The Political Thread

[TordelBack]

You are freer to post your opinions and knowledge on the internet than you are in the real world. If you stand with a sandwich board protesting something and handing out leaflets outside a government building, a police station or a factory, chances are you'll only reach a few people and probably find yourself moved on or even imprisoned.

Apples and oranges. The only circumstance in which the cops (here) would intervene in a personal protest is if I was being obstructive of a thoroughfare, violent or causing significant public offense - none of that can apply to a blog.  If I was to be obstructive or disruptive on the 'net I would have to do it through a DDS or threats of violence, and I would then be pursued and if possible prosecuted. No-one (in Ireland) is going to be arrested or even moved-on for a passive protest - it's only where persistent abuse or physical obstruction enters the picture (as with water protests - and even the the extreme harassment of meter installers was handled by a small exclusion zone around the works).  I fully accept that the internet is powerful, if randomly so, but I just don't see a fundamental difference, other than the elimination of propinquity from association.

[The Legendary Shark]

Okay then, some other examples.

You are free to use whichever search engine or website you wish. Government does not force you to use any 'licensed' engine or site. In the real world, you can only use services approved by government.

You are responsible for your own security, with anti-virus and firewall software which you are free to choose as you wish. Your choice is not limited to those approved by government.

You are free to make your own rules on your own website, those rules do not have to be approved by government. Facebook doesn't allow pornography because it would lose members (no pun intended!) and not because some government forbids it.

Fundamental Non Aggression Treaty. No government forces us to not act aggressively towards one another, unlike in real life where government officials and police are routinely aggressive, and by and large the majority of people adhere to this NAT as a matter of personal responsibility.

Free society. Nobody is forced to be here, to contribute or to engage with people or websites they don't want to. In the real world, people are forced to fill in census forms, contribute to things they don't agree with and engage with officials they'd rather have nothing to do with.

The right to privacy. There is no compulsion to give up personal information, unlike in real life where government thinks it has the right to demand any information it wants. You can give out personal information on the web if you want but nobody's going to fine you for refusing.

Free speech.

Non-interventionism. People don't generally interfere with the private lives of fellow internet users, allowing for anonymity and privacy. In real life, governments don't like you being anonymous or private.

The right to broadcast. You can make as many movies or podcasts as you like and upload them to Youtube or a personal server with no need for government permission, censorship or extortion (broadcast license).

Lack of centralised control. There is no Virtual Parliament, no VMPs or Virtual Monarchs to decree how you must and must not behave.

The right to secrecy. You can encrypt your emails, use a Tor Browser or anonymisation software to keep your sensitive communications away from prying eyes. In the real world, governments believe they have the right to bug your 'phone calls, intercept your text messages and open your letters.

Circumvention of regulations you don't agree with. For example, Pirate Bay. (Although these circumventions do exist in the real world as well.)

The right to ignore. You can ignore people you don't like or find intimidating or offensive at the push of a button. Try doing that with Inchmale of the Council.

The right to learn. You can study anything you want and not have to rely on government approved syllabuses or texts or pay a fee for the privilege.

The right to innovate. The internet grew, and continues to evolve, in a spontaneous and uncoordinated, unplanned fashion. No government devised, molded or authorised it and no government can control its continued evolution.

I agree that the internet is not a perfect anarchy (I don't believe there's any such beast) but it is an excellent example of how an anarchic system can work without the meddlesome, predatory and restrictive mechanisms of government.

[Dandontdare]

There have been functioning alternatives ... perhaps most successfully, the Spanish Revolution of 1936.

That would be the one that led to four decades of fascist rule then? You have an odd definition of successful.

So it would appear, when taken out of context like that. I believe my next paragraph touches on your observation.

Indeed, but I maintain that a revolution that is so quickly and thoroughly swept away is not successful at all - if it doesn't have the physical means and/or popular support to survive it's just a well-meaning but doomed experiment.

(Edit - I can see the discussion has moved on ....  )

[The Legendary Shark]

So, by that logic, imposed fascism is more successful, and therefore more desirable, than a grass-roots system instituted and run by the people? Might makes right?

[JPMaybe]

Okay then, some other examples...

Whatevs.  None of that trivial shit has anything to do with people being fed, roads being maintained, children not being sent up chimneys, minority rights being enforced, food not poisoning people, schools not being utter shit, endangered species being protected, or any of the other thousand and one things that actually matter and require central planning and the coercion of authority to stop greedy myopic dickbags stomping all over.  So yeah, the internet is a great example of anarchy if you think fucking 4Chan is equally as beneficial as any of those things.

[TordelBack]

Don't mean to dismiss your points Sharky, but I haven't got time to address them properly at the mo - but I would make the general observation that you seem to be equating the internet with a single state or society, whereas in fact it is closer to a world of many states and societies - thus this forum, for example, is akin to one 'state of the internet' wherein you are obliged to give a valid E-mail and abide by a CoC to participate - much as  you need to provide data to a real-world state in which you are resident.  It might be an easier choice to rage-quit 2000adonline than the UK, because the consequences are vastly different,  but the choice remains.

Meanwhile, while using the internet for all the purposes you list, you need to reside within the real-world and use real-world infrastructure while doing so,much of stemming from the state and all of it regulated by the state: these are pre-conditions of the internet, and I'd argue that the freedoms that follow are largely an illusion.  Your putative internet trader has to use real world banking to realise their assets, has to pay tax, has to abide by trading standards...Further, if I wish to gaze upon Pamela Anderson's charms on the internet I have to go to considerable effort to prevent my perversion being permanently recorded, whereas in the real world all I have to do is pay cash and use a newsagent a few streets over and no-one is any the wiser.

[Dandontdare]

So, by that logic, imposed fascism is more successful, and therefore more desirable, than a grass-roots system instituted and run by the people? Might makes right?

Bullshit - stop putting words in my mouth. I never said desirable and  I don't believe might is right.

[The Legendary Shark]

I apologise. It was wrong of me to write "more desirable."

I think it's about how one measures success. In terms of longevity, the events in question were certainly not successful. In terms of what can be learned from them, in the fact that they could exist at all, is a measure of some success. Just because something doesn't last very long at first, that doesn't mean it's useless. The first powered flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. Less than a century later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon (probably).

[TordelBack]

In fairness to the 2nd Spanish Republic, it was born in the depths of the Great Depression, and aggressively opposed by the fascist and religious powers of Europe.  To what extent the people could have seen off the nationalist falange and the syndicalists in less hostile times and made a go of their project we'll never know, but reports of the activities of the usual homegrown bullyboys that traipse around after every revolution don't make for happy reading.

[The Legendary Shark]

No probs, Tordels. There are obviously many differences between the real and virtual worlds. I would hold up this site as an analogue to a cooperative rather than a nation state and the servers, computers, websites and what have you as analogues to real world infrastructure and services. It is not a direct correlation in any way - merely an example of differing attitudes and exploration of ideas.

And when the bankers abolish cash, which is definitely what they're trying to do next, they'll know exactly what you spend your money on.

[TordelBack]

You're not wrong there. The number of people I know who now exist almost entirely without cash is amazing - whereas having no access to credit myself, my daily life is almost entirely cash-based, so I find the use of credit cards to buy a cup of coffee or even a pint quite bizarre (although my regular bills are all internetted EFT now, gawds bless the idiot banker who decided that me having a sole-trader business account isn't the same as 'me' having a bank account). That said, seeing the vast sums of undeclared cash that change hands on even a closely-supervised state-funded construction project, I imagine there are huge vested interests in maintaining its existence - especially in a state where politicians live in the pockets of developers, or are such themselves.

[The Legendary Shark]

I don't know. What you say about crooked politicians and cash-stuffed envelopes sounds true but - there's always a way around it for the certain few. Anonymous debit cards, perhaps? Buy a card, similar to a 'phone sim, with a few grand on it? Stuff that won't be available to or affordable by the majority. Those who make the rules can more easily break the rules.

But having everyone forced to use digital money is so dangerous. Your pay goes straight into the bank and you can't draw it out to keep a stash in your underpants drawer for emergencies (keep £1,000 in cash in your sock and it's yours; put it in a bank and it can be leveraged to create nine grand or more in loans to other people victims). Tax men and magistrates and any government toady able to just dip in at will. Negative interest rates gnawing away at your deposits. No way of throwing a couple of coppers' worth of change into the charity box. All those overcharging "mistakes" made under direct debits that cost you time and effort to rectify, if you even notice them, will at least double. And the next time a bank needs bailing out, they cut out the government and just take what they want from you. Run afoul of the authorities and they can just switch your account off. Track everything you buy, everywhere you go. No more cash in hand work.

Not good. Not good at all.

[Modern Panther]

You are free to use whichever search engine or website you wish.

You are using the services of largely unregulated corporations, who sell your information to advertisers.

You are responsible for your own security, with anti-virus and firewall software which you are free to choose as you wish. Your choice is not limited to those approved by government.

You can purchase software from a variety of companies, who have a vested interest in keeping you afraid.

You are free to make your own rules on your own website, those rules do not have to be approved by government

You are free to purchase server space.

No government forces us to not act aggressively towards one another, unlike in real life where government officials and police are routinely aggressive, and by and large the majority of people adhere to this NAT as a matter of personal responsibility.

Have you used the internet?

The right to privacy. There is no compulsion to give up personal information, unlike in real life where government thinks it has the right to demand any information it wants.

Unless you use a search engine. Or go to any website which places cookies on your device.  Or use social media.  Just about everything is tracked and sold to advertisers.

The right to broadcast

Purchased services.

Lack of centralised control.

Other than that of corporations who own the infrastructure and whose services you are purchasing.

Anarchy isn't just a lack of regulating central government.  It's a people without leaders.  The internet has leaders - they're the people whose services you're buying, or the people who are selling your information to advertisers.

This isn't anarchy, this is rampant and unregulated capitalism.

[The Legendary Shark]

You are free to use whichever search engine or website you wish.

You are using the services of largely unregulated corporations, who sell your information to advertisers.

You are responsible for your own security, with anti-virus and firewall software which you are free to choose as you wish. Your choice is not limited to those approved by government.

You can purchase software from a variety of companies, who have a vested interest in keeping you afraid.

You are free to make your own rules on your own website, those rules do not have to be approved by government

You are free to purchase server space.

No government forces us to not act aggressively towards one another, unlike in real life where government officials and police are routinely aggressive, and by and large the majority of people adhere to this NAT as a matter of personal responsibility.

Have you used the internet?

The right to privacy. There is no compulsion to give up personal information, unlike in real life where government thinks it has the right to demand any information it wants.

Unless you use a search engine. Or go to any website which places cookies on your device.  Or use social media.  Just about everything is tracked and sold to advertisers.

The right to broadcast

Purchased services.

Lack of centralised control.

Other than that of corporations who own the infrastructure and whose services you are purchasing.

Anarchy isn't just a lack of regulating central government.  It's a people without leaders.  The internet has leaders - they're the people whose services you're buying, or the people who are selling your information to advertisers.

This isn't anarchy, this is rampant and unregulated capitalism.

1: There are search engines that don't record information. Any personal information they have about me I'm happy for them to sell. 2000ADonline, for example, thinks I'm a 240 year old male.

2: I use Linux, so have little use for anti-virus or firewall software.

3: Or use a free service.

4: Have you?

5: There are plenty of plug-ins and such to limit/stop this. Also, learn how to protect yourself. It's not rocket surgery.

6: Or free services.

7: Or the Open Source alternatives. (Yes, you generally have to pay to get online but that's the interface between reality and virtuality - the only bit they can monopolise and so, of course, they do.)

Yes, anarchy is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." A leader is only a leader to those who follow. It's easy enough to not follow. Strange how you equate the word "leader" with the concept of capitalism.

There is capitalism on the internet but, unlike real life, it's not mandatory.

[Modern Panther]

I don't equate capitalism with the concept of leaders.  I also don't equate anarchy with purchasing services from the small group of people powerful enough to sell it, under terms I can either accept or go without.