Posted by yu3zhou4 9 hours ago
"A cypherpunk is one who advocates the widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a means of effecting social and political change."[0]
The book in question. What was the intent or purpose of coming at this sideways?
https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/113373898014727437041/pl...
I have photos of the individual exhibit pieces too if anyone's interested.
I don't think you need a pretty landing page and the content of https://www.cypherpunkbooks.com/collection
could directly live under
https://www.cypherpunkbooks.com/
it's a website with information and I really want to see the collection and information insteda of just a single headline with an animation
I've peeked into that one. I've expected those people to be radical to some degree, but I didn't expect they write it down so clearly.
This writing wants to see the collapse of governments and democracy. I find it painful to read such radical statements. So I didn't get very deep.
But I am riddled how those people think a collapse of that scale will work out in their favor. They are deeply reliant on technology and the first thing to happen on collapse, is that many lights turn off.
I assume you mean "gang" in the sense of, "Hey honey, a non-rivalrous gang converted this luxury hotel into a mutual aid hospital, let's go get that rash looked at."
If not, your assertion is at odds with what Orwell described in Homage to Catalonia.
I'm not even a fan of anarchism, but I am a fan of reading about these things.
It’s interesting to think about the ‘best’ way to organise a society; its enticing to think that society could be contained in a single encompassing structure, but such a structure is impossible.
Human-implemented anarchism might be futile, because it is already implemented, and there is no sovereign with agency above our institutions. It becomes apparent, in the second quarter of the 21st century, that any co-operative agreements and intergovernmental treaties are just as vulnerable as gang treaties.
If the world only stratified, with no balkanisation, it would form a homogeneous structure, but something prevents this. What?
A park where anything goes ... because sentry robots keep the peace. When the robots break, things get scary quickly.
I've become convinced that a well-governed society is the perfect foundation for a limited anarchist commune set up on property legally purchased. Libertarian, essentially. Or Amish.
I think most superficial interpretations of anarchists are based on edgy LARPers rather than real political ideology.
Fun fact: Anarchy means "without rulers", not "without laws" or "without social order". There's a wide diversity of political thought under this umbrella, but the key underlying common denominator is (on some level, at least) a rejection of hierarchy (and often a rejection of capital).
Though it's fun to imagine what the philosophical and political beliefs that underpin a colloquial understanding of the word might look like, the answer is usually simply: Teenagers.
Recommend reading "Against the State" by James Stout, wherein he describes history of various Anarchist societies, including Barcelona during Spanish fascism, Myanmar where they are very successfully fighting the junta which wrested control from their civilian government, and Rojava where he personally visited and gives a firsthand account.
Not the absence of a society, where utter lawlessness reigns. Most people's colloquial idea of anarchy is a Mad Max film.
I'm not being dismissive at all of anything except the public's misconceptions.
I understand the idea that "justice delayed is justice denied." But within reasonable governance time-frames for a municipality/region, why would revocation latency be a litmus test for the type of governance model?
This just sounds like an implementation detail masquerading as a philosophical ideal.
Try talking to some anarchists and its pretty obvious their ideas don't go deep nor can stand well some questioning. Once you are in fairy land, anything may seem like a good idea to tackle ie some injustice.
What's sort of funny, is how all these seemingly polar-opposite anti-establishment flavors are actually far closer to each other than they are to mainstream political left or right.
The anti-establishment part ends up overriding everything else
That's how you end up with Bernie/Trump crossover voters
I have no clue how any equality minded person could vote republicans or trump.
I get that you want to point out the overlap of the ideologies, but I don't see how they are remotely attributable to the current political landscape. (Strictly in the equality matter)
Trump is not a socialist or an anarchist of any kind (I have a hard time believing he has any political ideology or even ideas about governance at all), and neither are the vast majority of the political establishment.
Maybe it just reads weird or I read it weird, to read trump at some point and someone else ending the sentence with equality.
The continuum I was picturing is: big central planning government <--> little-to-no government (anarchy)
In any case, I guess I'm just restating a version of the old horseshoe theory
"Government" is the creator and enforcer of the rules of society; it's merely a matter of flavor of what that looks like: democratic, Church, warlord, corporate state, etc.
Nature abhors a vacuum and a power vacuum will always be filled -- I'd rather it be a democratic version, which is the least-worst option.