Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kmfkewm

Pages: 1 ... 120 121 [122] 123 124 ... 249
1816
Quote
But you can't expect most people would find such a society appealing or desirable. Just like you can't expect everyone in your neighborhood to want to, or even be good at, participating in your neighborhood's defense.

The only difference between my proposed society and the society of today is that in my society you have choice in the agency that defends you, and how they go about doing it. If you want defense from being robbed it will be in your best interests to purchase this service from a private company that can offer it. If you do not want "defense" from drug users smoking marijuana, then you will not pay for this from the security agency or obtain services from such a security agency. In the society of today, you must get security from a selection of approved agencies. They protect you in a uniform fashion, and you fund all of this. If you don't support the war in the Middle East it doesn't matter you are still going to fund it (ie: you are funding the agencies that are fighting a war there). This is the exact opposite of voluntaryism and it is the exact opposite of a free market. Of course we have atrocities like the war on drugs, we are forced to fund it! That money goes somewhere, it goes into the paychecks of the DEA agents and it makes the private owners of prisons very rich. There doesn't need to be a reason for the war on drugs other than the fact that it makes them rich, and the propaganda makes it seem like what they do is okay and for a good cause so they will take that paycheck. In a free world you would not be forced to pay for your own oppression and you are free to pay for your own defense from what you see as oppression. How could anyone not want that?

Quote
Sounds like the significant portion of your income you save in taxes would now go towards paying these "security agencies" to defend your neighborhood.

Yes some amount of the money you save from not being forced to pay a wide variety of government security and "security" agencies would need to be spent on private security agencies to replace them, provided you want to have the same level of security. Of course when you stop funding agencies that bust drug users and agencies that forcibly extort money from you, the total cost of defense will automatically be cheaper. Additionally private services are very frequently proven as being more efficient and effective than government provided services, just look at the difference in education provided by a privates schools versus public schools. And private schools would be more affordable for people if they were not forced into funding a public school system. And for people who still couldn't afford private schooling, there will be plenty of public school opportunities offered by various religious charities and especially internet classrooms. Likewise, private defense agencies will be more efficient and more effective than government run defense agencies. So in addition to saving money, you can put the money you saved towards more effectively and efficiently protecting yourself at a lower price! 

Quote
And there would be nothing preventing the private security agency you hire from being abusive, corrupt, or incompetent on levels much more intolerable than your current government. What's preventing all the private security agencies from not being mafia rackets and colluding themselves while raising your "protection fees" through the roof? Nothing.

The private security agency works for you. In order for them to keep getting your business, it will be in their best interest to treat you as courteously as possible. If they work against you, for example by stealing your money or arresting you for drug possession, then they are no longer private defense agencies but rather they are armed criminals and oppressors. At this point you will be where we are now, and hopefully alternative market sources of defense and law will be made available to us, and we can fund them to the point that they overthrow our new oppressors. The worst case scenario you predict is exactly what we have right now, you are forced to provide funding to colluding government agencies via their mafiaesque defense rackets.  Very little stops them from raising your already enormous protection fees even higher.

Quote
In fact, in a world without government why even bother using a euphemism like "CEO" for those that own and lead these "security agencies"? They'd be nothing more than warlords wrecking havoc with their private militias for fun and profit. Might as well call a spade a spade.

Why do you not call the people using their public militias to wreack havoc warlords? Instead they are Generals? Why not call the head of the D.E.A. such, or the other paramilitary government police agencies? The D.E.A. is essentially a band of gun waving armed robbers and kidnappers who target drug dealers. You have been totally conditioned to the point that you see the governments behavior through a distortion, but when you remove the title government you see any organized defense as necessarily being what the government already is and without the distortion!

Quote
What's most puzzling about the libertarian utopia that I've yet to learn from a libertarian anarchist is how and why corporate tyranny would be so much better than government tyranny. Maybe you can be the first to offer a coherent explanation.

Anarchist Libertarianism does not envision corporate tyranny, it envisions a free market where you are empowered to select your own products and services instead of having them selected for you by the state. It also views far more things as products and services than most people generally do, for example the roads and indeed even what the laws are and who enforces them.

1817
Security / The danger of turning off new vendor registration
« on: November 04, 2012, 04:52 am »
I believe that disabling new vendor registration is very dangerous. It asks for a large amount of trust from the community, and I do not believe it is a level of trust that we should have in the maliciousness or lack thereof of whoever has the controls of Silk Road at any given time. If the site is ever covertly compromised by law enforcement, I imagine that they may turn new vendor registration off. This is because it will completely remove the possibility of new legitimate vendors joining, and as they compromise vendor accounts over time and legitimate vendors retire, they will be able to skew the percentage of law enforcement run vendor accounts largely to their favor over enough time. The fact that Silk Road was open registration is largely what allowed us to be certain it was not a honeypot from the beginning, it allows us to rationalize that if we are allowed to open vendor accounts here then anyone else must be, and if anyone can be a vendor obviously not all of the vendors will be law enforcement. If the site is closed registration from the start, you can not use that same line of reasoning in your assessment of the risk of utilizing the site.

I understand that there are some traffic issues with the number of new people joining heavily stressing the server and even the Tor network itself. First of all know that many of the problems people are experiencing are limitations of Tor, its hidden services were not designed for such high traffic loads and number of simultaneously connected users. Improvements to Tor hidden services scaling is constantly being made and if Silk Road is using an out of date version of Tor switching to the latest version will probably significantly help it in scaling to a larger user base. Additionally, there are settings in Torrc that can be modified to help aid with scaling, and also some things you may have in Torrc that could be causing issues.

That said, I am not sure if your scaling problems are entirely confined to Tor (but I am certain that you are hitting limitations to Tor hidden service scalability). I am sure that you can afford enough bandwidth and high enough quality dedicated servers to run SR though.

1818
We must treat the drug enforcement of today as we will treat the kidnappers of drug users in the years when drugs are legalized, to do otherwise is to claim that following orders and enforcing unjust laws is excusable and that law and orders trumps what is morally right. Law will never dictate morality, and people should be held to account for what is just not what is legal or illegal. Saying that following the law excuses DEA agents of kidnapping is analogous to saying that the Nazi war criminals should have been excused on account of just following orders. War crimes courts have already established that this is not a legitimate excuse, and it is rather scary that some people seem to want to imply that it is.

1819
Who is going to attack to average Joe? Average people will organize together to protect themselves. Why would you not protect your neighbor in return for him protecting  you? Why would you not both pool your money towards a shared neighborhood defense fund and hire a security agency to protect you? There already is tribe warfare, don't you know about the crips and the bloods and the CIA and the FSB and the police and the Zetas? There is tribe warfare going on already, and for the most part the average citizen is left out of it. Where they are not left out is in their forced funding of some organizations such as the DEA and local police. They have no choice but to pay these extortionists. Of course the Mafia in particular and many other tribes will also participate in protection rackets, but not to the extent done by the government gangs. The government already has people indoctrinated into thinking they should give them money, and they have a huge and sophisticated collections agency. So in your world there is tribe warfare, and the majority of people pick the rules of operation for the well established police tribes, in return for funding them (which is actually EXTORTED from them). Make that funding voluntary and you will find the DEA has a big gaping hole in funding where peoples extorted tax dollars used to be. Most people just do not give a shit  enough about drugs that they would voluntarily fund the DEA, even if they are against drugs they are not going to be so eager to separate with their money if they are not forced to. The DEA will then fund itself by robbing drug dealers, as they already do but it will become even more important if people are not forced to fund them via taxes. But these drug dealers are making money selling drugs as well, and it is in their best interests to hire a protection agency. This protection agency is NOT concerned with what the average person does, but it is concerned with treating DEA agents as kidnappers and robbers. A war between these tribes must happen, and already it is happening but you take the perspective of the government agencies NOT being warring tribes but rather enforcers of laws and that is where you are making your mistake. You also put far too much confidence in the concept of democracy, democracy does not work in a world where large majorities of people are susceptible to brainwashing in various degrees.

1820
I believe the reasoning is that if you use Tor and a regular browser at the same time, and your internet suddenly gets cut, then you will disconnect from the Tor network and the clearnet website at exactly the same time. That might make it easier for somebody to tie your Tor identity to -for example- your facebook account.

That is just my understanding of it. I don't consider it a big risk, but I'm open to correction.

That is indeed the main argument against using Tor and Not using Tor at the same time. It primarily applies if you are surfing to the same website with both of the connections simultaneously. For example if you are in an IRC channel using Tor with one nym and without using Tor for another nym, if your internet dies both of the accounts will ping timeout at the same time. Maybe you idle and someone DOS'es you a bunch of times looking for a consistent pattern.

1821
I already answered your questions. Everything will be privatized. The court that tries the DEA agents and the agency that enforces the sentences against them will be privately funded and volunteered by people who they have wronged. The roads will be managed by private companies. Everything will be private, including the defense agencies. There would not even be a drug war if it were not for government. Do you think that the average person will voluntarily donate money towards fighting the war on drugs? Of course not, because it really doesn't matter to Joe Blow if his neighbor smokes pot or sniffs coke, so long as his neighbor does not hurt him. He will care more about funding people to protect him from theft than he will care to fund an agency that hunts down people and confiscates their drugs and locks them up. The only way the drug enforcement agencies can exist is via one stealing profits from drug dealers and two being funded by tax dollars. Cut off the tax dollars and then they are private agencies that need to sustain themselves on stealing valuables from drug dealers. Thus they are an organized gang that specializes in armed robbery, kidnappings and similar. To protect from this band of criminals us drug users will need to fund private defense agencies. As I already pointed out, silk road is an example of such a defense agency. It uses a purely defensive methodology in order to enable us in obtaining drugs whilst avoiding the armed criminal gangs. In the future, I hope for there to be more sophisticated agencies that not only protect us as SR does but also brings the armed criminal gang members to justice on an individual level. Break into someones home and arrest them for a drug charge? Wow, hopefully you avoid the Drug User Protection Agency which is paid to hunt you down and put a bullet between your eyes. Perhaps you will only get some prison time, but the point is you become a target for acting as a criminal. If I go to prison for a drug crime, I will be happy when the drug user protection agency executes those directly responsible as well as busts me out of prison :). I will not be saying "Dear police you really goofed up and should let me out because I love you and know you are just confused about things, because really I am a nice person and good citizen I swear!".

1822
Lots of statists in this thread. "It is okay to punish kidnappers, armed robbers and murderers, but if they have acted in the name of the state it is wrong to punish them and our duty to convince them that we are good people and do not deserve to be kidnapped, robbed and murdered. In the mean time we must allow them to abuse us because they are just people looking to provide for their families!"

you all make me sick to my stomach and it is glaringly obvious that none of you law enforcement apologists have actually felt the consequences of the war on drugs in any more than an abstract sense. Maybe when you have friends doing life sentences over drugs, or have done some hard years in prison yourself, you will stop looking for every opportunity to suck off a cop that you can find. They are the ones who have treated human life as something that is worthless, they are the ones who must now experience the repercussions of that. Having a badge is not an excuse for violent crime. Period. There is not an excuse for what they do. It is injustice to not punish them. Really to think otherwise is just proof of your statist indoctrination.

1823
Security / Re: Bitcoinfog vs. doing it yourself
« on: October 31, 2012, 11:56 am »
It is the difference between unlinkability and plausible deniability.

1824
Quote
My guess is that it would be outright rejected as collectively we're not bloodthirsty barbarians hell bent on vengeance

How about this for a vote, everybody who has done prison time for drug charges or even violent crime directly related to drugs (ie: killing police) and a bunch of snitches and DEA agents all in put into a room, except the snitches and LE wear one color shirt and the others another. Then we can give each of the drug offenders a gun and have enough bullets so that each one of the LE and snitches can get shot. I bet that I would win that vote :).

1825
no offense but any black market drug dealer contributes to the drug war.

in some form down the line u are contributing the the caging of innocent people

And by having children we create all of tomorrows victims. 

Quote
The easiest thing in the world to do is criticize the current state of affairs because it is so imperfect.
I'm throwing down a challenge for you kmfkewm - what is your system of choice? Who decides the rules and who enforces them? Who builds the roads? Does it have a standing army ? How do you avoid the oppression of any one group of people by another?

Agorism is my system of choice. People in the business of building roads can build the roads, they can be funded by people who want to use roads. But it must be done on an individualistic basis, not this bullshit "you are part of society and we need roads, so our armed thugs take your money and give it to our friends to build roads, of course leaving us a nice cut !" .  If you want a fucking road built go put funding into building one or get to work. The rule is simple, do not initiate force against others. When others initiate force against you, meet them with escalating force. Private defense agencies will offer their services to protect you. SR is somewhat of a private defense agency. In return for a percentage of the profit , he maintains a server that uses security technology in an attempt to protect YOU from YOUR GOVERNMENT. They want you to go into a fucking cage , no joke. The police want to find you and they want to take everything away from you and leave you to die in a fucking cage. That is pretty large initiation of force, and thus the correct response is to reply with escalated force and unfortunately for them that means that they die. Nobody made them take the job they took, they know the laws that they will have to enforce. They made their own beds and I wont even hear anymore of a fucking drug user defending them in the slightest , it reminds me too much of Uncle Tom.

1826
Off topic / I wonder what this spammer really hopes to accomplish
« on: October 29, 2012, 10:15 am »
Ostensibly it is the promotion of the scam, but I don't necessarily buy it. Only a complete retard would fall for this. It makes it look even less legitimate than it already did at first for it to be ultra spammed on every single subforum. Scammers generally try to at least look legitimate, although some target idiots it can't possibly be effective for them to spam every single subforum versus trying to maintain a single post on every subforum.

1827
I really don't think you asked your original question clearly enough. What is your end goal ? Of course using a credit card under your real identity is bad, it doesn't necessarily destroy your anonymity to do so but it certainly doesn't do anything for your anonymity to begin with and it is generally a bad place to start from.

1828
Security / Re: DEA Alert for ALL VENDORS!!!
« on: October 29, 2012, 08:02 am »
The DEA uses undercover PO boxes registered to fake identities when they place orders....surprisingly this is also what you should be doing! This can be seen from operation raw deal if anyone needs verification read up on that.

1829
Security / Re: Why don't we use SSL?
« on: October 29, 2012, 07:57 am »
i could be wrong but isn't every connection you make to each node in the tor circuit an ssl connection?

It's encrypted, but I don't believe it's an SSL connection.

Tor uses SSL

1830
Security / Re: Why don't we use SSL?
« on: October 29, 2012, 07:55 am »
So we do we use GPG if there is no exit node?

Hmm it seems I know much less about how all this works than I thought.

you use gpg because even though the connection is encrypted all the way up to the server your message is not encrypted when it is on the server. GPG takes care of that.

Pages: 1 ... 120 121 [122] 123 124 ... 249