Replying to Avatar tree 木

I think we're getting somewhere.

To me, breaking into someone else's property (server) and burning documents (deleting) sounds like a violent act. Even if you had an open door, I still see it as violence and aggression.

> I can use direct (non-violent) action against anyone I dislike

Sure, same as operators of white-suprematist racist websites. The point is when it becomes violent. I haven't seen any violence from those who do whitedating, whereas I do see it on the other side.
Avatar
L0la L33tz 3d ago

Okay. Since you identify as an anarcho-capitalist, letd use some language of the philosophy you follow to maybe help you understand.

Rothbard defined private property as anything that is a scarce resource.

While a server is considered private property under this framework, data is not - first because it is words, second because it can be indefinitely copied, backedup, and redistributed.

Without getting into whether we find it justified to break into someone else‘s server or not you state that this is violence, while I believe that this is a pretty insane distortion of the term which will only lead us toward a future where words no longer have any meaning.

Its just one of the many ways in which many ancaps are inherently nonsensical: you claim words should be free and do not hurt anyone, then claim that deleting a spreadsheet is a criminal offense (which both, btw, are nothing but words).

Second, you can argue that the founder of the site engaged in direct action, and i dont have a problem with the site existing per se. But action always reaps a reaction - and in this case one that i support. Crying about it just makes you sound like a sore loser.

Fyi, since such data is usually backedup, Im sure the site is already running elsewhere again.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
tree 木 3d ago

I think you're conflating two different things. I'm also against intellectual property and digital monopolies on ideas or information. But breaking into someone's server isn't about copying information - it's about violating their physical infrastructure and their autonomy over their own tools.

The server is physical property that someone built and maintains. Breaking into it violates their control over their own equipment and destroys their work. This isn't about state-defined "property rights" - it's about basic respect for the boundary between your domain and someone else's. If I break into your house and burn your diary, the problem isn't copyright on your words - it's that I invaded your space and destroyed what you created.

I don't know or care if it's legally criminal, but it's clearly unethical. Your "data can be infinitely copied" argument would justify any digital intrusion - no privacy, no security, no boundaries. Anyone with technical skills could do whatever they want to anyone else's systems.

For me, real anarchism means voluntary cooperation and mutual respect for autonomy - not "whoever can hack wins".

Avatar
L0la L33tz 3d ago

Sorry my guy, but this isn‘t going anywhere as you continue to misrepresent what i say to fit your narrative. Not fun and not productive 👋

Avatar
Hanshan 2d ago

whoa whoa whoa whoa

You're trying to say that because the server is digital that accessing it and changing it without the rightful owners consent is NOT violence?!

where exactly is this boundary that we cross where the word violence becomes meaningless?

because it sounds like you've already made that call and it's ALREADY meaningless.

Avatar
mister_monster 2d ago

I wonder what the response would be if a publishing house wiped Anna's archive.

Avatar
Hanshan 2d ago

"it was just words and therefore non-scarce. so it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle."