Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Jun 2011 18:49 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Oh boy, what do we make of this? We haven't paid that much attention to the whole thing as of yet, but with a recent public statement on why they do what they do, I think it's about time to address this thing. Yes, Lulz Security, the hacking group (or whatever they are) that's been causing quite a bit of amok on the web lately.
Thread beginning with comment 477622
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: The same Thom?
by Berend de Boer on Fri 17th Jun 2011 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The same Thom?"
Berend de Boer
Member since:
2005-10-19

Governments have a monopoly on force. That's the difference between anarchy and a country with the rule of law.

Maybe that clears things up?

Really, you think the free market should decide if you can kill someone????? That is what the free market is about?

The free market is about non-coercive interactions between free people. Government regulation adds coercion here, forbidding certain interactions, outlawing certain firms (which the Dutch government just did, they outlawed "Klicksafe", probably Amazon's Whispernet, and probably more), and creating monopolies (remember Telecom companies used to be government monopolies).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: The same Thom?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 17th Jun 2011 23:22 in reply to "RE[7]: The same Thom?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I was really just trying to be a smart a**. But you beg another deeper point to reflect on.

Is there such a thing as a non-coercive interaction between any two people? Money will coerce people into doing things they otherwise wouldn't.

I think you'd have to define the free market to meet your definition. Something like : a free market is one in which two people interact without a non immediate threat of violence.

Even a transaction such as buying bread can involve implicit violence, as a purchaser may starve if he is unable to meet the asking price. If you have enough such purchasers and you end up breaking the governments monopoly on force French Revolution style.

The free market is a very nebulous term when you get down to it. Everyone has their own idea of what it really is depending on their idea on what society should look like. By suggesting Somalia, I was trying to introduce a society that lacked all of the things that many people say prevent a true free market from arising, while not appearing like what you want an idea society to look like. It may for the purposes of our discussion be easy for you to add a rejoiner that excludes violence, but if you were given God like powers to set all the laws of their society, you would end up in arguments with others over the line between violence prevention and economic regulation. The line simply is far too grey in practice.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: The same Thom?
by Carewolf on Sat 18th Jun 2011 19:03 in reply to "RE[7]: The same Thom?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

So you want the government to have a monopoly on force, but you demand that the government NEVER actually use that force?

Interesting.. I think your have found your way to a logical paradox, now you just need to draw the logical conclusion from reaching a paradox: That you are wrong!

Reply Parent Score: 2