Re: Welcome To Anarchast!

[Kevin Gallagher]

On Jul 12, 2017 4:32 AM, "juan"  wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:15:19 -0700
Kurt Buff  wrote:

>
> Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises for starters,

conservative garbage


That may or may not be true, but either way I gain an advantage from
reading it. If I agree with the messages in the readings, then I gain a new
viewpoint. If I disagree, I understand how they think and can perhaps
better counter their viewpoints through better counter-examples, etc.




would
> be an eye opener for you.
>
> Kurt

Re: Welcome To Anarchast!

[Kevin Gallagher]

Thanks to everyone for your replies!

On Jul 11, 2017 9:16 PM, "Kurt Buff" <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Kevin Gallagher
<kevin.gallag...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is
the
> rejection of heirarchies. Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an oxymoron?

No, anarcho-capitalism is grounded in the understanding that free
trade among free people is a the only road to peace and prosperity.
People arrange themselves in hierarchies all the time, and it's no
crime if they do so freely.


For the life of me I can't think of any heirarchies that aren't, at least
in part, founded on deceit or force (or both). Can you please give an
example of one?

It's often a benefit. This is as opposed
to anarcho-syndicalism or various other flavors of anarchism, which
are grounded in the belief that money and trade are evil and that love
and unicorn farts are sufficient to sustain life.


I do not know these schools of anarchism, but that doesn't seem like a fair
assessment.


> The existence of currency inherently creates a heirarchy based on the
amount
> of currency one owns, does it not?

No, it does not. There are lots of things to unpack in that
statemen/questiont, but I'll just mention two:
 - Currency isn't money, as such
 - Fiat currency creation is used by anti-capitalist forces to
enrich the few at the expense of the rest of us, destroying capital in
the process.


Reading some Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises for starters, would
be an eye opener for you.


Fair enough. I will give some of this a read. If I have any questions, can
I reach out to you after I have read some?


Kurt

Re: Welcome To Anarchast!

[Kevin Gallagher]

On Jul 10, 2017 6:40 PM, "grarpamp"  wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SbKkm1PbA
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAnarchast/videos
https://anarchast.com/
https://twitter.com/anarchast
https://www.facebook.com/Anarchast/


Intereating! I will have to check these links out.



Anarchast is your home for Anarchy on the internet.
To us, Anarchy means freedom.  The desire to live without a violent,
coercive State.  Anarchy is peace, love and prosperity.


Sounds lovely. I could get on board.

  Free markets.

And, power to the people.


Power to the people. I'm all for that.

Anarchast is the world's largest anarchist/anarcho-capitalist video
podcast in the world with 3 million views on Youtube and millions of
audio downloads as well as being broadcast on satellite radio across
the world and on more than 40 terrestrial radio stations in the US.


Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is
the rejection of heirarchies. Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an
oxymoron? The existence of currency inherently creates a heirarchy based on
the amount of currency one owns, does it not?

Anarchast founded Anarchapulco, the world's first and largest
anarcho-capitalist conference held yearly in Acapulco, Mexico.

Related...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEZJ_6qgnT0gQ754yU5_1zw
https://anarchapulco.com/
https://twitter.com/Anarchapulco
https://www.facebook.com/anarchapulco

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheDollarVigilante
https://dollarvigilante.com/
https://www.twitter.com/dollarvigilante
https://www.facebook.com/DollarVigilante

https://www.youtube.com/user/jberwick9
https://www.facebook.com/jberwick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Berwick

https://paradiseacapulco.com/

Re: Scientific Progress

[Kevin Gallagher]

On 10/28/2016 10:06 AM, Razer wrote:
> Ps. Obviously, I don't hate science... as someone mentioned earlier it's
> going to require a cultural shift to literally DISARM the scientists.
> They should hold bake sales for their projects until the time they
> unhook themselves from the Pentagon and the
> "Life-extension-at-any-cost-while-not-giving-a-fuck-about-the-QUALITY-of-that-life'
> BigPharma scam.

I have to start thinking about funding soon. I better start making
brownies and selling them in places where people would care about my
research! I'm really not interested in taking dirty DoD money or
something like that.

-- 
Kevin Gallagher
Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3  BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Intercept Greenwald Klein Talk Waffling Full Disclosure

[Kevin Gallagher]

Thanks for the reply! I will consider these things.

The only thing that worries me is the proposal that we use the same
criteria as the people we are claiming to be criminals. Implicate the
whole family for the sins of one... It just don't seem like an
improvement to me. It implies that people who are born to privilege are
incapable of seeing the problems with the system and escaping it. I'm
not sure that's the best way, but at the moment I don't yet have an
alternative, so I will just think about it for a while.

Thanks,

Kevin


On 10/20/2016 01:16 PM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2016 09:50 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
>> Hello Razer,
>>
>> I actually don't disagree with you at all. I  agree with the
>> "transparency for the powerful, privacy for the weak" mindset that is so
>> ingrained in cypherpunk culture. I was just wondering where we draw the
>> line between the powerful and the weak.
>>
> For me that line needs to be drawn where the power over one's personal
> rights is delegated to a government.
>
>> There is no doubt in my mind that the criminals currently running for
>> government positions in the U.S. are powerful, and therefore need
>> transparency, but this brings about a few questions in my mind. Is one
>> powerful because they are related to someone who is powerful? 
>
> Could be. Neil Bush's bank in South America has quite the chokehold on
> certain parts of the South American economy.
>
>
> If so, at
>> what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be
>> considered powerful? 
>
> What say we use the government's standard for Drone Wars. They kill
> whole family and tribal blood lines... or try to.
>
> Charlie Wilson's Haquannis... al-Awalakis, other members of the
> bin-Laden family have been killed though I'm not sure of their direct
> relationship to terrorism.
>
> Is there something other than money or political
>> power that can be considered a source of power? These are just
>> considerations I want to think through, and I was wondering what your
>> take on it was.
> Sigh... Theo Roszak proposed that money and power are really just
> substitutes for, or ways of obtaining, life extension. But that doesn't
> mean age is considered wealth and power in Capitalist societies (though
> it sure does in the few undamaged tribal societies left)
>
> I ascribe to the idea that accumulation of wealth and political power
> (which is for the most part the equivalent of social power over society
> and it's individuals) for the sake of those items dynamic in controlling
> the continuation of wealth and power (hence social control) in the hands
> of oneself and one's friends is a pretty good place to begin, anyway.
>
> That implies for a start, that the wealth and power aren't shared
> voluntarily by that group and they conspire to keep it that way (in
> private). Monarchies and dictatorships are examples. The US is
> essentially a two faction soft dictatorship. 'Soft' in the sense that
> the dictators, neuropsychologically preened for media 'candidates'
> Americans get to select from, have the manufactured consent of of the
> masses that they have the right to rule.
>
>
>> My question was honestly not meant as a critique of your viewpoint, just
>> a clarification so I can think these ideas through. I'm sorry if it
>> offended you.
>
> No offense... I'm just a little testy about the upcoming two-faction of
> a one-party state erections, and everyone who actually thinks it matters
> in any real sense of the word. It's made me a bit defensive.
>
>
>> To answer your question directly: No, that's not unreasonable. I agree
>> with you on it entirely. I just want to consider the implications of
>> things such as family relationships, and where the lines are drawn.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kevin
>
>>
>> On 10/20/2016 12:41 PM, Razer wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
>>>> This is an interesting argument.
>>>>
>>>> For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives
>>>> or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who
>>>> their parents happen to be?
>>>>
>>> Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive
>>> liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone
>>> assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never
>>> been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who
>>> just happened to pick up the WRONG person)
>>>
>>> Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human
>>

Re: Intercept Greenwald Klein Talk Waffling Full Disclosure

[Kevin Gallagher]

Hello Razer,

I actually don't disagree with you at all. I  agree with the
"transparency for the powerful, privacy for the weak" mindset that is so
ingrained in cypherpunk culture. I was just wondering where we draw the
line between the powerful and the weak.

There is no doubt in my mind that the criminals currently running for
government positions in the U.S. are powerful, and therefore need
transparency, but this brings about a few questions in my mind. Is one
powerful because they are related to someone who is powerful? If so, at
what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be
considered powerful? Is there something other than money or political
power that can be considered a source of power? These are just
considerations I want to think through, and I was wondering what your
take on it was.

My question was honestly not meant as a critique of your viewpoint, just
a clarification so I can think these ideas through. I'm sorry if it
offended you.

To answer your question directly: No, that's not unreasonable. I agree
with you on it entirely. I just want to consider the implications of
things such as family relationships, and where the lines are drawn.

Thanks,

Kevin


On 10/20/2016 12:41 PM, Razer wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
>> This is an interesting argument.
>>
>> For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives
>> or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who
>> their parents happen to be?
>>
> Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive
> liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone
> assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never
> been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who
> just happened to pick up the WRONG person)
>
> Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human
> scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their
> corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy?
>
> Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can
> really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their
> right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives.
>
> So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you.
>
> Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a
> HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have
> relegated and delegated power over our lives?
>
> RR
>
>
>
>> On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>>>> https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/
>>>> youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
>>>>
>>>> Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted
>>>> substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the
>>>> archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was
>>>> published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive
>>>> have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously
>>>> secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate
>>>> herself. While the significance of particular stories has been
>>>> debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a
>>>> valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great
>>>> political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be
>>>> among the most powerful officials on the planet.
>>>>
>>>> Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist
>>>> Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and
>>>> other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort,
>>>> particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of
>>>> someone’s personal emails.
>>>>
>>> That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it
>>> applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public
>>> person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic.
>>> Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck
>>> of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out
>>> a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or
>>> president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
>>>
>>> Nor should they.
>>>
>>> Rr

-- 
Kevin Gallagher
PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
New York University Tandon School of Engineering
2 MetroTech Center, 10th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (757) 202-8961
Email: kevin.gallag...@nyu.edu
Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3  BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Intercept Greenwald Klein Talk Waffling Full Disclosure

[Kevin Gallagher]

This is an interesting argument.

For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives
or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who
their parents happen to be?

On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>> https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/
>> youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
>>
>> Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted
>> substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the
>> archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was
>> published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive
>> have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously
>> secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate
>> herself. While the significance of particular stories has been
>> debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a
>> valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great
>> political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be
>> among the most powerful officials on the planet.
>>
>> Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist
>> Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and
>> other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort,
>> particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of
>> someone’s personal emails.
>>
>
> That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it
> applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public
> person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic.
> Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck
> of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out
> a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or
> president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
>
> Nor should they.
>
> Rr

-- 
Kevin Gallagher
PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
New York University Tandon School of Engineering
2 MetroTech Center, 10th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (757) 202-8961
Email: kevin.gallag...@nyu.edu
Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3  BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature