4 ms·

That's actually why it's urgent to set this up outside of government, like the browser CA system, and develop methods to issue verification of "human" while pre

That's actually why it's urgent to set this up outside of government, like the browser CA system, and develop methods to issue verification of "human" while preserving other aspects of anonymity.

Zuiii 3y ago
There is no universe where governments will make the mistake of allowing something like the browser CA to come with into existence without "oversight" twice. That the browser CA still exists independently is nothing short of a miracle.
pixl97 3y ago
There is no outside of government, they hold a monopoly in violence.
- killjoywashere 3y ago
  Ah, there are definitely constructs that governments find more useful. Plenty of companies, for example, managed to operate on both sides of both world wars.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist: 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
  - killjoywashere 3y ago
    Great fact-checking, thank you.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Something of a personal pet peeve, but thanks ;-)

That's actually why it's urgent to set this up outside of government, like the browser CA system, and develop methods to issue verification of "human" while preserving other aspects of anonymity.

Zuiii 3y ago

There is no universe where governments will make the mistake of allowing something like the browser CA to come with into existence without "oversight" twice. That the browser CA still exists independently is nothing short of a miracle.

pixl97 3y ago

There is no outside of government, they hold a monopoly in violence.

killjoywashere 3y ago
Ah, there are definitely constructs that governments find more useful. Plenty of companies, for example, managed to operate on both sides of both world wars.
dredmorbius 3y ago
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist: 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
- killjoywashere 3y ago
  Great fact-checking, thank you.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Something of a personal pet peeve, but thanks ;-)