I actually dislike and publicly criticize the CCC - havent attended the event in the last 4 years; that doesnt mean that I can‘t like specific projects that are presented there.
You say you want to understand my arguments, yet you over-exaggerate and dramaticize them into things I never said, so this isn‘t very fun for me xx
It really makes no sense, criticize the CCC but applaud one of the most intolerant talk, which is literally about coming to someone else property and burning it (plus expose all people there). These actions are precisely what making CCC more socialist, collectivist and tribal.
Again, you do not seem to understand the principle of direct action and continue to throw everything you disagree with into a bucket you don‘t like
Not very intellectually stimulating
I understand what direct action means. Cypherpunks build cryptographic tools as direct action against authoritarians who are actually oppressing people. Direct action makes sense against those committing violence against others or destroying their property.
BUT direct action is not meant to be used against people who simply hold different opinions and aren't factually harming anyone. Going to someone's property to burn things and expose attendees isn't targeting oppressors - it's targeting people for their ideas and associations.
I can use direct (non-violent) action against anyone I dislike. If you disagree with this you must have a government to arbitrate, which voids your „i am an anarchist“ self-proclamation. Hope that helps!
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.
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.
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".
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 👋
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.
You can use any action against anyone you dislike, and without a government to arbitrate, if you can defend yourself, you get away with it. Someone disagreeing with what I just said appeals to a government by your logic.
Destruction of property is violent.
