Hmm. I see I have failed to convey my intended point, and for this I
apologize. It is nearly always a failure of writing if one's point is
missed. I am unsure how to properly rephrase it to readjust and discuss
further. This is also a failure on my part.

One day perhaps we will meet in person, or at least via live chat, and the
subtext present in face-to-face or audio interaction will permit me to
explore this further.

Forgive me, because I assure you we seek the same ends with what is to
become of the "government" or the "corporation-state" (which is a fine
description as well).

I'm not presently able to see where I went astray in my message, but
neither am I sober, so for now I request you disregard the bulk of it
entirely. Perhaps we can revisit it at a later date.

All my best,

—JJ

On Friday, October 3, 2014, Odinn Cyberguerrilla <
odinn.cyberguerrilla@???> wrote:

> Actually, there is not "must" to anything here. No-one has my consent to
> establish a notion of "government" (which, IMHO, is much better described
> by the term 'corporation-state') by stating we must (or should or shall)
> "expand our mutual definition" of it. In point of fact, since we are on
> the subject of definitions, one could argue that strictly speaking, the
> "government," or "corporation-state," or whatever (x, y, or z) you want to
> call the non-consensual point of reference to which you refer, does not
> meaningfully exist. It is a fiction which is used to emasculate (and hide
> the remains of) the truth of the process by which that fiction's adherents
> continue to function.
>
> The world will operate just fine without anyone's adherence to whatever
> notions you decide to create. Naturally, you'll still be able to find
> plenty of people who can be tricked into believing that they've granted
> your notion consent to exist and to have it be intricately woven into their
> lives.
>
>
> Define it or redefine it as you like, but the nature of humankind is such
> that there will always be despots, no matter whether they attempt to exert
> pressure and and excess of force on others physically, through their
> efforts to imprint old terms (such as "governance") upon the blockchain in
> hopes of somehow preserving them for antiquity, or through whatever other
> methods of coercion some might imagine and intend.
>
> I see this as a divergent point in the conversation. How did the old poem
> go? "Two paths diverged in a wood..... Goodbye."
>
> In closing, I wish to add the following, which was a contribution to one
> of my writings co-authored by an old friend:
>
> "If you become attached to the ship and love the ship, when you arrive at
> the shore of enlightenment will you disembark? Similarly political
> ideologies are all equally empty. People are imbued with the essence of
> justice, can recognize it, and have a root knowledge that transcends reason
> of what a just society will look like, even though it has yet to manifest
> itself on this earth. We build political ideologies and analysis in order
> to take us to this just society, but all too often fall in love with these
> ideologies, and treat them as if they are the just society. This
> misidentification of the vehicle for the destination leads to
> authoritarianism and the opposite of the just society. The most important
> part of the post globalization popular revolts is the identification,
> development, and expression of the people’s intention to live in a just
> society. The many vehicles or ideologies presented are of limited and
> waning importance. Whichever boat some one takes is not important, that all
> people arrive is."
>
>
> On 2014-10-03 00:13, Josh Walker wrote:
>
>> I believe they do, but to discuss them we must expand our mutual
>> definition
>> of "government". If we accept that government is a de facto monopoly on a
>> set of services, rather than an *involuntary* monopoly on goods and
>> services (enforced by the threat of deadly force, at present), we may make
>> progress. You speak of Government, and I wish to merely discuss
>> government.
>>
>> Consider a new definition of government. Let us define our new government
>> as, a set of services where the price of consensus is less than the price
>> of dissent. In fact, the sad reality is that's already true today, which
>> our "enemy" also knows. Therefore our goal must be to shift that balance
>> in
>> the favor of dissent, without violating our ethical principles.
>>
>> The fragility of the individual human is the weak link in the creation of
>> sustainable systems of governance, whether anarchy, democracy, oligarchy,
>> etc. It is not easy to fight against the biological imperative for
>> survival, so we must temper the amount to which we blame "weaker" minds
>> for
>> succumbing to the incentives of corrupt systems.
>>
>> Put simpler, how do we engineer a superior set of incentives such that
>> simpler minds' incentives are *aligned* with the incentives of the
>> system's
>> superset?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>