow you there..  can you give an example? 

Hong Kong isn't communist, it has a very high degree of autonomy and operates without the economic and political contraints of mainland China.