What do you think about digital anarchy?

[Anarchist420]

I think it's a great idea, and it's being advocated by Dr. Paul.

The Articles of Confederation did not allow federal regulation of the internet, so there shouldn't be any federal regulation of the internet.

I know that digital anarchy may or may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than any regulation.

 

[Nintendesert]

The articles of what?

 

[dmcowen674]

What do you think about digital anarchy?

I think it's a great idea, and it's being advocated by Dr. Paul.

The Articles of Confederation did not allow federal regulation of the internet, so there shouldn't be any federal regulation of the internet.

I know that digital anarchy may or may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than any regulation.

The Internets is controlled by a handful of Corporations.

Unless people start stringing wire across the nation and use modems again, the people have no control of the Internets.

Only chance would be a wireless system like CB radio but with digital conversion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Are you okay with the only cable company that serves your area deciding they want to restrict access to websites they don't approve of?

Do you want it to be legal for hackers to infiltrate and steal personal information off computers?

Should people be able to spam and to attack servers to set up spam relays without consequence?

Virus and worm writing should be legal?

You okay with DDOS attacks that cripple or take down important services?

Be careful what you wish for. And I highly doubt Ron Paul is really in favor of "digital anarchy".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Internets is controlled by a handful of Corporations.

Unless people start stringing wire across the nation and use modems again, the people have no control of the Internets.

Only chance would be a wireless system like CB radio but with digital conversion.

You wanted to government to act as thought police to keep people from insulting you. You are hardly one to speak against controlling the internet.

 

[Nintendesert]

You wanted to government to act as thought police to keep people from insulting you. You are hardly one to speak against controlling the internet.

Government control is ok, corporation control is bad.

 

[dmcowen674]

You wanted to government to act as thought police to keep people from insulting you. You are hardly one to speak against controlling the internet.

I'm talking about infrastructure control not ideological control.

 

[Anarchist420]

Are you okay with the only cable company that serves your area deciding they want to restrict access to websites they don't approve of?

Sure. They'll go out of business quickly if they don't serve their customers.

Do you want it to be legal for hackers to infiltrate and steal personal information off computers?

If they take things away from other people, then that's stealing and there are laws against stealing. If they simply spy on people, then the market will take care of ways to prevent that. We're already being spied on and internet regulation hasn't stopped that.

Should people be able to spam and to attack servers to set up spam relays without consequence?

Just because it's legal doesn't mean that those who do it won't suffer consequences.

Virus and worm writing should be legal?

Of course.

You okay with DDOS attacks that cripple or take down important services?

There are market protections against that stuff. People can back up their data securely in more than one place.

I for one, like freedom of speech and freedom of infrastructure. You can't have one without the other.

I'm talking about infrastructure control not ideological control.

If infrastructure control is taken away, then free speech will be taken away also.

 

[cybrsage]

The articles of what?

He is talking about the failed attempt at government first installed in the US after we won our war against England. We ditched those things a few hundred years ago because they were horrible.

 

[cybrsage]

Anarchy does not work for the weak have no protection against the strong in any form of anarchy...unless they band together, proclaim a leader for their group, give him their power, create rules so the group works together well...basically forms a government to protect them.

Without a formal group to protect the weak, the strong rule unopposed. Anarchy is not a solution.

 

[soulcougher73]

The articles of what?

This. Last i heard they are not the law of the land. And on a side note...no duh they didnt talk about the internet...they also didnt talk about moon landings and other things that all happened after those people were dead.

 

[Jaskalas]

Government control is ok, corporation control is bad.

This subject is framed wrong.

Singularity is bad, Pluralism is good. AKA, competition. We need access to multiple providers, where if one screws us we are free to jump to another. Hit them where it hurts in their pocket books and give us the freedom to do so.

Can't ensure that sort of protection from the government. The government cannot protect us from itself, only from corporations. Therefore corporation control is best as the government can then be a watchdog against them.

Liberty only works in balance. Creating centralization destroys that balance.

 

[cybrsage]

So if singularity is bad and pluralism is good - does that mean we get to have several federal governments, each competing with the others to control the nation?

 

[Jaskalas]

So if singularity is bad and pluralism is good - does that mean we get to have several federal governments, each competing with the others to control the nation?

Yes. We call those States.

Moreover, they shouldn't fight against each other, but for their own natural right of self determination.

 

[cybrsage]

Yes. We call those States.

Moreover, they shouldn't fight against each other, but for their own natural right of self determination.

So each state is able to be a federal government? Interesting, when did this change in the Constitution happen?

 

[cubby1223]

The Articles of Confederation

No one can possibly be as stupid as you make yourself out to be.

Thus the only possibility is you are lying to get a laugh out of the responses.

Only plausible explanation.

Goodbye.

 

[CallMeJoe]

So each state is able to be a federal government? Interesting, when did this change in the Constitution happen?

I was under the impression that the issue of fully "Sovereign States" was rather forcefully settled circa 1865...

edit: this impression may be somewhat colored by my residence in the Original Secession State.

 

[xj0hnx]

I think it's a great idea, and it's being advocated by Dr. Paul.

The Articles of Confederation did not allow federal regulation of the internet, so there shouldn't be any federal regulation of the internet.

I know that digital anarchy may or may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than any regulation.

I don't think you understand the difference between freedom, and anarchy, as a matter of fact I don't think you actually know what anarchy is. Proof of this is in your response ...

If they take things away from other people, then that's stealing and there are laws against stealing. If they simply spy on people, then the market will take care of ways to prevent that. We're already being spied on and internet regulation hasn't stopped that.

Wrong, there are no laws against stealing in anarchy. Like Cybersage said, anarchy is the strong preying on the weak. Dead Kennedys said it best ...

Anarchy sounds good to me, then someone asked who'd fix the sewers, would the rednecks just play king of the neighborhood? How many liberators, really want to be dictators ,every theory has its holes, When real life steps in.

 

[cybrsage]

I was under the impression that the issue of fully "Sovereign States" was rather forcefully settled circa 1865...

edit: this impression may be somewhat colored by my residence in the Original Secession State.

Yep, each State is sovereign...except for when the Fed Gov says they are not.

 

[Anarchist420]

Wrong, there are no laws against stealing in anarchy. Like Cybersage said, anarchy is the strong preying on the weak. Dead Kennedys said it best ... Anarchy sounds good to me, then someone asked who'd fix the sewers, would the rednecks just play king of the neighborhood? How many liberators, really want to be dictators ,every theory has its holes, When real life steps in.

Well, I was speaking to those who thinks the state protects private property. Thieves may suffer justice for their actions under a stateless society (i.e., anarchy) plus private thieves do not always experience justice for their actions under a state. As for the state, it never suffers for its aggressions and it pays people with stolen money when it does admit wrongdoing.

I mean, didn't the Nazis want to wipe out who they thought were weak? They tricked people into being sterilized or into letting them be experimented on. Stalin had weak people murdered also. Generally, the dumbest can't escape states like those before they get murdered while Stalin "was both intellectual and killer".

I admit anarchy isn't perfect because humans aren't perfect, but the idea that we can give up liberty for security has holes in it too.