6 ms·

This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. > there are the bad guys with guns ("the state") that can

by pfraze 13y ago

This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. > there are the bad guys with guns ("the state") that can interrupt the operation any moment and try to seize the money This is just childish. There are much worse guys with guns that lack legal and political processes. They generally don't bother us because the state protects citizens. Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law. Otherwise, expect to be treated as a criminal.

piratebroadcast 13y ago
"This is just childish"- I checked out the twitter handle of the author. He's 16.
- tempeh 13y ago
  Don't marginalize people by their age. That's not an argument.
  - aric 13y ago
    Ageism is never good. However, it perhaps helps to explain his or her mentality. Conflating law with ethics is probably more likely in younger people given the dynamics of authority, or so it seems to me. There's obviously no shortage of people of all ages who are prone to equating [an authority that commands obedience] with [an authority of subjective moral validity]. As any struggle for freedom and liberation movement throughout history will attest, the dynamics of law vs. ethics are often in deep conflict. Time after time, subservient people who "just follow orders" obey cruelty. Heroes resist and are sacrificed. I digress. In the context of the drug war and voluntary interactions among consenting people, [illegal] markets are the logical way to maintain liberation and resistance to [legal] tyranny.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > Conflating law with ethics is probably more likely in younger people given the dynamics of authority, or so it seems to me. Assuming that somebody progresses through Lawrence Kohlberg's 'stages of moral development' in order as they develop, that seems reasonable. However, the development of this system seems to be evidence that the author does not conflate ethics and the law. Trading drugs is presumably illegal in the authors jurisdiction, yet the author presumably believes themself to be acting ethically in the development of a system that facilitates the trade of drugs. If the author were conflating the law and morality, then he likely would not develop this system because it would facilitate illegal(therefore immoral) behavior. This does not seem to be the case; the author seems to be capable of separating morality and legality.
      - aric 13y ago
        I'm not sure if you're mistaken about who I'm referring to. My reply was in continued reference to the poster who called the mere act of posting about SR 2.0 "inappropriate." > pfraze: "This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. ... Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law. Otherwise, expect to be treated as a criminal." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947 Equating resistance of tyranny, and even the discussion surrounding it, as being "inappropriate" alone exemplifies, at least partially, the conflation of authority with a moral imperative. Then he or she makes this clear by blatantly suggesting that the only [appropriate] method of resistance is limited to the context of authority. That's patently absurd, of course. In any real-world application of people attempting to liberate themselves conscientiously, wherever law is oppressing them, usually they cannot attempt to do so without serious action, resistance, and cultural pressure: not remaining shackled. Free action breaks barriers. It creates a social impetus for the increase of people to follow and change to occur (culturally or legally).
        jlgreco 13y ago
        > "I'm not sure if you're mistaken about who I'm referring to." Yes, I was mistaken.
lukejduncan 13y ago
Should we stop advertising Tor?
- pfraze 13y ago
  No, because Tor is a tool for anonymizing Web traffic, and it's not against the law to use the Web anonymously. It is against the law, by definition, to participate in a black market.
  - killerpopiller 13y ago
    it is a p2p-market which might offer anonymity. It is a medium, nothing more nothing less.
    - pfraze 13y ago
      The readme advertises the project as a black market, as does the name. EDIT: jlgreco, I can't reply to you, so I'll respond here. > So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it? The Silk Road was a black market, so 2.0 would need to be pretty explicit that it's NOT a black market to overcome that-- but it's not. It seems pretty intent on carrying that legacy. I wouldn't call Tor the "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic"; I'd call it the "Thing-to-avoid-surveillance-omatic." This, in keeping with the history of the Silk Road, I'd call the "Thing-to-sell-drugs-omatic."
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        So to be clear, do you oppose this because of what it facilitates, or do you oppose it because of what the author indents it to facilitate? If the author gave it all of the same properties and abilities, claimed that he intended it to share knitting patterns, named it "Yarn Road", and never mentioned a single thing about drugs, would it bother you?
goshakkk 13y ago
Well, what else is the state if not a group of criminals who, through use of violence, coerce people into accepting their authority and following their rules (which in most cases don't protect the interest of the people, only the interest of the state)? It's a pretty libertarian/voluntarist view. There is nothing childish about it. I listed the state as an example because the state is seemingly the only entity which tries to outlaw voluntary peaceful exchanges. There is a term for practice of peaceful human action that for some weird reason is disallowed by the state [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics
- pfraze 13y ago
  You're right that the state holds a monopoly on violence. You're wrong that the interests of the state are significantly misaligned from the interests of the people, or that black markets are wholly benign in nature. Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish - as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction. It's an overly-extreme position. I do think that automated systems that don't require bureaucratic governance are a good idea, so I'm particularly annoyed by projects like this because it can create a negative public image. You can apply the concepts much more proactively.
  - stealsomesteel 13y ago
    >as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction This is bullshit. You definitely didn't live under corrupt south america regimes. Or in Soviet Union. Or in Belarus (author's location AFAICS). If the law is very bad (e.g. death penalty for homosexuality), then it's not people who are wrong when they're breaking it.
    - goshakkk 13y ago
      In there, they don't allow you to practice peaceful protest to the current regime by simply walking into the streets and clapping. No signs, no speeches, no anything. Just a crowd clapping is outlawed. Among other things, they fined a one-handed (!) man for clapping (!). Do you think it is proper to still practice obedience to the rulers in this case? What is different in the case of anonymous voluntary exchange? Sure, they can outlaw clapping. Or breathing. Or being over 1m tall. Or anything. But just the fact that these people might tell you "breathing is bad" or "being 1m+ is terrible" does not make it actually this way.
bandushrew 13y ago
"Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state." wait, what? when did subverting the state become a bad thing?
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  Whether it is or isn't doesn't change the premise that it's unwise to advertise that you're subverting it.
  - bandushrew 13y ago
    The wisdom of that could be argued either way, and almost certainly depends on context. In this specific case however, he isn't advertising that he is subverting the state, so far as I can tell? what am I missing?
fragsworth 13y ago
Just because it appears at first glance to be a tool to subvert the state doesn't mean you should dismiss the possibility of legitimate uses. Bitcoin, tor, bittorrent, etc.? Come on.
- pfraze 13y ago
  "Appears?" It's called Silk Road 2.0 and described as a tool to run black markets without the possibility of state intervention.
  - jsnk 13y ago
    Why are you so scared of black market? It's just another word for people trying to make transactions with one another voluntarily.
    - pfraze 13y ago
      We might just have a semantic disagreement, but Wikipedia supports the definition that I'm using [1]: > A black market or underground economy is the market in which goods or services are traded illegally. The key distinction of a black market trade is that the transaction itself is illegal. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market
      - baddox 13y ago
        Your two semantic proposals are completely compatible.
        pfraze 13y ago
        They really shouldn't be.
  - aric 13y ago
    Where oppression exists, resistance should exist.
baddox 13y ago
> There are much worse guys with guns that lack legal and political processes. Where? This seems clearly false to me. > Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law. Making laws easy to break seems to be one of the best ways to accomplish policy change.
mindcrime 13y ago
This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. OTOH, I can't imagine how anything could possibly be more appropriate. I think everyone should publicly advertise, and work on, tools for subverting the State.

by pfraze 13y ago

piratebroadcast 13y ago

"This is just childish"- I checked out the twitter handle of the author. He's 16.

tempeh 13y ago
Don't marginalize people by their age. That's not an argument.
- aric 13y ago
  Ageism is never good. However, it perhaps helps to explain his or her mentality. Conflating law with ethics is probably more likely in younger people given the dynamics of authority, or so it seems to me. There's obviously no shortage of people of all ages who are prone to equating [an authority that commands obedience] with [an authority of subjective moral validity]. As any struggle for freedom and liberation movement throughout history will attest, the dynamics of law vs. ethics are often in deep conflict. Time after time, subservient people who "just follow orders" obey cruelty. Heroes resist and are sacrificed. I digress. In the context of the drug war and voluntary interactions among consenting people, [illegal] markets are the logical way to maintain liberation and resistance to [legal] tyranny.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > Conflating law with ethics is probably more likely in younger people given the dynamics of authority, or so it seems to me. Assuming that somebody progresses through Lawrence Kohlberg's 'stages of moral development' in order as they develop, that seems reasonable. However, the development of this system seems to be evidence that the author does not conflate ethics and the law. Trading drugs is presumably illegal in the authors jurisdiction, yet the author presumably believes themself to be acting ethically in the development of a system that facilitates the trade of drugs. If the author were conflating the law and morality, then he likely would not develop this system because it would facilitate illegal(therefore immoral) behavior. This does not seem to be the case; the author seems to be capable of separating morality and legality.
    - aric 13y ago
      I'm not sure if you're mistaken about who I'm referring to. My reply was in continued reference to the poster who called the mere act of posting about SR 2.0 "inappropriate." > pfraze: "This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. ... Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law. Otherwise, expect to be treated as a criminal." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947 Equating resistance of tyranny, and even the discussion surrounding it, as being "inappropriate" alone exemplifies, at least partially, the conflation of authority with a moral imperative. Then he or she makes this clear by blatantly suggesting that the only [appropriate] method of resistance is limited to the context of authority. That's patently absurd, of course. In any real-world application of people attempting to liberate themselves conscientiously, wherever law is oppressing them, usually they cannot attempt to do so without serious action, resistance, and cultural pressure: not remaining shackled. Free action breaks barriers. It creates a social impetus for the increase of people to follow and change to occur (culturally or legally).
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > "I'm not sure if you're mistaken about who I'm referring to." Yes, I was mistaken.

lukejduncan 13y ago

Should we stop advertising Tor?

pfraze 13y ago
No, because Tor is a tool for anonymizing Web traffic, and it's not against the law to use the Web anonymously. It is against the law, by definition, to participate in a black market.
- killerpopiller 13y ago
  it is a p2p-market which might offer anonymity. It is a medium, nothing more nothing less.
  - pfraze 13y ago
    The readme advertises the project as a black market, as does the name. EDIT: jlgreco, I can't reply to you, so I'll respond here. > So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it? The Silk Road was a black market, so 2.0 would need to be pretty explicit that it's NOT a black market to overcome that-- but it's not. It seems pretty intent on carrying that legacy. I wouldn't call Tor the "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic"; I'd call it the "Thing-to-avoid-surveillance-omatic." This, in keeping with the history of the Silk Road, I'd call the "Thing-to-sell-drugs-omatic."
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      So to be clear, do you oppose this because of what it facilitates, or do you oppose it because of what the author indents it to facilitate? If the author gave it all of the same properties and abilities, claimed that he intended it to share knitting patterns, named it "Yarn Road", and never mentioned a single thing about drugs, would it bother you?

goshakkk 13y ago

Well, what else is the state if not a group of criminals who, through use of violence, coerce people into accepting their authority and following their rules (which in most cases don't protect the interest of the people, only the interest of the state)? It's a pretty libertarian/voluntarist view. There is nothing childish about it. I listed the state as an example because the state is seemingly the only entity which tries to outlaw voluntary peaceful exchanges. There is a term for practice of peaceful human action that for some weird reason is disallowed by the state [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics

pfraze 13y ago
You're right that the state holds a monopoly on violence. You're wrong that the interests of the state are significantly misaligned from the interests of the people, or that black markets are wholly benign in nature. Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish - as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction. It's an overly-extreme position. I do think that automated systems that don't require bureaucratic governance are a good idea, so I'm particularly annoyed by projects like this because it can create a negative public image. You can apply the concepts much more proactively.
- stealsomesteel 13y ago
  >as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction This is bullshit. You definitely didn't live under corrupt south america regimes. Or in Soviet Union. Or in Belarus (author's location AFAICS). If the law is very bad (e.g. death penalty for homosexuality), then it's not people who are wrong when they're breaking it.
  - goshakkk 13y ago
    In there, they don't allow you to practice peaceful protest to the current regime by simply walking into the streets and clapping. No signs, no speeches, no anything. Just a crowd clapping is outlawed. Among other things, they fined a one-handed (!) man for clapping (!). Do you think it is proper to still practice obedience to the rulers in this case? What is different in the case of anonymous voluntary exchange? Sure, they can outlaw clapping. Or breathing. Or being over 1m tall. Or anything. But just the fact that these people might tell you "breathing is bad" or "being 1m+ is terrible" does not make it actually this way.

bandushrew 13y ago

"Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state." wait, what? when did subverting the state become a bad thing?

acjohnson55 13y ago
Whether it is or isn't doesn't change the premise that it's unwise to advertise that you're subverting it.
- bandushrew 13y ago
  The wisdom of that could be argued either way, and almost certainly depends on context. In this specific case however, he isn't advertising that he is subverting the state, so far as I can tell? what am I missing?

fragsworth 13y ago

Just because it appears at first glance to be a tool to subvert the state doesn't mean you should dismiss the possibility of legitimate uses. Bitcoin, tor, bittorrent, etc.? Come on.

pfraze 13y ago
"Appears?" It's called Silk Road 2.0 and described as a tool to run black markets without the possibility of state intervention.
- jsnk 13y ago
  Why are you so scared of black market? It's just another word for people trying to make transactions with one another voluntarily.
  - pfraze 13y ago
    We might just have a semantic disagreement, but Wikipedia supports the definition that I'm using [1]: > A black market or underground economy is the market in which goods or services are traded illegally. The key distinction of a black market trade is that the transaction itself is illegal. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market
    - baddox 13y ago
      Your two semantic proposals are completely compatible.
      - pfraze 13y ago
        They really shouldn't be.
- aric 13y ago
  Where oppression exists, resistance should exist.

baddox 13y ago

> There are much worse guys with guns that lack legal and political processes. Where? This seems clearly false to me. > Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law. Making laws easy to break seems to be one of the best ways to accomplish policy change.

mindcrime 13y ago

This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. OTOH, I can't imagine how anything could possibly be more appropriate. I think everyone should publicly advertise, and work on, tools for subverting the State.