Re: [LeftLibertarian2] [phoenixinn] WTF?
- On 11/7/09, jeo1@... <jeo1@...> wrote:
> Well I agree with this, JH.No, Jay did not do that. He attempted to describe, objectively, what
> What I don't agree with is defending and excusing cops and soldiers, who already have the entire apparatus of the state, and it's multitude of followers, to apologize and make excuses for them.
> You and others here do this while at the same time jumping all over the likes of Juan for pointing out the fact that these hired agents of the state are criminals and thugs.
the cop's view of of the world is, and advised us to take that view
into account in order to avoid being tased or beaten to death. He
also explicitly said, in so many words, that the cops' view of the
world was wrong.
The cable news channels are filled with neocons throwing around terms
like "defeatist" or "blaming America first" whenever anyone attempts
an objective description of how Islamic extremists view the West, or
describes how Western actions may contribute to that view. Just
pointing out that, no matter how badly mistaken they are, they
probably don't go around self-consciously twirling their moustaches
and saying "I am evil! Bwahahaha!" is apparently being an
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective
- Yes, the state would go after that, but my point is this is, over time, going to become less and less of a threat. Also, my bringing up the Calvino story was that if Western governments don't do that now because the backlash would likely be so great as it to make it too costly for them to do. Yes, in an emergency, they might do it, but it'd almost be along the lines of cutting off all phone communications. I.e., unlikely to make the populace go meekly along with it and likely to foment rebellion.BTW, you might want to research DTN (Delay-Tolerant Networking or Disruption-Tolerant Networking) -- and I believe O'Reilly has some material on that subject -- if you haven't already. (I'd be surprised if you haven't at least heard of it.) My guess is as ever more networks become wireless and delays/disruptions of the non-government sort just naturally happen, there'll be a switch to some form of DTN and that'll make it even harder to cut the trunk. I think DTN plus heavy decentralization of hardware assets is probably the winning combination here. (And this model scales up for use off world. I think some of the DTN proposals were for solar system wide communication -- linking in space probes, sats, and all that. I'm not sure if this is exactly what the space agencies are using with the Mars assets.)Regards,DanFrom: Charles Johnson <feedback@...>
Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 12:27:44 PM
Subject: Re: Government shutting down the Internet/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] The backyard aged beef menace
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/18/2009 11:04 AM, Dan wrote:
> I think this is like that Italo Calvino story -- the one where the
> government, over time, outlaws everything but one sport. The people are
> completely apathetic, IIRC, except for a few dissidents, easy enough to
> silence. Then the government outlaws that sport. The people swiftly
> overthrow it.
> Also, with some many variant networks arising and ever more going
> wireless, I think the ability of governments to crush the Internet
> easily is going to get ever harder.
In connection, this may be of some interest: <http://nocat. net/>
As well as the O'Reilly book by some of the participants on building
Wireless Community Networks:
<http://www.oreilly. com/catalog/ wirelesscommnet2 />
Right now it seems to me that the main difficulty, other than just
evangelizing and hooking people in, is that there is that wireless
networks have currently, mostly, focused on replacing "last-mile"
commercial wired service. But of course any serious government attempt
to lock down on the Internet would go after big trunks -- in particular,
backbone operators, major services like Google, and root DNS servers --
rather than leaves on the network graph. It seems to me like the next
step would need to be efforts to better interconnect community networks
by alternative routes, where possible, rather than simply going out onto
the commercial Internet; trying to hash out and get to implementing an
alternative, polycentric network for DNS; etc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--- --
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail. mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFLGUaP1dpUSIv 3yzMRAmGAAJ9dtqr mJZZ/+PQ5GoIe24M LW31jkgCfXAXQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE--- --