Thanks for the answer and the ideas Odinn :D

2014-10-21 9:20 GMT+02.00, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd@???>:
>
>
> On 10/20/2014 10:37 AM, odinn wrote:
>> (Ruminations)
>>
>> I don't consider myself a libertarian, and dislike boxes, but I'm
>
> Of course, there is a conflict of needs.. on the one hand we need some
> kind of words to communicate but whatever words we choose will be
> misinterpreted either intentionally or unintentionally by others, fwiw
> I understand that nothing quite fits.
>
>> voluntaryistic / cryptoanarchistic with a dash of constitutionalism
>> (e.g. if people bothered to fight long enough for "rights," and defend
>> them in a variety of fora, then we should consider what those rights
>> are and respect them when they are expressed ~ though I don't mean
>> that as an endorsement of the state, it's simply "what people do" and
>> "how we respect each other"). Throw in a dash of zen, and you've got
>
> I think we should be careful of immortalizing a `right' because it's
> something people have historically fought for. People in history have
> fought for ``the right'' to do some pretty gruesome things, at least
> gruesome by today's standards... At the time it was considered normal
> and right.
>
>> enough terms to put me in a box. I don't care much for politicians,
>> but I appreciate that more people seem to be aware that they can
>> choose more than red or blue (e.g., go with third parties) if they
>> wish to vote. But that's just me stating the obvious.
>>
>> ( Caleb ~ )You asked where that libertarian stateless utopia is. You
>> probably did not read the full article that I sent. A quote from the
>
> I would not have written you back without reading it first, tired
> as I was having just gotten up I may not have caught every nuance.
>
>> article comes to mind: "Presented with statism's ridiculous and
>> backward narrative, we must wonder who the starry-eyed utopians really
>> are." Indeed! But moving right along: Remove "libertarian" and
>> "utopia" and you are left with "stateless." So, to get to the root of
>> it, where is this so-called stateless society? It should be plainly
>> obvious that wherever it manifests it will be difficult to identify.
>
> Yes I saw it, what then is the objective of a stateless society, or
> really any political endevor, if not to create a utopia or at least
> something better than what we have today ?
>
>> It does not have a flag or a banner. It certainly does not have a Ron
>> Paul or a party. It does not have national boundaries. It would be
>> too easy if I were to to respond by saying it is everywhere and
>> nowhere. But that's part of it, so I will say that it is everywhere --
>> everywhere that the minds and hearts of people who wish to co-create a
>> new society make a decision in any moment of any day that they wish to
>> liberate themselves from fear. It is not purely notional, either, as
>> the distributed functions of consensus and the gears of
>> decentralization have been turning in terms of societal development
>> well before the internet came into existence and long before anyone
>> could push a key on their computer and participate in decentralized
>> and distributed-digital systems that do not require national
>> boundaries or nationalistic identities and forms.
>>
>> There is a great deal of what I describe that occurs throughout
>> society without being seen, which makes it harder to explain if you
>> are asking for clear and perhaps visible evidence of it.
>>
>> I strongly suspect that the visible manifestations of developing
>> decentralized, distributed systems and / or stateless societies will
>> become far more evident only after anonymity technology advances
>> enough to be both lightweight and widespread. Without saying much
>> more about that, I believe that 2015 will be a significant historical
>> marker in the area of such technologies, which include, but are not
>> limited to implementations of such a variety as SNARK-based unlinkable
>> transactions via Zerocash, Output Distribution Obfuscation involving a
>> hybridization of BTC system(s) and BCN ring signatures, distribution
>> of stealth TX technology throughout large numbers of currency systems
>> (currently it is present in several systems), and Scalable Zero
>> Knowledge via Cycles of Elliptic Curves designed to make zero
>> knowledge proofs lightweight and accessible to all programmers,
>> contingent on provable CPU. These are but a few of the many
>> developments that will alter many aspects of your life in ways mostly
>> unseen.
>>
>> I have stated in various fora that it has taken almost 226 years to
>> arrive at the next major point of revolution action, and by necessity
>> that is 'anonymity.' However, without relational strength and an
>> understanding of how relationships themselves are the ultimate
>> technology, the exponentially expanding possibilities for collective
>> and distributed participation to compassionately serve many elements
>> and aid in the determination of priorities to fund, and more, will not
>> be realized. (My project, http://abis.io, still in a very early
>> stage, is a reflection of my optimism that we are capable of doing
>> more together (without direction being given by "authoritative"
>> organizations) given time and a greater level of understanding.) Thus
>> there will be a constant tension between bellicose corporation-states,
>> their struggling advocates, and the increasing numbers of persons who
>> either by choice or undesired circumstance, become (for all intents
>> and purposes) stateless, whether or not they declare or are even aware
>> of it being so. Some have made statelessness an advocacy issue or a
>> point which they have individually declared. I submit that it is not
>> about such a declaration (though declarations are interesting to
>> explore as expressions within the context of discussion of what
>> statelessness might mean), but rather about a realization that one may
>> be free from fear and in opening oneself to finding the _many_
>> _vehicles_ to a more compassionate future, the detachment from statism
>> (and indeed, departures from ideologies of all kinds) will come
>> naturally. Such terms, such as "stateless," "government," and
>> "statism," indeed will cease to have relevance in the way we
>> understand them today as society realizes more and more its collective
>> potential. Perhaps then we will begin to consider "stateful" (such
>> as, in a state of being) more descriptive of these 'decentralization
>> developments' than "stateless" within the context of the
>> corporation-state, or even notice that such references to the "state"
>> as a nation, government, or corporation-state will diminish, for if
>> the "state" as it has been known is no longer that important to us,
>> then we need not regularly refer to it, nor need we be bound to other
>> arguably related terminologies, such as "anarchism," "socialism,"
>> "capitalism," and all the -isms we have allowed to condition our
>> minds. Freeing oneself from fear, thus the old language will not
>> excite or raise one's interest, but natural thoughts which create
>> concepts, new terms, and numerous permutations and styles of
>> meditation, can arise at any time, for any person, anywhere. The
>> vehicles to our destinations, of course, are those which you might
>> intend or those that you realize or are surprised by ~ they are
>> countless in number.
>> Thus does language set the tone for what we may choose to build for
>> our shared future, the relationship provide the basis for connecting
>> our minds and hearts to each other, and the reflection upon our
>> present moment create the state in which we exist, now.
>
> I respect your position here, personally I feel that the opportunity
> of anonymity is limited and will eventually pail in comparison to
> decentralized states which compete for the individual's voluntary
> association.
>
> The reason why I don't expect the anonymous cryptoanarchy to scale
> is because The Darknet, as it were, is the Jungle. One mistake, one
> too many details in an IRC story, one day too late to update your
> system...
> () {:;}; you're lunch.
> It is not exactly a society without rulers; it is a society ruled,
> in a very personal one-on-one way, by whoever has the most blackmail
> and 0days.
>
> In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is
> getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is
> stupidity.
>
> Caleb
>
>>
>> Stopping here. The stars are out.
>>
>> -Odinn
>>
>> Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>> Hi Odinn, Thanks for your reply, I know taking a socialist position
>>> on an unabashedly libertarian list is not going to be popular but I
>>> sent it here because I really want to be fact-checked. ~nothing
>>> more infuriating than bobbing heads of unconstructive agreement..
>>
>>> Your link speaks of "Rights of The State", this immediately struck
>>> me because I don't any longer care about rights, I care about
>>> people.
>>
>>> I was born in the USA which pays awful heed to Rights and Justice,
>>> and trucks millions off to prison cells for violation of The Law. I
>>> was a fervent follower of the libertarian dogma myself it because
>>> it looks so damned good on paper (I even have a pair of Ron Paul
>>> tshirts to prove it).
>>
>>> The question I have is "where's the beef?" where is the
>>> libertarian stateless utopia? I understand we can't have perfect
>>> now so maybe there is something moving in the right direction, a
>>> small-government state where individual liberties are protected?
>>> Give me any example you like as long as it's not some kind of
>>> libertarian community which exists under the protective umbrella of
>>> a social state.
>>
>>> I've not been able to find any such example and so have taken to
>>> trying to understand why what looks so good in theory doesn't apply
>>> in practice.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/20/2014 02:51 AM, odinn wrote:
>>>> Caleb,
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to waste energy typing in my own words here what
>>>> someone else has written in a way that I think would enhance
>>>> understanding of this subject in a better way than if I were to
>>>> comment further on it.
>>>>
>>>> With that said, I think you really need to read (and carefully
>>>> re-read) the following article, which I submit may well enhance
>>>> your understanding of this matter substantially:
>>>> http://c4ss.org/content/32570
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> -Odinn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>>>> I have a hypotheses which has been percolating in the back of
>>>>> my mind for some time now and I thought now is a good time to
>>>>> share it.
>>>>
>>>>> For all that libertarian systems offer in theory, they have a
>>>>> distinct problem that when it comes to practice. Unless you
>>>>> consider Texas a utopia, libertarian utopias don't really exist
>>>>> and I wanted to study how something which looks so good on
>>>>> paper manages to fail so completely in practice.
>>>>
>>>>> To be ruled by law, as opposed to being ruled by men, means to
>>>>> me that nobody can just order your execution or imprisonment
>>>>> without dire consequences. Given wealth and power are
>>>>> interchangeable, if you live in a country where one person
>>>>> controls 99% of the wealth of the nation, there is no rule of
>>>>> law. He can just simply up the government and whatever checks
>>>>> and balances you put in place he can undo or subvert. Judges,
>>>>> as impartial as they might like to be, do not live in a vacuum
>>>>> and challenging a de-facto dictator is not good for one's
>>>>> health.
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, wealth redistribution is not about paying alms to
>>>>> the poor but about making sure that nobody amasses such power
>>>>> as to threaten society as a whole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> tl;dr wealth and power are interchangeable, wealth/power pools
>>>>> up in certain lucky and industrious individuals, without
>>>>> redistributing it, democracies devolve into oligarchies and
>>>>> then eventually into monarchy or chaos. The US is in the
>>>>> oligarchy phase.
>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
> --
> Caleb James DeLisle
> XWiki SAS
> calebjamesdelisle@???
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>


--
Mvh Ben Johansen