Regardless of any personal definition you may have of Anarchy, the correct definition is a system with the absence of a central sovereign government. Period.
You argue that the private networks have their own owners and rules and so they are not anarchic, but there is a very clear mistake in your reasoning. Unlike a government they hold no power over you, just over their property. In the absence of a central regulator, you can't be arrested, or fined, or killed for doing anything within their territory. You can't be prevented from accessing other networks over which they don't hold control. They hold no power whatsoever over you. As you can see it is a matter of scope.
Private property coexist just fine with anarchic systems, no matter how much you may wish to try and stretch your logic to believe otherwise. .
It is not me who defines it. The difference between public and private is quite well defined. You can opt out from any private network in the same way you can choose not to go to a nightclub or a store. That makes you completely immune to any rule enforced by them. You can't run from the scope of your government though. It can use force and punish you for anything you did it seems unfit no matter where you did it.
Nah. You are just not smart enough to express what you want and end messing things up, but keep trying and maybe you will get there. Then again, maybe not. Anyway the first step is to admit you do not know how to write. Do it and you will be happily on the way to improvement.
That is the definition of anarchy. You as the other posters seem to think anarchy is the absence of rules. Anarchy is just the absence of central control. There can be private property and private rules in anarchy.
You may think so, but that is not the case many times. The Supreme court has been known to overturn itself on many occasions, usually because the First or Second decision was politically motivated. The truth is, judges are seldom impartial, and their interpretation of the law is often biased and distorted. They are not the perfect beings the previous poster wants to depict them as. Despite of his white washing, there is a lot of corruption, political pressures and personal bias in judgments.
That is exactly what he said, but keep bowing to your legal overlords and accepting their ridiculous argument that they know better than you, are utterly honest and cannot commit mistakes.
No, You don't understand Anarchy at all. Anarchy is not the absence of rules. Anarchy is a system where there is no central planing or government. Nothing prevents private places of having its internal rules in an anarchy.
There is already regulations regarding credit card fraud, and identity fraud. We don't need specific internet laws to prevent those things. My claim is that anything bad you can do through the Internet you can do outside it and it is already illegal. Nobody needs to control the Internet to deal with those bad things.
It doesn't matter, the same few people own all the mainstream channels. Some people actually go out of their way to find the truth, but most people will be spoon fed their news by these few people. In the cases their interests conflict you can infer something from the discrepancies between them, but most of the time their interests converge.
In the same way a person using a phone can order someone to blow a building it can do through the internet. It is not motive to regulate and monitor phone calls neither to regulate the internet though. Many times the harm you do trying to prevent something is orders of magnitude worse than the thing you are trying to prevent. That is true regarding the "War against terrorism" and also regarding the attempts of Internet regulation.
You seem to confuse the Internet with the physical world. Sorry to pop your bubble, but both things are very different. Anarchy never worked and won't likely ever work in the physical world. It worked very well for a decades in the Internet though.
In the rare cases where society defines speech as unacceptable it limits that, through the law. Neither you or I limit anything by ourselves no matter how much we disagree with it. I an adult enough to live with that, you apparently are not. Good luck with that, you will have a life of frustration ahead.
"I keep getting told that my right to harm others through speech is greater than their right to stop me, or remove themselves from my presence on public property
Now it became something understandable. Your argument is still logically flawed but at least you were able to transmit it with this phrase. It is a good improvement on your part.
Regarding your argument, it is obviously a fallacy. You don't have the right to stop anyone else from talking. The state has this right, exerted by applying criminal law in very specific cases, where society as a whole decided that the potential damage justifies the restriction applied to free speech. The event discussed on this thread does not fit in these very specific cases.
You do not have the right to harm others through speech either. You have the right to exert speech as you see fit within the boundaries of the law, as these two guys did by telling their jokes. I am sorry to break the news to you but hearing something you don't like is not "harm".
It is not because childish pricks, like you, want to impose their own notions of right and wrong over everyone else and keep having tantrums when people decide to say anything they do not like that we need to accept and let yourselves have your way. You can have tantrums all you want but as long as you decide to live in society you will be forced to listen to things you won't like many times, and won't be able to do anything about it.
Ironically Dotcom never did any file sharing and he is doing very well, thank you, despite any efforts the US government made to fuck him up which further proves my point. US can regulate what is inside US any infrastructure outside it will present a bigger challenge and there is no restraint to where bitcoin transaction facilitators will establish themselves.
Quit trying to read what you think I mean and where you think I'm going with an argument, and instead read what I actually write, and you might do better at understanding.
Learn to write and properly express what you want to say and that will happen.
You are jumping 8 steps ahead, then complaining because you didn't understand step 7, when I didn't say anything about that yet.
No, my friend, you just don't make sense. That may be because you are not able to properly express your ideas, or, more likely, because your ideas do not make sense themselves.
Although US can control currency conversion it can't really control bitcoin flow. It will only work as long as direct bitcoin transactions aren't ubiquitous enough, otherwise the regulating laws will be unenforceable.
The government can't control what it does not have access to. It can even try to do it, but the very nature of Bitcoin makes it very hard. If it becomes more ubiquitous and people start to convert it less and less to fiat currencies governments will have a very hard time to control it, except by maybe outlawing it. Even that may be insufficient in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of any personal definition you may have of Anarchy, the correct definition is a system with the absence of a central sovereign government. Period.
You argue that the private networks have their own owners and rules and so they are not anarchic, but there is a very clear mistake in your reasoning. Unlike a government they hold no power over you, just over their property. In the absence of a central regulator, you can't be arrested, or fined, or killed for doing anything within their territory. You can't be prevented from accessing other networks over which they don't hold control. They hold no power whatsoever over you. As you can see it is a matter of scope.
Private property coexist just fine with anarchic systems, no matter how much you may wish to try and stretch your logic to believe otherwise. .
Or maybe you do...
It is not me who defines it. The difference between public and private is quite well defined. You can opt out from any private network in the same way you can choose not to go to a nightclub or a store. That makes you completely immune to any rule enforced by them. You can't run from the scope of your government though. It can use force and punish you for anything you did it seems unfit no matter where you did it.
Nah. You are just not smart enough to express what you want and end messing things up, but keep trying and maybe you will get there. Then again, maybe not. Anyway the first step is to admit you do not know how to write. Do it and you will be happily on the way to improvement.
That is the definition of anarchy. You as the other posters seem to think anarchy is the absence of rules. Anarchy is just the absence of central control. There can be private property and private rules in anarchy.
You may think so, but that is not the case many times. The Supreme court has been known to overturn itself on many occasions, usually because the First or Second decision was politically motivated. The truth is, judges are seldom impartial, and their interpretation of the law is often biased and distorted. They are not the perfect beings the previous poster wants to depict them as. Despite of his white washing, there is a lot of corruption, political pressures and personal bias in judgments.
That is exactly what he said, but keep bowing to your legal overlords and accepting their ridiculous argument that they know better than you, are utterly honest and cannot commit mistakes.
As the other post said, "Moving West" is almost the perfect example of anarchy.
No, You don't understand Anarchy at all. Anarchy is not the absence of rules. Anarchy is a system where there is no central planing or government. Nothing prevents private places of having its internal rules in an anarchy.
There is already regulations regarding credit card fraud, and identity fraud. We don't need specific internet laws to prevent those things. My claim is that anything bad you can do through the Internet you can do outside it and it is already illegal. Nobody needs to control the Internet to deal with those bad things.
It doesn't matter, the same few people own all the mainstream channels. Some people actually go out of their way to find the truth, but most people will be spoon fed their news by these few people. In the cases their interests conflict you can infer something from the discrepancies between them, but most of the time their interests converge.
The problem is how far we want laws to go. Into our actions? Into the internet? Into your words? Into our minds maybe?
I am prepared to accept the need for the first, but the last three are things that on my view should be outside the scope of the law.
So in short: "We are Gods and now better than you. You can't possibly understand our perfect minds. We are justice and you are trash."
In the same way a person using a phone can order someone to blow a building it can do through the internet. It is not motive to regulate and monitor phone calls neither to regulate the internet though. Many times the harm you do trying to prevent something is orders of magnitude worse than the thing you are trying to prevent. That is true regarding the "War against terrorism" and also regarding the attempts of Internet regulation.
You seem to confuse the Internet with the physical world. Sorry to pop your bubble, but both things are very different. Anarchy never worked and won't likely ever work in the physical world. It worked very well for a decades in the Internet though.
In the rare cases where society defines speech as unacceptable it limits that, through the law. Neither you or I limit anything by ourselves no matter how much we disagree with it. I an adult enough to live with that, you apparently are not. Good luck with that, you will have a life of frustration ahead.
"I keep getting told that my right to harm others through speech is greater than their right to stop me, or remove themselves from my presence on public property
Now it became something understandable. Your argument is still logically flawed but at least you were able to transmit it with this phrase. It is a good improvement on your part.
Regarding your argument, it is obviously a fallacy. You don't have the right to stop anyone else from talking. The state has this right, exerted by applying criminal law in very specific cases, where society as a whole decided that the potential damage justifies the restriction applied to free speech. The event discussed on this thread does not fit in these very specific cases.
You do not have the right to harm others through speech either. You have the right to exert speech as you see fit within the boundaries of the law, as these two guys did by telling their jokes. I am sorry to break the news to you but hearing something you don't like is not "harm".
It is not because childish pricks, like you, want to impose their own notions of right and wrong over everyone else and keep having tantrums when people decide to say anything they do not like that we need to accept and let yourselves have your way. You can have tantrums all you want but as long as you decide to live in society you will be forced to listen to things you won't like many times, and won't be able to do anything about it.
Ironically Dotcom never did any file sharing and he is doing very well, thank you, despite any efforts the US government made to fuck him up which further proves my point. US can regulate what is inside US any infrastructure outside it will present a bigger challenge and there is no restraint to where bitcoin transaction facilitators will establish themselves.
Quit trying to read what you think I mean and where you think I'm going with an argument, and instead read what I actually write, and you might do better at understanding.
Learn to write and properly express what you want to say and that will happen.
You are jumping 8 steps ahead, then complaining because you didn't understand step 7, when I didn't say anything about that yet.
No, my friend, you just don't make sense. That may be because you are not able to properly express your ideas, or, more likely, because your ideas do not make sense themselves.
No I don't, and that is why I don't make claims about it.
As long as it has no way of knowing how many bitcoins I have it cannot control this part of my property.
The infrastructure is spread and can avoid control and regulation in the same way file sharing can.
Chances are the governments will be as efficient at controlling bitcoins as they are at controlling file sharing.
Although US can control currency conversion it can't really control bitcoin flow. It will only work as long as direct bitcoin transactions aren't ubiquitous enough, otherwise the regulating laws will be unenforceable.
The government can't control what it does not have access to. It can even try to do it, but the very nature of Bitcoin makes it very hard. If it becomes more ubiquitous and people start to convert it less and less to fiat currencies governments will have a very hard time to control it, except by maybe outlawing it. Even that may be insufficient in the end.