I wanted to start another thread about Troy's following comments:


To continue in my apparent addiction to tilting at windmills and creative

> destruction of groupthink wherever I encounter it, I also seem to like
> getting
> into arguments about anonymity, and calling into question the claims of
> various
> groups (including the unsystem Darkwallet developers) about privacy and
> anonymity. Dissent to the majority view is the most powerful tool to ensure
> freedom, and I seem to find myself arguing counter to the group consensus.
>

Could you expand on your thoughts about privacy and anonymity? I found it
surprising that you call into question the Darkwallet's developer's stance
on privacy and anonymity, as I assumed you would be on the same page. But,
it is an opportunity for me to learn. I try to question everything, even
myself!

In the unsystem context, I strongly dissent to the characterization and
> mythology of 'evil government'. Those of us that HAVE at one point had
> @something.gov email address are likely to be your strongest supporters,
>

Now here is a topic I'd like to chew on. The US government has done more
evil than good with the development of the atom bomb and the subsequent
Cold War. The destruction of the fascist states before the Cold War was
justified. The ongoing pseudo-occupation of those states through the
continued presence of US military bases calls into question our
government's commitment to "spreading liberty and freedom" around the
world. And the US government's foreign policy to stop the "spread of
communism" was a failure and a threat to the freedoms of US citizens.

I can't say much on whether or not all systems of government are evil. I've
mostly read about the governments of other nations. I have traveled to the
Auvergne region of France, and found the people and culture (and cheese, no
pun intended) there to be very pleasant. It seemed to me that the French
government is committed to the well-being of its citizens. I welcome any
criticism to the contrary. My stay there was only a few weeks.


> and involvement and acceptance of local, state, and world government
> involvement in a healthy multiple-cryptocoin ecosystem is what is going
> to bring about fundamental change in the world.


This last section is worthy of much debate. Where to begin?

Some governments restrict involvement by force. Acceptance of such a
government is contradictory to freedom.

The establishment of alternative currencies does not require government
involvement, especially in the quickly evolving ecosystem of the Internet.
IMO, the current Internet closely resembles the revolutionary political
environments during the 1) downfall of Western monarchies, 2) the European
Revolutions of 1848-49 and the 3) post-Austro-Hungarian Empire Revolutions.
My point being those revolutions were not the exclusively the direct effect
of a totalitarian state, but instead happened in a state of political,
cultural and even technological flux.

What we have now, because of the Internet, is a similar opportunity to live
in an environment of post-representational and post-geographical
governments. We _now_ have effective communities that span from the local
to the global level. I am typing these thoughts from my small home in San
Antonio, Texas and they go out to you spread around the world. This
community is participating in a nascent effort with the potential impact to
change governments permanently, or at least piss off a lot of Wall St.
bankers.

Is the cooperation with any current government of a nation state required
to fulfill the goals of unSYSTEM and Darkwallet? No. Could it help? I don't
know. The recent historical record indicates not. We are an unknown to
most, a thorn to some, and a threat to a privileged few.

Here is a point to strengthen my argument:

Did the evolution of open source and its communities require the
involvement and acceptance of the governments of nation states? Hell no. In
most cases, it was a fight against those governments and it continues
today. It is easy to argue that open source gives people more freedom. In
fact, the open source movement is an excellent example that people can give
themselves more freedom without the involvement or acceptance of the
governments of nation states.

I posit it is pointless to wait for nation states to evolve and give
individuals more liberty and freedom. And if we give away our liberty and
freedom, for any reason, we are longer individuals. If individuality
defines being human, those who give up their individuality for safety,
comfort or the greater good are _no_ longer human. Humans are capable of
self-government, and therefore being individuals in a larger self-governing
community. Hopefully we can create some of the tools to help that come
about.