Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just*in libertarian philosophy?

[Sentient Void]

Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just*in libertarian philosophy?

Why?

I don't believe they are just. I believe Anonymous and other 'hacktivists' are misguided in such attacks.

Perhaps when PayPal was under the DDOS attacks for freezing Assange's access to his own funds, then those were justified - but such funds have been released to him.

We *all* know that Amazon, PayPal, Visa & Mastercard have been threatened by the US Govt in some way, directly or indirectly, leading to dissolution of service with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is *not entitled* to services by these companies, regardless. Saying they are entitled to such services is vehemently *anti*-libertarian.

If there should be any DDOS attacks, the only *just* attacks could possibly be on Govt websites, *not* companies being bullied around by the Government. Anonymous et al are simply engaging in the same bullying that the government does - and that makes them no better.

DISCUSS!!!

[Guitarzan]

I'd say no, but it's a weak no.

These companies were obviously threatened by the gov't, and they shouldn't have buckled imo. I'm not so sure that what Operation Payback is doing would be considered "violence". If they caved under gov't pressure, is it such a poor idea to make them aware that there will also be consequences from the public? Maybe the next company will think twice when they get a call from Leiberman's office. THAT...I would love to see.

What I can say with confidence is that all of this is very interesting and entertaining. I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

[jmdrake]

I wish this poll had a 3rd option. "No. But I don't limit myself to just libertarian philosophy".

[Sentient Void]

I wish this poll had a 3rd option. "No. But I don't limit myself to just libertarian philosophy".

I was particular about it in regards to libertarianism because it seems to be a debate of interest in libertarian circles right now, and I believe there is some misguidedness going on.

Of course, if you don't have libertarian leanings you're not a libertarian or aren't concerned with libertarian justice in regards to this question, you don't have to vote neither ;)

[jmdrake]

I was particular about it in regards to libertarianism because it seems to be a debate of interest in libertarian circles right now, and I believe there is some misguidedness going on.

Of course, if you don't have libertarian leanings or aren't concerned with libertarian justice in regards to this question, you don't have to vote neither ;)

LOL. Can you have "libertarian leanings" without being fully constrained by them? Is there such a thing as a "pragmatic libertarian"?

[torchbearer]

LOL. Can you have "libertarian leanings" without being fully constrained by them? Is there such a thing as a "pragmatic libertarian"?

hannity would probably consider himself a pragmatic libertarian... meaning he's libertarian except for when he is not libertarian.

[sailingaway]

No, because it is private property. If they don't want to carry wikileaks, they don't have to unless their contract terms say they have to.

[Sentient Void]

LOL. Can you have "libertarian leanings" without being fully constrained by them? Is there such a thing as a "pragmatic libertarian"?

Well, I didn't mean libertarian 'leanings' so much as meaning *libertarian*.

Admittedly, my own fault for not being clear as to what I meant ;)

[MN Patriot]

I consider the DDOS attacks akin to breaking windows. Not really a productive way to get your point across, and perhaps even counter productive.

A more productive way to protest would be putting up mirror sites and ads to publicize them. Get the secret files into as many computers as possible.

[Cowlesy]

No. They're private corporations and if they don't want to do business with Wikileaks, that's their choice, no matter how hard I contort government/corporate intertwining.

[jmdrake]

hannity would probably consider himself a pragmatic libertarian... meaning he's libertarian except for when he is not libertarian.

Hannity calls for government action to do what he wants. And I don't think he considers himself libertarian at all. I could be wrong though.

[torchbearer]

No, because it is private property. If they don't want to carry wikileaks, they don't have to unless their contract terms say they have to.

mastercard and visa is as private as the federal reserve.

[Sentient Void]

I consider the DDOS attacks akin to breaking windows. Not really a productive way to get your point across, and perhaps even counter productive.

A more productive way to protest would be putting up mirror sites and ads to publicize them. Get the secret files into as many computers as possible.

Absolutely. That, and I think the best way to counter stuff like companies buckling under government pressure (VSA, MCD, Amazon, etc), would be to point the right people to smaller competitors that could do the job just as well or even at least almost as good.

[Sentient Void]

mastercard and visa is as private as the federal reserve.

Now *that* is quite the stretch.

[torchbearer]

Hannity calls for government action to do what he wants. And I don't think he considers himself libertarian at all. I could be wrong though.

actually he has called himself libertarian on many occassions, and in his mind, he steps outside the principles whenever it makes sense to him through whatever justification- just being pragmatic.

[torchbearer]

Now *that* is quite the stretch.

in what way is it a stretch? are they not considered too big to fail?
do these entities enjoy a government protection that none of us do?

[Vessol]

No, but I'm not going to stick my neck out and defend Paypal, Visa, or Mastercard.

[OrigSEOH]

Well, MasterCard and Visa send me stupid card offers after I have repeatedly asked them not to. Like others have said, these large credit card corps, enjoy lots of gubmint protections and may as well be labeled "nationalized", imo. Not to mention, this is like a public test as to the company's ability to avert a simple DDOS attack. I found it interesting the Amazon and PayPal seem to weather the storm much better than these legacy multi-billion dollar credit card companies' that catalog so many people's personal information. This really makes me wonder what, if any other, security issues they have. I have more trust in Amazon now. And really, why can't a libertarian society test the integrity of a private corporation, by non-destructive means? If they were prepared, they would not have been down for hours. There are tools to mitigate these attacks and others that are even worst. What else are they not ready for?

[cswake]

First, you need a definition of just (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/just):


done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
based on right; rightful; lawful

I'd argue if it is #1, then the DDoS "attacks" might be just. It could be argued that corporations and their employees have a moral obligation to the society they exist in, which includes upholding its principles. They violate those principles, then Anonymous is just in conducting their DDoS on the principle of reinforcing a society's principles.

Obviously #2 violates the laws, but I'm debating whether a DDoS in these circumstances might qualify under the right to peaceful assembly.

[TonySutton]

Without being privy to the TOS between WikiLeaks and these other companies it is impossible to make a true determination on libertarian grounds.

[Razmear]

The attacks on MasterCard and Visa I have no problem with as they are stopping the legal flow of funds (commerce) to a legitimate source (a legal defense fund).
The attack on Amazon is not as justified as Amazon made a 'Rock and a Hard Place' decision to stop providing server space. Paypal is a similar case but there are enough other reasons to trash them that I don't have much sympathy for Paypal.

eb

[TonySutton]

The attacks on MasterCard and Visa I have no problem with as they are stopping the legal flow of funds (commerce) to a legitimate source (a legal defense fund).
The attack on Amazon is not as justified as Amazon made a 'Rock and a Hard Place' decision to stop providing server space. Paypal is a similar case but there are enough other reasons to trash them that I don't have much sympathy for Paypal.

eb

What was Amazon's rock and hard place?

[hazek]

I voted yes because I think that it's important to not let our outrage about their actions go unnoticed.

But having said that I don't like the method of this protest one bit because they're infringing on their property rights. It kind off compares to a real world riot where the rioters are breaking shop windows and preventing businesses from working. I guess a far better way to protest would be to boycott them and use their competitors for the same services, but are there any other companies that offer them?

[ChaosControl]

No. I don't believe in causing damage to others just because they do something you disagree with.

[cswake]

So does that mean you disagree with protests outside of retail stores that scare people off from going in? It effectively has the same financial damage as a politically motivated DDoS.

[Vessol]

So does that mean you disagree with protests outside of retail stores that scare people off from going in? It effectively has the same financial damage as a politically motivated DDoS.

Are you attacking that store's property? DDOS attacks are attacks on physical hardware.

[Razmear]

What was Amazon's rock and hard place?

When DHS "asks" you to stop providing a service to someone, you risk your business by refusing. The 'corporate duty to stockholders' probably compelled them to do the less than honorable action of suspending the service.
I will personally not spend any more money thru Amazon, but I don't think their action goes to the level of MasterCard and Visa's by blocking the legitimate flow of commerce.

eb

[cswake]

Do they have to throw the hardware out?

[Razmear]

Are you attacking that store's property? DDOS attacks are attacks on physical hardware.

No hardware is physically damaged in a DDOS attack.

[cswake]

^ There is no private property damage. All the charges in run-of-the-mill DDoS cases that I've read are about lost revenue.

[LibForestPaul]

We *all* know that Amazon, PayPal, Visa & Mastercard have been threatened by the US Govt in some way, directly or indirectly, leading to dissolution of service with WikiLeaks.
DISCUSS!!!

So they fear the might of the Us govt? Need to give them something larger to fear?

[hazek]

^ There is no private property damage. All the charges in run-of-the-mill DDoS cases that I've read are about lost revenue.

Yep, no physical damage, just loss of revenue.

[TonySutton]

Yep, no physical damage, just loss of revenue.

so you are saying it has the same effect as a boycott?

[Razmear]

so you are saying it has the same effect as a boycott?

I'd consider it more like an electronic picket line.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'd consider it more like an electronic picket line.

Or an electronic sit-in?

[Sentient Void]

I'd consider it more like an electronic picket line.

Some are comparing this to free speech/protesting/etc.

I disagree. DDOS isn't free speech. DDOS is an attack on personal private property.

It's safe to say that the owner of the private property does not want you there if you are obstructing his business (and all of these companies have condemned the DDOS attacks), and thus you are in fact trespassing on private property. This would be no different then if a large enough group of people walked into a store and filled up all the floor space with no intention of buying anything. The owner tells them all to leave (the owners condemning the DDOS attacks), and they refuse. Trespassing. Not free speech. Not a right.

People misunderstand what free speech is all to often. Free speech in regards to the constitution is only in/on public property *against the government* not private entities. You do *not* have a 'right to free speech' when you are on *private* property. If I invite you onto my private property, and you say something I don't like - I have every right to kick your ass off of it. Likewise, you do not have a right to scream 'fire' in a crowded theater - but it's the same reason you don't have the right to disrupt the movie in any way in a theater, and the theater owner regardless of the reason has a right to deem you as trespassing and escort you off the premises. So play nice.

This shows that there is no such thing as a right to free speech - only a right to property. This is just yet another example of many examples that *all rights are property rights* - including the right of self-ownership (a property right in oneself).

[RonPaulIsGreat]

My Sympathy for such things is in inverse proportion to the size of the corporation. As in the smaller the company, the greater the chance I will sympathize. Also, if the company is run by a "Human" instead of rotating CEO's which only think in terms solely based on revenue projections.

Visa and Master card, solicit very little sympathy for me. Amazon has me a bit torn, as it is a first generation company started from nothing and still led by it's founder, as in it's not just a machine without a soul yet. The Bezos guy seems to be an okay guy, so I'm guessing it's government threat.

Paypal/Ebay, I don't really care, it's a soulless hunk of machine now, they switch CEO's and key staff more often than one changes cars. It just exists to milk cash. There is nothing wrong with that, but I don't feel sympathy for old tires either.

Fundamentally, are these attacks wrong. Well, I guess that depends on how intertwined the companies are with government. VISA and Mastercard undoubtedly are more entrenched than ebay, and amazon probably less so than ebay.


If the premise is to attack the government through its front facing corporate partners, then they should be attacking GM, AIG, ETC.... it would be more directly applicable.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say it's a 2 on the wrong side.

However, I think these attacks are unhelpful overall, they are entertaining, but they destroy the public sympathy for wikileaks. Everyone hates seeing a little scrawny nothing getting beat up by the big kid. Now, they don't have that sympathy factor anymore. It would have been much better to have the government attack, and attack, and attack, while wikileaks struggled to remain up, that looks desperate, and not like a legit war against "rogue" leaker/hackers/.


Also these are Denial of Service attacks, they do not disrupt any real functions of mastercard or visa. The don't run the card infrastructure on there web facing server. It's like turning the lights off on the Wal-Mart sign, while customers keep going in and out of the store. People notice, but it doesn't weaken, nor change anything. It will stop in a few days, there bandwidth bill might double for the month, and at the end, dozens of people that are participating will be tracked down and given large fines and or jail time. I'm 100% certain the government is actively working with ISP's to try to gather as much info as possible.

[JoshLowry]

You can not essentially build a wall and prevent the public from accessing private property.

This is silly.

Do the 30% who voted yes really think that a person with multiple computers can just shut down google because they have enough computer power? Come on.

[Peace&Freedom]

The DDOS attacks are not so much "just" in libertarian philosophy as they are "predicted" by such thinking. It's the electronic equivalent of a picket line, as above suggested, the expected result of extreme authoritarian excess. If taxation becomes petty to the point of extorting money from tea imports, expect a tea party. The expectation does not necessarily imply approval of the form the protest takes.

Some munchkin, somewhere at Amazon, Paypal, and the card companies manually flicked a switch, as it were, to instantly freeze a person's financial activity, and shut off access to his property. No legal due process, no illegality established by a jury---just a fed's decree, and a vague company policy. If corporate-statist bullies insist on playing "click a mouse, shut you down" games with other people's free enterprise, a reprisal in kind by modern day Sons of Liberty was inevitable.

[Sentient Void]

in what way is it a stretch? are they not considered too big to fail?
do these entities enjoy a government protection that none of us do?

Just because some private company may be considered 'too big to fail' doesn't make it a government welfare agency like BoA or CitiGroup or GM, etc - *until* they've officially taken a bailout from the US Government. As far as I know, they have not taken such bailouts. Feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong, but I don't believe that to be the case.

These are not perpetuators of State violence - but as we've seen, victims of it (they've been bullied and threatened by the US Govt to cut off service to WikiLeaks). AFAIK, they have no received any bailout, and they do not operate on taxpayer public funding. Neither are mandated monopolies (they are two entities competing in a market of four major entities, also including American Express and Discover cards).

Whereas the federal Reserve was created by politicians for the benefit of cartelized banking institutions. The Federal Reserve is a government mandated monopoly on the issuance of currency. The Federal Reserve picks the winners and losers in an economy, sets policy, and destroys wealth. The Federal reserve chairman is chosen by the State.

There is little to no comparison between VSA/MCD and the Federal Reserve and to do so is reaching at straws in order to try and justify an attack on them as public institutions. This is a dangerous and slippery slope to believe in, and is vehemently antilibertarian.

They are two businesses fearing repercussions from the government, and Anon is using the same tactics and lowering itself down to the level of the State itself.

WikiLeaks is *not* entitled to their service, and believing so or advocating such would advocate making these companies slaves to WikiLeaks.

[cindy25]

in these cases, a regretful yes.

ebay, paypal, mastercard etc are defacto monopolies.

so the free market doesn't work.

imagine a situation where a local Mayor doesn't like you, for whatever reason.
what if he pressured the electric company to cut you off. this is what is happening to Wikileaks; convicted of nothing, the government is using pressure to shut them down. and these utilities find it easier to go along. being taken down will make these businesses at least think twice.

it is no different than the Boston tea party.

[nobody's_hero]

You would have to convince me first that Visa and Mastercard achieved their current state of success without the U.S. Government intervening into the market.

(aside): In summer 2008, didn't the government slip electronic transaction-tracking into the Fannie/Freddie bailout?

Ask yourself this, "if I wanted to start a credit card company, what obstacles would I have to overcome which Visa and Mastercard didn't have to contend with when they started out?"

I didn't vote, though, since I didn't want to skewer the results by including an impure libertarian like myself into the statistics.

[Sentient Void]

You would have to convince me first that Visa and Mastercard achieved their current state of success without the U.S. Government intervening into the market.

Ah, except the burden of proof lies on you to provide evidence that these entities (AMZN, VSA, MCD, PP) have become these corporatist monopolies that you guys claim they are with significant government assistance.


The burden of proof is always on the one claiming the positive, not the negative.

[BamaAla]

Yes, no, or maybe. I suppose if Sentient Void is the final arbiter of what is and isn't libertarian, the answer is no. If you consider yourself a libertarian but think that during revolutions people should act like revolutionaries, the answer is yes provided you feel like we are in the midst of said revolution. As for maybe, some may think... uh maybe.

[torchbearer]

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/temple/images/tea_party.jpg

[TheeVagabond]

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/temple/images/tea_party.jpg

A picture is worth a thousand words. Sorry, but these people buckled under the pressure of the government with no indictment on Assange whatsoever. Screw whoever and whatever else. The American government has effectively made itself the asshole victim (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssholeVictim).

[ivflight]

I can't believe some of you are making the argument that just because the servers don't get physically destroyed that damage hasn't been done. It is like saying that slavery or imprisonment is ok so long as you get 3 meals a day to keep your body intact. If I stole your stuff and gave it back 30 years later completely intact would you just shrug and say, "well, I guess no damage was done."

Maybe you can't see any damage to the servers but as a result of the attack real resources are consumed in a wasteful way, and it is ultimately very hurtful to the real property of the business and its customers.

[cswake]

The problem is that our law does in fact allow real-world protests to harm business revenues and "attack" real resources of a business - protesters can effectively shutdown a business permanently, to both the harm of business and its customers. If they wanted to, lawmakers could make a law saying that protests of a company must occur 2 miles away so as not to adversely impact the business's relationship with customers during a protest; yet, no such rule exists because they realize the effectiveness of protests is the disruption in revenue.

Just because I'm arguing for DDoS doesn't mean I necessarily support it, but I do see flaws on both sides of the argument. This is not a B&W issue...

[RedStripe]

Absolutely, and it's astonishing to me that anyone could argue otherwise. Fuck those corporations. Corporate America once again circles the wagons to protect it's executive committee (the state), and the right-wing libertarians are too busy hand-waving about "private" corporations, as if the term had any real significance or meaning, to take notice of the big picture.

*sigh*

Anyone who really thinks that large financial corporations are "private" and that the government is "public" is living in an irrational paradigm. The government is "private" in the sense that it is owned by corporate America. Corporate America is "public" in the sense that it is a direct outgrowth and unofficial branch of the government (just look at what they are doing for God's sake!).

Some of you need to get your head out of the clouds where "public" and "private" have some fundamental philosophical significance and deal with the real world in which there basically isn't any meaningful significance. It's called understanding how the world actually works rather than they way it might work in some right-wing libertarian fantasy land where everything is either "public" or "private," "involuntary" or "voluntary," "moral" or "immoral." The real world is an infinitely complex, constantly evolving system that doesn't fit into simplistic categories.

This war - the war of free culture, decentralization, networked organization versus hierarchy, information control, and authoritarian ideology - is a perfect example of the complexity of our world. The battle lines and the participants aren't always clear. It's a round peg that won't fit into the square holes of right-wing libertarian dogma. If you seek liberty in its fullest dimensions you must first come to terms with that fact of reality, rather than attempt, at every turn, to force reality to fit within your personal, absolutist, ethical paradigm.

[ivflight]

The problem is that our law does in fact allow real-world protests to harm business revenues and "attack" real resources of a business - protesters can effectively shutdown a business permanently, to both the harm of business and its customers. If they wanted to, lawmakers could make a law saying that protests of a company must occur 2 miles away so as not to adversely impact the business's relationship with customers during a protest; yet, no such rule exists because they realize the effectiveness of protests is the disruption in revenue.

Just because I'm arguing for DDoS doesn't mean I necessarily support it, but I do see flaws on both sides of the argument.

I don't think we should use fiat law as justification for anything. The problem is that the roads and sidewalks are a public resource and that's how protesters get away with it. Having a society where people can't physically disrupt a business and its customers isn't a flaw, it is a good thing. Protest should be an exercise of free speech, it does not mean that you're physically blocking something off.

[Fredom101]

No, because it is private property. If they don't want to carry wikileaks, they don't have to unless their contract terms say they have to.

This is the fallacy.
These are not private companies in the true sense, they are corporations intertwined with the government. This is why all it took was 1 phone call by lieberman to have amazon shut out wikileaks with no warning.

Private companies my ass!

[ivflight]

The real world is an infinitely complex, constantly evolving system that doesn't fit into simplistic categories.

I can't even tell you how many times a far-left liberal has used this line on me to try and trump reasonable arguments about what is right or wrong. The "things are too complex to even analyze, so let's just not have principles and do whatever we want" argument is not a good one. It is the lack of an argument - it says that arguments for or against something aren't allowed to exist. The person who makes this argument should not take any action in life, because it is simply too complicated to figure out what you should be doing.

[ivflight]

This is the fallacy.
These are not private companies in the true sense, they are corporations intertwined with the government. This is why all it took was 1 phone call by lieberman to have amazon shut out wikileaks with no warning.

Private companies my ass!

Again with the Mida's Touch argument. Apparently if a person/business has any contact with the government whatsoever, they completely flip from being private, to being an arm of the govt open to attack.

[cswake]

I don't think we should use fiat law as justification for anything. The problem is that the roads and sidewalks are a public resource and that's how protesters get away with it. Having a society where people can't physically disrupt a business and its customers isn't a flaw, it is a good thing. Protest should be an exercise of free speech, it does not mean that you're physically blocking something off.I couldn't agree with you more, but current laws are what society views as acceptable. The internet is still relatively new and no situations in the real world, along with the relevant laws, are perfect analogies, but I do see some of a double-standard between protests/sit-ins versus DDoS. That's why I constantly think about extreme examples to see where the lines should be drawn...

[pcosmar]

I wish this poll had a 3rd option. "No. But I don't limit myself to just libertarian philosophy".

^^ This. (only ,Yes, regardless of libertarian philosophy)
I may have libertarian leanings. And I have been accused of being a anarchist. This is also not true.
I am an Angry American.
Is is Just? I believe so. I am often more concerned with right and wrong, rather than legal or illegal.

Once upon a time,, There was something known as "Justifiable Homicide". Meaning there was good reason for a killing. It was "just."

In this case the "attackers" are quite Justifiably Offended at the attacks on Freedom of Speech and the arrest of a Journalist. The "targets", by their choice and actions have joined in this persecution.

I voted Yes, It is Justifiable.

[RedStripe]

I can't even tell you how many times a far-left liberal has used this line on me to try and trump reasonable arguments about what is right or wrong. The "things are too complex to even analyze, so let's just not have principles and do whatever we want" argument is not a good one. The person who makes this argument should not take any action in life, because it is simply too complicated to figure out what you should be doing.

Looks like you missed the point. I said it was too complex to fit into simplistic categories, not that it was too complex for evaluations to be made. The sophistication of those evaluations should reflect the sophistication of the system they are addressing.

Serious thinkers address a multi-dimensional, full-spectrum reality rather than a black-and-white caricature (although the latter is easier to understand), because they don't try to make the world fit into a preconceived ideological paradigm. Instead they approach the world with a flexible paradigm which may change as they attain a more nuanced understanding of reality. Those who approach it with some rigid set of a priori truths, only seeking validation of their convictions, will either end up living in their own fantasy land or will find their illusion of life utterly shattered. In fact, however, those who approach life with the assumption that they have already discovered the fundamental truths will rarely actually seek reality because they have no need for their theory to be confirmed. To them, it is already true - why bother?

My message is that it is important to stay flexible and open-minded, and that an obsession with simplistic categories, such as "public" or "private" - as if the categories themselves, as words, rather than the physical reality of each situation, are determinative - is a symptom of the sort of close-minded approach to the world that is less than honest, intellectually, and leads only to a dead end.

[RedStripe]

I wish this poll had a 3rd option. "No. But I don't limit myself to just libertarian philosophy".

The real problem is that libertarian philosophy, itself, has been so limited and watered-down that we come to the absurd situation where a radical philosophy of political, social and economic revolution is now manifested in the defense of Mastercard.

I love the Boston Tea Party analogy. If the right-wing libertarians lived during the early stages of the American Revolution they would be too busy consternating over whether the destruction of the tea was an act against a "private" company to even appreciate or participate in the revolution happening around them.

[ivflight]

My message is that it is important to stay flexible and open-minded, and that an obsession with simplistic categories, such as "public" or "private" - as if the categories themselves, as words, rather than the physical reality of each situation, are determinative - is a symptom of the sort of close-minded approach to the world that is less than honest, intellectually, and leads only to a dead end.

The problem is many people who want to justify their actions are trying to do so by saying that just because an otherwise private business has some connection to the government, they are not private at all and are the same as the govt. They're the ones taking the binary category approach. Just because I have principles that doesn't mean I'm dumb or simple.

I don't think it is unreasonable to call paypal or amazon a private business, but some people, in their blind hatred, only need to see a tiny tendril of connection to the government before they throw morality out the window. They're not being thoughtful or taking a moment to put things in perspective, they're just trying to rationalize in any way possible so they can fuck shit up.

I have registered my business as a corporation with the state in order to pay less taxes. You might say I'm "taking advantage of what govt has offered me". You might even say that I "colluded" with them by taking certain tax deductions. I don't want to be a corp, I don't want to pay taxes or deal with the govt at all, but they threatened me and I complied. I hope you will see the situation for what it is and still think of me as a private individual/company and respect what is left of my freedom. I'd hate to think I need to start carrying a gun to protect myself against other members of the freedom movement because they think it is their job to destroy me.

[RedStripe]

The problem is many people who want to justify their actions are trying to do so by saying that just because an otherwise private business has some connection to the government, they are not private at all and are the same as the govt. They're the ones taking the binary category approach. Just because I have principles that doesn't mean I'm dumb or simple.

Except that most of the people who support these attacks are not employing the binary approach. The argument is that while it may be "immoral" to violate the private property of a private person, these corporations, aside from not being people (and thus having no rights to begin with), are not private due to their substantial connections with the state. Therefore, the theoretical categorical prohibition on affecting the property controlled by these corporations is not applicable to this situation.



I don't think it is unreasonable to call paypal or amazon a private business, but some people, in their blind hatred, only need to see a tiny tendril of connection to the government before they throw morality out the window. They're not being thoughtful or taking a moment to put things in perspective, they're just trying to rationalize in any way possible so they can fuck shit up.

That's a strawman. No one is arguing that morality should be thrown out the window. To the contrary, those that support the attacks are arguing that the the attacks are in accordance with the appropriate moral bounds of the situation. That's why, for example, no one is arguing that employees of Mastercard should be physically attacked (or targeted as individuals at all, except for perhaps some of the top leaders, for whom some level of public harassment is probably justified). A denial of service attack inflicts a fairly low level of "harm" to the company, and is therefore perfectly proportional to the harm these companies have inflicted upon society at large by cooperating with the government's efforts to shut down wikileaks.



I have registered my business as a corporation with the state in order to pay less taxes. You might say I'm "taking advantage of what govt has offered me". You might even say that I "colluded" with them by taking certain tax deductions. I don't want to be a corp, I don't want to pay taxes or deal with the govt at all, but they threatened me and I complied. I hope you will see the situation for what it is and still think of me as a private individual/company and respect what is left of my freedom. I'd hate to think I need to start carrying a gun to protect myself against other members of the freedom movement because they think it is their job to destroy me.

Stop being so paranoid, and don't make this unnecessarily personal. If you buy a warehouse and lease it to the state so that the state can round up protesters and temporarily incarcerate them in it - you can sure as hell bet I'm not going to give a damn about your "private property" to the extent that breaking into the warehouse will free the protesters. Does that mean I would consider it justifiable for someone to attack your person or your home? Of course not. Until then, let's leave the argument to case at hand.

It's about being proportional and reasonable. It's a complex judgment call in every case, and everyone is going to have a different answer. Personally, I don't find violence against the body of another individual justifiable in all but the most extreme of cases. That's not just because I find physical violence distasteful, but also because it rarely accomplishes much aside from the escalation of irrationality and conflict. But when it comes to small-scale property vandalism against large corporations who are, as much as the state, the enemies of a free society and beneficiaries of tyranny, to the extent that such vandalism and digital guerrilla warfare is effective as a strategy and does not significantly harm innocent parties, I support it from a moral perspective.

[ivflight]

People keep pushing this idea that these companies are connected to the govt and therefor worthy of attack. I've tried to battle this notion but in vain - people stick to their biases.

Let's try it this way: Wikileaks was a big user of Amazon, Mastercard, Paypal, etc... , all the same companies that are hopelessly "intertwined" with the govt. The same companies, that because of their connection with the govt, are unjustly using force against the people. Wikileaks, inworking with these companies, benefited from this unjust use of force and is therefor also using the same force. Wikileaks, like the other customers of these companies, deserves to be attacked for their use of force against the people.

Like you said, it is very complex, and using your own logic, it turns out Wikileaks is one of the perpetrators that needs to be attacked.

The Midas touch argument sucks.

[aravoth]

The problem is many people who want to justify their actions are trying to do so by saying that just because an otherwise private business has some connection to the government, they are not private at all and are the same as the govt. They're the ones taking the binary category approach. Just because I have principles that doesn't mean I'm dumb or simple.

I don't think it is unreasonable to call paypal or amazon a private business, but some people, in their blind hatred, only need to see a tiny tendril of connection to the government before they throw morality out the window. They're not being thoughtful or taking a moment to put things in perspective, they're just trying to rationalize in any way possible so they can fuck shit up.

I have registered my business as a corporation with the state in order to pay less taxes. You might say I'm "taking advantage of what govt has offered me". You might even say that I "colluded" with them by taking certain tax deductions. I don't want to be a corp, I don't want to pay taxes or deal with the govt at all, but they threatened me and I complied. I hope you will see the situation for what it is and still think of me as a private individual/company and respect what is left of my freedom. I'd hate to think I need to start carrying a gun to protect myself against other members of the freedom movement because they think it is their job to destroy me.

Yeah, I almost feel bad for IG Farben and IBM now. They didn't really want to have a hand in killing millions of people in Nazi Germany, they were oppressed...

Speaking of rationalizing...... Holy fucking shit.....

[Todd]

I wish this poll had a 3rd option. "No. But I don't limit myself to just libertarian philosophy".

or "No, but I wouldn't want to be the deciding vote on a jury".

Mines a very weak no. But I understand how the weak sometimes have little option.

[RedStripe]

People keep pushing this idea that these companies are connected to the govt and therefor worthy of attack. I've tried to battle this notion but in vain - people stick to their biases.

Let's try it this way: Wikileaks was a big user of Amazon, Mastercard, Paypal, etc... , all the same companies that are hopelessly "intertwined" with the govt. The same companies, that because of their connection with the govt, are unjustly using force against the people. Wikileaks, inworking with these companies, benefited from this unjust use of force and is therefor also using the same force. Wikileaks, like the other customers of these companies, deserves to be attacked for their use of force against the people.

Like you said, it is very complex, and using your own logic, it turns out Wikileaks is one of the perpetrators that needs to be attacked.

The Midas touch argument sucks.

No, you just don't understand the argument.

The argument is NOT that "being connected to the government is justification alone for being 'attacked,'" RATHER, it is that being connected to the government, in the ways that these major corporations have benefited from the government, means that you are less entitled to a presumption that it would be somehow "immoral" to commit small acts of vandalism or sabotage against your property in retaliation for participating in overtly anti-liberty, pro-tyranny government collusion.

Of course we all have "benefited" in some way, from the government. This entire economic system is built on centuries of evolution of mutually-reinforcing state and economic trends.

The main point is that large corporations who are the government's partners in crime shouldn't have the privilege of hiding behind the bullshit claim that they are "private" and somehow deserve altogether different treatment than their state benefactor, and that those on the libertarian right who continue to espouse such a ridiculous argument are really just the useful idiots of corporate America and their state allies.

[ivflight]

No, you just don't understand the argument.

The argument is NOT that "being connected to the government is justification alone for being 'attacked,'" RATHER, it is that being connected to the government, in the ways that these major corporations have benefited from the government, means that you are less entitled to a presumption that it would be somehow "immoral" to commit small acts of vandalism or sabotage against your property in retaliation for participating in overtly anti-liberty, pro-tyranny government collusion.

Of course we all have "benefited" in some way, from the government. This entire economic system is built on centuries of evolution of mutually-reinforcing state and economic trends.

The main point is that large corporations who are the government's partners in crime shouldn't have the privilege of hiding behind the bullshit claim that they are "private" and somehow deserve altogether different treatment than their state benefactor, and that those on the libertarian right who continue to espouse such a ridiculous argument are really just the useful idiots of corporate America and their state allies.

Why do you feel the need to make up a group called "large corporations" and assume they are all the same? I still haven't heard any good explanation as to how Paypal et al are intertwined with the govt. Paypal puts its money in FDIC insured banks just like you and I.

[ivflight]

As I posted in another thread:

If we attack the person/business then that suggests that the government protection is ok and that they are just using their power unjustly. It further suggests that we need more government to control them. If we attack the government then that suggests that the protection never should have been there and government just needs to have less power to dole out.

[idirtify]

Well, I didn't mean libertarian 'leanings' so much as meaning *libertarian*.

Admittedly, my own fault for not being clear as to what I meant ;)

It’s not your fault.

It’s interesting how lots of members will express disagreements when the term “libertarian” is posted, but not when the term “individual liberty” is used. Apparently they think “libertarian” has some negative connotations. Whatever the reason, it’s ALWAYS risky (risks off-topic/side-arguments) to use it around here.

Thankfully, one does not HAVE to use to use it. For example:
1) Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just* in libertarian philosophy?
2) Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just* in terms of the philosophy of individual liberty?
Even though the two versions mean exactly the same thing, I will confidently guarantee you that the second one would have garnered NO disagreements.

[RedStripe]

Why do you feel the need to make up a group called "large corporations" and assume they are all the same? I still haven't heard any good explanation as to how Paypal et al are intertwined with the govt. Paypal puts its money in FDIC insured banks just like you and I.

An economy dominated by large corporations did not just spring up out of no-where. Our analysis of the situation shouldn't start with the assumption that things are the way they are because of "the free market." You have to examine the evolution of state-capitalism to understand just how rigged this system is. It's not just the obvious stuff like bailouts, it's like the monopolized monetary system, regressive effects of inflation, cartelizing regulatory structures, a manipulated tax code, intellectual property, massive land grants to railroads and politically-connected speculators, billions in research and development funding straight from the taxpayers, the creation of national and international communication systems (telephone, internet, satellite, telegram, postal service) and transportation systems (civil aviation system arising from WWII, subsidized manufacturers, national highway system, publicly-funded railroad system, oil subsidies, airports, sea ports, bridges, tunnels), the resulting national/international markets more conducive to large-scale production processes and larger organizational size, state-funded education/training of future employees (removed business' burden of providing training), restrictions on self-employment via licensing, land laws, zoning (more people forced to enter labor market), secondary government remedial interventions, such as welfare, unemployment insurance, to ameliorate the side-effects of state-capitalism, thus stabilizing the system and letting large employers off the hook for providing for their impoverished employees, massive imperialist adventures designed to secure foreign markets for the big boys, strike busters, coordinated efforts to destroy populist movements that threatened the economic status quo.... the list is endless. It's history.

[ivflight]

An economy dominated by large corporations did not just spring up out of no-where. Our analysis of the situation shouldn't start with the assumption that things are the way they are because of "the free market." You have to examine the evolution of state-capitalism to understand just how rigged this system is. It's not just the obvious stuff like bailouts, it's like the monopolized monetary system, regressive effects of inflation, cartelizing regulatory structures, a manipulated tax code, intellectual property, massive land grants to railroads and politically-connected speculators, billions in research and development funding straight from the taxpayers, the creation of national and international communication systems (telephone, internet, satellite, telegram, postal service) and transportation systems (civil aviation system arising from WWII, subsidized manufacturers, national highway system, publicly-funded railroad system, oil subsidies, airports, sea ports, bridges, tunnels), the resulting national/international markets more conducive to large-scale production processes and larger organizational size, state-funded education/training of future employees (removed business' burden of providing training), restrictions on self-employment via licensing, land laws, zoning (more people forced to enter labor market), secondary government remedial interventions, such as welfare, unemployment insurance, to ameliorate the side-effects of state-capitalism, thus stabilizing the system and letting large employers off the hook for providing for their impoverished employees, massive imperialist adventures designed to secure foreign markets for the big boys, strike busters, coordinated efforts to destroy populist movements that threatened the economic status quo.... the list is endless. It's history.

Again with the "it is too hopelessly complicated to debate" argument. You understand that this isn't an argument for any particular thing other then saying "let's not talk about this anymore", right?

[ivflight]

An economy dominated by large corporations did not just spring up out of no-where. Our analysis of the situation shouldn't start with the assumption that things are the way they are because of "the free market." You have to examine the evolution of state-capitalism to understand just how rigged this system is. It's not just the obvious stuff like bailouts, it's like the monopolized monetary system, regressive effects of inflation, cartelizing regulatory structures, a manipulated tax code, intellectual property, massive land grants to railroads and politically-connected speculators, billions in research and development funding straight from the taxpayers, the creation of national and international communication systems (telephone, internet, satellite, telegram, postal service) and transportation systems (civil aviation system arising from WWII, subsidized manufacturers, national highway system, publicly-funded railroad system, oil subsidies, airports, sea ports, bridges, tunnels), the resulting national/international markets more conducive to large-scale production processes and larger organizational size, state-funded education/training of future employees (removed business' burden of providing training), restrictions on self-employment via licensing, land laws, zoning (more people forced to enter labor market), secondary government remedial interventions, such as welfare, unemployment insurance, to ameliorate the side-effects of state-capitalism, thus stabilizing the system and letting large employers off the hook for providing for their impoverished employees, massive imperialist adventures designed to secure foreign markets for the big boys, strike busters, coordinated efforts to destroy populist movements that threatened the economic status quo.... the list is endless. It's history.

This is also the same kind of think liberals pitch. Everything is just such a random crapshoot, so lets redistribute all the wealth, and have affirmative action, and try and correct in a way that makes everyone perfectly equal.

[tremendoustie]

Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just*in libertarian philosophy?

Why?

I don't believe they are just. I believe Anonymous and other 'hacktivists' are misguided in such attacks.

Perhaps when PayPal was under the DDOS attacks for freezing Assange's access to his own funds, then those were justified - but such funds have been released to him.

We *all* know that Amazon, PayPal, Visa & Mastercard have been threatened by the US Govt in some way, directly or indirectly, leading to dissolution of service with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is *not entitled* to services by these companies, regardless. Saying they are entitled to such services is vehemently *anti*-libertarian.

If there should be any DDOS attacks, the only *just* attacks could possibly be on Govt websites, *not* companies being bullied around by the Government. Anonymous et al are simply engaging in the same bullying that the government does - and that makes them no better.

DISCUSS!!!

I think it's wrong to lump Paypal and Amazon in with Visa and Mastercard. Visa and Mastercard are the major banks, which are so far in bed with government they're indistinguishable.

I agree that attacks on Paypal and Amazon are unjustified.

[nobody's_hero]

Ah, except the burden of proof lies on you to provide evidence that these entities (AMZN, VSA, MCD, PP) have become these corporatist monopolies that you guys claim they are with significant government assistance.


The burden of proof is always on the one claiming the positive, not the negative.

This wouldn't be all that difficult.

Is there any area in the market that you think DON'T have certain restrictions that WERE NOT present many years ago when some of the biggest corporations started out?

Google "how to start a bank" and sift through the indescribably complex regulations and stipulations on establishing a bank in the year 2010. Then determine whether those restictions are more numerous (likely) or less numerous (unlikely) when Visa, Mastercard, et. al. entered the markets.

If you haven't died of old age before you have a chance to present your findings in full, we'll take what you find as proof to the courts and make a case that will, of course, get thrown out.

For the moment, the rest of us reserve the right to pessimism through deduction and inference. :)

[Fredom101]

Again with the Mida's Touch argument. Apparently if a person/business has any contact with the government whatsoever, they completely flip from being private, to being an arm of the govt open to attack.

Not at all. These are government-created monopolies- the opposite of businesses operating in the free market. If they restrict free speech at the government's beck and call, then they are bowing down to tyranny and are not standing up for freedom. This is called fascism.

[ivflight]

This wouldn't be all that difficult.

Is there any area in the market that you think DON'T have certain restrictions that WERE NOT present many years ago when some of the biggest corporations started out?

Google "how to start a bank" and sift through the indescribably complex regulations and stipulations on establishing a bank in the year 2010. Then determine whether those restictions are more numerous (likely) or less numerous (unlikely) when Visa, Mastercard, et. al. entered the markets.

If you haven't died of old age before you have a chance to present your findings in full, we'll take what you find as proof to the courts and make a case that will, of course, get thrown out.

For the moment, the rest of us reserve the right to pessimism through deduction and inference. :)

You're saying that just because someone jumps through the govt hoops to stay legal (taxpayers, businesses, hospitals), they must be colluding with the govt? That group would include almost every citizen.

[ivflight]

Not at all. These are government-created monopolies- the opposite of businesses operating in the free market. If they restrict free speech at the government's beck and call, then they are bowing down to tyranny and are not standing up for freedom. This is called fascism.

Please explain with evidence how Paypal and Amazon are govt created monopolies...in a way that doesn't end up including every other business and person in the country.

[ivflight]

Let's try it this way: Wikileaks was a big user of Amazon, Mastercard, Paypal, etc... , all the same companies that are hopelessly "intertwined" with the govt. The same companies, that because of their connection with the govt, are unjustly using force against the people. Wikileaks, inworking with these companies, benefited from this unjust use of force and is therefor also using the same force. Wikileaks, like the other customers of these companies, deserves to be attacked for their use of force against the people.

None of the people arguing that those "intertwined" with the govt are open for attack have addressed this. The fact is, Wikileaks was intertwined with the same companies you accuse of being intertwined, so that would make them fair game for attack, right?

[nobody's_hero]

You're saying that just because someone jumps through the govt hoops to stay legal (taxpayers, businesses, hospitals), they must be colluding with the govt? That group would include almost every citizen.

Yep. Pretty much . . . exactly.

The system's totally F'd up.

That's one reason why I didn't vote in this poll. It assumes that we are operating in a system that knows (and adheres to) moral v. immoral arguments. What it has devolved into is a winner-take-all system. If the system collapses, it should be viewed as an opportunity to start fresh, rather than something to be postponed. But, as I said, I'm a pessimist when it comes to most things financial.

I'm not saying you have be a part of it (I am not hacking any banks when I've already done my part by withdrawing my money from them), but I don't cry tears when someone who collaborated with the guy who just robbed me by proxy gets smashed by a bus while he's making his getaway.

EDIT: Before commenting further, I should ask the original poster what the definition is of "Just". If it weren't subject to interpretation, I suppose there'd be no need for quotes. I think that interpretation could potentially influence votes.

[tremendoustie]

Please explain with evidence how Paypal and Amazon are govt created monopolies...in a way that doesn't end up including every other business and person in the country.

I agree -- but visa and mastercard should be taken out of this poll, or entered as a separate option.

[ivflight]

Yep. Pretty much . . . exactly.

The system's totally F'd up.

That's one reason why I didn't vote in this poll. It assumes that we are operating in a system that knows (and adheres to) moral v. immoral arguments. What it has devolved into is a winner-take-all system. If the system collapses, it should be viewed as an opportunity to start fresh, rather than something to be postponed. But, as I said, I'm a pessimist when it comes to most things financial.

I'm not saying you have be a part of it (I am not hacking any banks when I've already done my part by withdrawing my money from them), but I don't cry tears when someone who collaborated with the guy who just robbed me by proxy gets smashed by a bus while he's making his getaway.

Do you blame the initiators of force first, or do you put the people under duress who don't fight back enough on equal grounds? I have a hard time telling the victim of a mugging who gave up his wallet at gunpoint that he is just as much at fault as the robber.

[ivflight]

I agree -- but visa and mastercard should be taken out of this poll, or entered as a separate option.

I've been leaving them out of my comments because I really don't know much about them, but I started using Paypal and Amazon when they were still small.

Even if we pick out the really bad corporations that really are colluding with the govt, we should still attack the govt side of things first.

[tremendoustie]

I've been leaving them out of my comments because I really don't know much about them, but I started using Paypal and Amazon when they were still small.

Even if we pick out the really bad corporations that really are colluding with the govt, we should still attack the govt side of things first.

They're all owned by major banks, except Visa, which was founded by BoA, then later spun off. The money they loan comes directly from the major banks.

But I agree with your sentiment. I would not have done what Anonymous has done, especially in the way they've done it.

I am glad, however, to see people pissed about violations of freedom of speech.

[talkingpointes]

I could care less about what they did in terms of principle. I'm so fucking tired of playing by the rules of the elite. We have our principles but I refuse to stop or even care for these companies and the "assault" they are under.

Have you ever seen a family member physically stomped out by the police? (For pissing an alley none the less)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Have you ever had family member taken by the state? (Because they deem some unsuitable as parents)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Have you ever been arrested for a victimless crime as the state laughs at you paying back the racket? (marijuana oh noeesss)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Beat a dog enough and soon he will forget who the master is. All of this is brought about by the state and their cronies, they're directly implicit in what is going on. The state dept had his funds cut off. All eyes need to be on the person perpetrating the crimes not the victim.

It's like when someone is raped and they go on to tell people and try to convict the person doing the crimes and you have the moral **** outside yelling "but she was wearing such skimpy clothing she deserved it or at least invited it"

If this man dies becuase of inaction and people just shy away, the truth will be once again sealed and locked away.

[RyanRSheets]

Internet providers already enjoy a government-imposed monopoly, for the most part, even though they used their own money, in many cases, to construct their networks. The money can't be said to come from fair trade, because other options were not allowed. We're only allowed one cable company and one phone company in an area, so our choices are limited to two primary providers and some token alternatives, in some places, such as wireless broadband networks. Ultimately, even most of the token alternatives utilize monopolized copper or fiber.

So, then, the Internet is like a series of toll roads, with one or two potential owners, who enjoyed the government's mandate that they be the only people building their type of road. That either type of road might be built and managed better by another person is ignored.

Consider a business that is positioned on one of these monopolized roads. The business sells gasoline, and a car that was traveling down the monopolized road has run out. The business finds something objectionable about the car and refuses to sell any fuel to the patron. The business is, of course, well within its rights to do so, regardless of whether or not

Some lowly activists hear about this, and they start driving down this road without any intent to actually do business. Their traffic makes it hard for others, who legitimately wish to do business, to do business. They're paying the tolls to use the road, thus they're only acting on their property rights in a way, but they are doing harm by continuing to use the business's stretch of the road.

The business, of course, pays a fee to be located on the side of this well-traveled road. They have a large parking lot with many openings to the road, and they pay for all of them. They have every bit as much claim to the use of the road as anyone else. They most certainly have a right to exist on the road, and to provide the services they provide, and to turn people down as they please, but do they have the right to say who may travel past their business, blocking the entries to their parking lot?

To enforce, at this point, would mean that we would have to essentially tell people where they can go on their property, as the road is a monopolized, shared property. It turns out, though, that the car was carrying information that has very real, tangible implications for everyone who uses the road, even those who are now harassing the business. Now, we're not only telling people how they can use their property, we're telling them that they cannot protest something that might cause them harm.

It is not the business's fault that the information carried by the car came to a halt; the car should have filled its tank elsewhere. The business may be ignoring the implications of the information the car is carrying, but we can't claim to know whether or not the business has any idea what the implications might be. The business might even think that the information could cause harm to its customers, or that it will suffer business loss for allowing the car to continue on with its services. It's self-defense versus self-defense, and it comes down to one side not knowing that they are wrong.

Personally, I think this means that neither is doing anything criminal, and no government intervention is justified, and that is all. Should the hackers actually start entering the domains of these companies and damaging things, that will be a different story.

[RyanRSheets]

If there should be any DDOS attacks, the only *just* attacks could possibly be on Govt websites, *not* companies being bullied around by the Government.

They're no more just than DDoS attacks on private websites. The people pay for the bandwidth, so you're just being an asshole to everyone rather than just to everyone who wants to do business with Amazon.

[ivflight]

I could care less about what they did in terms of principle. I'm so fucking tired of playing by the rules of the elite. We have our principles but I refuse to stop or even care for these companies and the "assault" they are under.

Have you ever seen a family member physically stomped out by the police? (For pissing an alley none the less)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Have you ever had family member taken by the state? (Because they deem some unsuitable as parents)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Have you ever been arrested for a victimless crime as the state laughs at you paying back the racket? (marijuana oh noeesss)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Beat a dog enough and soon he will forget who the master is. All of this is brought about by the state and their cronies, they're directly implicit in what is going on. The state dept had his funds cut off. All eyes need to be on the person perpetrating the crimes not the victim.

It's like when someone is raped and they go on to tell people and try to convict the person doing the crimes and you have the moral **** outside yelling "but she was wearing such skimpy clothing she deserved it or at least invited it"

If this man dies becuase of inaction and people just shy away, the truth will be once again sealed and locked away.

pure demagoguery.

[ivflight]

I'm still waiting for someone to defend the actions of liberal activists were they to hypothetically attack this site and make it unusable.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I could care less about what they did in terms of principle. I'm so fucking tired of playing by the rules of the elite. We have our principles but I refuse to stop or even care for these companies and the "assault" they are under.

Have you ever seen a family member physically stomped out by the police? (For pissing an alley none the less)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Have you ever had family member taken by the state? (Because they deem some unsuitable as parents)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Have you ever been arrested for a victimless crime as the state laughs at you paying back the racket? (marijuana oh noeesss)
I have and it filled me with rage.

Beat a dog enough and soon he will forget who the master is. All of this is brought about by the state and their cronies, they're directly implicit in what is going on. The state dept had his funds cut off. All eyes need to be on the person perpetrating the crimes not the victim.

It's like when someone is raped and they go on to tell people and try to convict the person doing the crimes and you have the moral **** outside yelling "but she was wearing such skimpy clothing she deserved it or at least invited it"

If this man dies becuase of inaction and people just shy away, the truth will be once again sealed and locked away.

Exactly.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

What the fuck is with all this black/white bullshit? As though a company can't have the same power and corruption that a government has. These companies have shit loads of power and behave as governing bodies, irregardless of whether or not anybody voted for them. They get to chose who has free speech and who doesn't. I'm sick of people not understanding power and rule.

[tremendoustie]

They're no more just than DDoS attacks on private websites. The people pay for the bandwidth, so you're just being an asshole to everyone rather than just to everyone who wants to do business with Amazon.


Sure they are. The government sites are paid for with money stolen from us.

[talkingpointes]

I'm still waiting for someone to defend the actions of liberal activists were they to hypothetically attack this site and make it unusable.

They obviously aren't attacking those defending freedom, just those who work against it. So you might want to pull out a tent and few lawn chairs, maybe axismundi will join you.

[nobody's_hero]

Do you blame the initiators of force first, or do you put the people under duress who don't fight back enough on equal grounds? I have a hard time telling the victim of a mugging who gave up his wallet at gunpoint that he is just as much at fault as the robber.

In cases when the "victim" voted for the mugger, I have no sympathy.

In cases when the "victim" gives political contributions to the mugger, and then votes for the mugger (Republicrats), I have no mercy.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=F06

Visa and Mastercard ranked 10th and 11th, respectively. Albeit, not the worst among the worst, but they're influencing someone in Washington.

Somehow, I don't think those contributions were spent to get Washington to make it easier for their competitors to enter the market, but that's my burden to prove to the gullible and naive, I suppose.

[ivflight]

In cases when the "victim" voted for the mugger, I have no sympathy.

In cases when the "victim" gives political contributions to the mugger, and then votes for the mugger (Republicrats), I have no mercy.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=F06

Visa and Mastercard ranked 10th and 11th, respectively. Albeit, not the worst among the worst, but they're influencing someone in Washington.

Somehow, I don't think those contributions were spent to get Washington to make it easier for their competitors to enter the market, but that's my burden to prove to the gullible and naive, I suppose.

The question was do you blame/attack one more than the other? Many people don't vote for the mugger, but still end up being robbed.

[ivflight]

They obviously aren't attacking those defending freedom, just those who work against it. So you might want to pull out a tent and few lawn chairs, maybe axismundi will join you.

Many liberals think that what we call freedom is some kind of slavery and they need to keep us from wrecking the planet. Given that they're fighting for 'true' freedom, don't you defend their right to shut this site down?

[pcosmar]

Who is lobbying who ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard
WikiLeaks cables: US 'lobbied Russia on behalf of Visa and MasterCard'


The US lobbied Russia this year on behalf of Visa and MasterCard to try to ensure the payment card companies were not "adversely affected" by new legislation, according to American diplomats in Moscow.

A state department cable released this afternoon by WikiLeaks reveals that US diplomats intervened to try to amend a draft law going through Russia's duma, or lower house of parliament. Their explicit aim was to ensure the new law did not "disadvantage" the two US companies, the cable states.

Is this not relevant? Is this "free market"?
Who is working with who ? What innocent party is being attacked?

[RyanRSheets]

Sure they are. The government sites are paid for with money stolen from us.

I'd say the problem of wire noncompetition means that really all sites are paid for in ways we didn't explicitly consent to, so this doesn't suddenly make it acceptable. Damaging a government website would just make us all responsible for the cleanup. In other words, more taxes.

[tremendoustie]

I'd say the problem of wire noncompetition means that really all sites are paid for in ways we didn't explicitly consent to, so this doesn't suddenly make it acceptable.


Ultimately, everyone interacts with the state in some way. Just about all of us use the roads.

But there's a big difference between operating a website within the parameters created and enforced by the state, and the actions of the state itself.

They fund themselves directly by stealing money from me. They aren't merely operating within conditions created by other aggressors -- they are creating the aggression.



Damaging a government website would just make us all responsible for the cleanup. In other words, more taxes.

We're not responsible for it, but they certainly may steal more from us to fund it. That's not a good reason to fail to stand up to tyranny. They'll drain us dry anyway, if we let them, as we certainly should be able to recognize by now. They've already borrowed some 200K in the name of each of our kids, after all -- they borrow based on the promise that they'll force our kids to pay their debts.

[ivflight]

Ultimately, everyone interacts with the state in some way. Just about all of us use the roads.

But there's a big difference between operating a website within the parameters created and enforced by the state, and the actions of the state itself.

They fund themselves directly by stealing money from me. They aren't merely operating within conditions created by other aggressors -- they are creating the aggression.


Well said.

[Sentient Void]

I don't think anyone here disagrees that much of the if corporations have certainly benefitted from big government regulations and/or subsidies to some extent (some certainly more than others). Hell, we *all* probably have to some extent as well, always at the expense of others. *THIS* is what redistribution does. But rationalizing attacks on these companies is a slippery slope to rationalize an attack on virtually *every* private individual and company in the United States in general, and makes everyone out as 'evil' and unjust when that's clearly *NOT* the case. Do *not* lose sight of who the *real* enemy is here (the State). You guys keep talking about this 'black & white' BS as *if* it's some justification for MAKING THEM ALL ENEMIES. It's *bullshit* and some of you are acting like hypocrites because you're falling into the very B&W bullshit you're railing against. The vast majority of companies out there simply do what they can to comply with the government for fear of swift and painful retaliation by the State. They do what they can to avoid unjust regulations and taxes, and rightfully so (just as we do). Certainly, some of them benefit SIGNIFICANTLY from government bailouts at the expense of the taxpayer, massive subsidies, or legal monopolies. NONE OF THESE COMPANIES BENEFIT IN THESE WAYS.

Like I said, if we were talking about companies like GM, Goldman Sachs, BoA, Citi, et cetera - it'd be different. But some of you are certainly pulling at straws to try and rationalize an attack on these other companies that are nowhere *near* in bed with the government as you're making them out to be, and none of you have made a convincing case to the contrary apart from wild speculation. IMO, ivflight is absolutely correct in his responses, and he's done a damned good job pointing out hypocracies and slippery slopes.

RedStripe is a thickest (libertarian thickism rejects *ALL* hierarchy, in every time and place, *even if it is voluntary*) and will rationalize *any* excuse to attack corporations, for *any* reason, because he sees their mere *existence* as UNJUST.

Everyone is being much too emotional and are losing sight of the principles that raise us *above* the State, and are getting desperate. There is *no* need to get desperate. Liberty has made and is making a *lot* of headway because of it's superior and *consistent* morals and ethics and through economics it's *ultimate respect for private property*. Keep your eyes on the prize.


"criminal means once tolerated are soon preferred. They present a shorter cut to the object than through the highway of the moral virtues. Justifying perfidy and murder for public benefit, public benefit would soon become the pretext, and perfidy and murder the end; until rapacity, malice, revenge, and fear more dreadful than revenge, could satiate their insatiable appetites. Such must be the consequences of losing, in the splendor of these triumphs of the rights of men, all natural sense of wrong and right."

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Who is lobbying who ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard
WikiLeaks cables: US 'lobbied Russia on behalf of Visa and MasterCard'


Is this not relevant? Is this "free market"?
Who is working with who ? What innocent party is being attacked?

Visa and MasterCard are the decision makers, they are the governing bodies who decides what free speech is. Attacking them is attacking the government. Some people are so fucking brainwashed by blind faith in their ideology, they can't see the forest for the trees.

[Sentient Void]

Visa and MasterCard are the decision makers, they are the governing bodies who decides what free speech is. Attacking them is attacking the government. Some people are so fucking brainwashed by blind faith in their ideology, they can't see the forest for the trees.

WTF are you talking about? How the hell are they the 'decision makers'? The only thing they *decide* is who they do business with. As is the right of *every* property owner. There are still TWO other credit card companies out there - and there are still NUMEROUS ways to donate to WikiLeaks, and even more will come about. And more WikiLeaks (ex: OpenLeaks) are *already* being created. What you are advocating is to silence the free speech and freedom of property of MCD and VSA - you nor anybody are NOT ENTITLED to their property.

You have all failed miserably on justifying these positions and VSA/MCD as essentially government agencies. This is utterly ridiculous - you *cannot avoid the State* - you can *easily* avoid doing business with VSA and MCD. They have not benefitted from bailouts, massive subsidies, or legal monopolies.

Some people are so blinded by sheer emotionalism, they can't see the forest past the trees and *think clearly*.

[Golding]

They are methods of protest by which people can strongly disapprove of a company's actions. I think it levels the playing field just a smidgen considering governments always have the corporate ear (and vice versa), while the people otherwise have no say. They are not nice actions, but I don't necessarily find them unjust.

[idirtify]

When there is a question of accountability, the default is supposed to lie with “innocent”. At least the presumption of innocence is supposed to be the American/libertarian system. Obviously there is an argument to be made against colluding corporations, but it seems to fall short of “proven guilty”.

But there is still a question about whether the nature of “DDOS” is actually aggression. I can’t say I’m entirely familiar with the term, but this issue appears to come down to this question: Do owners have the right to keep new visitors from going to their websites? But look closer at the question. For a right to be a right it first has to be POSSIBLE. I don’t know enough to know for sure, but I’m sure there are plenty of experts here to explain a DDOS better.

[Sentient Void]

I can’t say I’m entirely familiar with the term, but this issue appears to come down to this question: Do owners have the right to keep new visitors from going to their websites? But look closer at the question. For a right to be a right it first has to be POSSIBLE. I don’t know enough to know for sure, but I’m sure there are plenty of experts here to explain a DDOS better.

Websites are private property. DDOS attacks are abuses of bandwidth limitations on websites' servers in order to shut it down outright, by focusing as many computers as possible to continuously visit and revisit the website. It is a clear-cut violation of private property.


This would be no different then if a large enough group of people walked into a store and filled up all the floor space with no intention of buying anything. The owner tells them all to leave (the owners condemning the DDOS attacks), and they refuse. Trespassing.

[cindy25]

websites are private property, but if Janet can steal websites at her whim, then in a sense its just leveling the playing field.

you can't always play within the rules when the other side cheats.

[Sentient Void]

you can't always play within the rules when the other side cheats.

How did the 'other side' (Amazon, PayPal, MCD, VSA) 'cheat'? They denied service to a customer that is not entitled to their service. They have every right and are absolutely playing by the rules. Wikileaks can *still* be accessed through other servers (competitors on the market) and you can still donate to WikiLeaks through numerous other methods.

granted, they buckled under govt pressure - but what are they gonna do? Chances are, the government bullied them into it through threats of audits, tax legislation and it's ability to generally make their lives a living hell.

[cindy25]

How did the 'other side' (Amazon, PayPal, MCD, VSA) 'cheat'? They denied service to a customer that is not entitled to their service. They have every right and are absolutely playing by the rules. Wikileaks can *still* be accessed through other servers (competitors on the market) and you can still donate to WikiLeaks through numerous other methods.

granted, they buckled under govt pressure - but what are they gonna do? Chances are, the government bullied them into it through threats of audits, tax legislation and it's ability to generally make their lives a living hell.

Amazon I agree there are alternatives, but Paypal, Mastercard are close to being monopolies. and it was the other side that started this. what about the Web sites stolen by cousin Janet? their customers were also denied their services. Piratebay is down right now, and I wonder if Janet's jerks have something to do with it.

the British East India co. owned the tea thrown into Boston Harbor, because they sided with an oppressive government. banks that give in without a court order are no different. Just because Loserman wants something they just grant his wish.

[Sentient Void]

Amazon I agree there are alternatives, but Paypal, Mastercard are close to being monopolies. and it was the other side that started this. what about the Web sites stolen by cousin Janet? their customers were also denied their services. Piratebay is down right now, and I wonder if Janet's jerks have something to do with it.

the British East India co. owned the tea thrown into Boston Harbor, because they sided with an oppressive government. banks that give in without a court order are no different. Just because Loserman wants something they just grant his wish.

I'm pretty sure this constant comparison of companies like Amazon, PayPal, and even VISA and Mastercard to the Tea Party Revolt in regards to the East India Trading Company is a fallacy. EITC has numerous significant legally mandated monopolies on trade from the English Monarchy / Empire at the time, as well as many other specially granted privelages, and market competitors and consumers were constantly frustrated with them for these very reasons. There is little to no comparison.

The companies we're talking about are competing in a competitive market and none except for PayPal hold anything close to an actual monopoly. Amazon *definitely* doesn't have a monopoly on selling consumer goods on the internet -far from it. VSA and MCD still compete with Discover and MasterCard in their industry, and we have no reason to complain about their service (based on price and quality). As for PayPal, it may have a natural monopoly - but it has it (and it won't last, particularly if they start taking advantage of their role in the market) *solely* for the reason that it is a relatively new entity offering a very innovative and desired product, at a *VERY* good price (pretty much FREE),, bring an extremely good value. Such natural monopolies are extremely rare throughout history - and only are as such because they are strongly desired and preferred by consumers.

You guys are hating on these companies for no good reason except for the unfortunate fact that government is bullying them into a corner. Seriously.

As for websites being stolen by cousin Janet (Napolitano?), I'm not familiar with anything about this nor it's relevance to the subject at hand (no offense, I really don't know).

[cindy25]

I'm pretty sure this constant comparison of companies like Amazon, PayPal, and even VISA and Mastercard to the Tea Party Revolt in regards to the East India Trading Company is a fallacy. EITC has numerous significant legally mandated monopolies on trade from the English Monarchy / Empire at the time, as well as many other specially granted privelages, and market competitors and consumers were constantly frustrated with them for these very reasons. There is little to no comparison.

The companies we're talking about are competing in a competitive market and none except for PayPal hold anything close to an actual monopoly. Amazon *definitely* doesn't have a monopoly on selling consumer goods on the internet -far from it. VSA and MCD still compete with Discover and MasterCard in their industry, and we have no reason to complain about their service (based on price and quality). As for PayPal, it may have a natural monopoly - but it has it (and it won't last, particularly if they start taking advantage of their role in the market) *solely* for the reason that it is a relatively new entity offering a very innovative and desired product, at a *VERY* good price (pretty much FREE),, bring an extremely good value. Such natural monopolies are extremely rare throughout history - and only are as such because they are strongly desired and preferred by consumers.

You guys are hating on these companies for no good reason except for the unfortunate fact that government is bullying them into a corner. Seriously.

As for websites being stolen by cousin Janet (Napolitano?), I'm not familiar with anything about this nor it's relevance to the subject at hand (no offense, I really don't know).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=271668&highlight=domain

[Fox McCloud]

it's issues like this that really bring out the true libertarians...

thanks for making this topic, Sentient Void, it's much appreciated.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I'm pretty sure this constant comparison of companies like Amazon, PayPal, and even VISA and Mastercard to the Tea Party Revolt in regards to the East India Trading Company is a fallacy. EITC has numerous significant legally mandated monopolies on trade from the English Monarchy / Empire at the time, as well as many other specially granted privelages, and market competitors and consumers were constantly frustrated with them for these very reasons. There is little to no comparison.

The companies we're talking about are competing in a competitive market and none except for PayPal hold anything close to an actual monopoly. Amazon *definitely* doesn't have a monopoly on selling consumer goods on the internet -far from it. VSA and MCD still compete with Discover and MasterCard in their industry, and we have no reason to complain about their service (based on price and quality). As for PayPal, it may have a natural monopoly - but it has it (and it won't last, particularly if they start taking advantage of their role in the market) *solely* for the reason that it is a relatively new entity offering a very innovative and desired product, at a *VERY* good price (pretty much FREE),, bring an extremely good value. Such natural monopolies are extremely rare throughout history - and only are as such because they are strongly desired and preferred by consumers.

You guys are hating on these companies for no good reason except for the unfortunate fact that government is bullying them into a corner. Seriously.

As for websites being stolen by cousin Janet (Napolitano?), I'm not familiar with anything about this nor it's relevance to the subject at hand (no offense, I really don't know).

It's called desertion and usually people who do it should be lucky they don't get flogged. The companies did plenty of damage to free speech/wikileaks and deserve to be reprimanded.

[tremendoustie]

I'm pretty sure this constant comparison of companies like Amazon, PayPal, and even VISA and Mastercard to the Tea Party Revolt in regards to the East India Trading Company is a fallacy. EITC has numerous significant legally mandated monopolies on trade from the English Monarchy / Empire at the time, as well as many other specially granted privelages, and market competitors and consumers were constantly frustrated with them for these very reasons. There is little to no comparison.

The companies we're talking about are competing in a competitive market and none except for PayPal hold anything close to an actual monopoly. Amazon *definitely* doesn't have a monopoly on selling consumer goods on the internet -far from it. VSA and MCD still compete with Discover and MasterCard in their industry, and we have no reason to complain about their service (based on price and quality). As for PayPal, it may have a natural monopoly - but it has it (and it won't last, particularly if they start taking advantage of their role in the market) *solely* for the reason that it is a relatively new entity offering a very innovative and desired product, at a *VERY* good price (pretty much FREE),, bring an extremely good value. Such natural monopolies are extremely rare throughout history - and only are as such because they are strongly desired and preferred by consumers.

You guys are hating on these companies for no good reason except for the unfortunate fact that government is bullying them into a corner. Seriously.

As for websites being stolen by cousin Janet (Napolitano?), I'm not familiar with anything about this nor it's relevance to the subject at hand (no offense, I really don't know).

I think your defense of VSA and MCD may be misguided -- they are run by the major banks, which are deeply in bed with government.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the banking industry receives as much or more favorable treatment by this government as EITC did with the brits. Indeed, they've literally taken our tax money by force within the last few years, to say nothing of the ongoing abuses by the Fed.

You can't say those things about amazon or paypal. I agree that going after those companies clearly crosses the line.

[tremendoustie]

I just saw this portion of your earlier post, SV:


Like I said, if we were talking about companies like GM, Goldman Sachs, BoA, Citi, et cetera - it'd be different. But some of you are certainly pulling at straws to try and rationalize an attack on these other companies that are nowhere *near* in bed with the government as you're making them out to be

Visa was founded by bank of america.

According to Barbara Bayer of motley fool (and you can find this information elsewhere as well),
It is a privately held, for-profit corporation, that's jointly owned by 21,000 banks, each of which issues and markets its own Visa products. Its mission is "to ensure the competitiveness and profitability of its member institutions."

MasterCard, by contrast


is a private, not-for-profit association, with 22,000 members worldwide. Don't let the nonprofit part fool you, though. That just means that the profits go to the member banks, not the association itself ... The key point here is that both organizations are owned by their members. So as an investor, you're out of luck unless you happen to be a bank.

They loan money from the major banks -- Fed money -- at interest. Effectively, they are the banks.

[cindy25]

MasterCard and Visa also put up barriers for small business, making becoming a MasterCard/Visa merchant difficult. they also have a bias against businesses they don't like, such as mail order.
these accounts should be open for all, just as 50 years ago anyone could open a checking account.

[RedStripe]

Again with the "it is too hopelessly complicated to debate" argument. You understand that this isn't an argument for any particular thing other then saying "let's not talk about this anymore", right?


This is also the same kind of think liberals pitch. Everything is just such a random crapshoot, so lets redistribute all the wealth, and have affirmative action, and try and correct in a way that makes everyone perfectly equal.

lol

Um, I'm not saying anything like that. You are really getting hung up on a non-issue.

[idirtify]

Websites are private property. DDOS attacks are abuses of bandwidth limitations on websites' servers in order to shut it down outright, by focusing as many computers as possible to continuously visit and revisit the website. It is a clear-cut violation of private property.

OK. Let’s analyze your people-walking-into-a-store analogy. Unless there is the unlikely sign out front stating, “do not enter unless you are going to buy something”, there is no reason hundreds of people cannot enter the store. The nature of a store is the standing invitation for the public to enter. Of course anyone who is asked to leave must leave, but that does not prevent hundreds more new ones from entering. So if no one refuses to leave when asked, there is no violation of private property (or attack). Now the store might have fire regulations keeping too many from entering, but that’s not really the responsibility of the customers.

So let’s apply this to a website. Even if there is a mechanism for asking a website visitor to leave (and not come back), that does not address (or indict) thousands of new visitors from coming in. IOW I can see how banned visitors who return would be violating private property, but not new visitors. How would new visitors, no matter the quantity, be committing any kind of violation?

[ivflight]

OK. Let’s analyze your people-walking-into-a-store analogy. Unless there is the unlikely sign out front stating, “do not enter unless you are going to buy something”, there is no reason hundreds of people cannot enter the store. The nature of a store is the standing invitation for the public to enter. Of course anyone who is asked to leave must leave, but that does not prevent hundreds more new ones from entering. So if no one refuses to leave when asked, there is no violation of private property (or attack). Now the store might have fire regulations keeping too many from entering, but that’s not really the responsibility of the customers.

So let’s apply this to a website. Even if there is a mechanism for asking a website visitor to leave (and not come back), that does not address (or indict) thousands of new visitors from coming in. IOW I can see how banned visitors who return would be violating private property, but not new visitors. How would new visitors, no matter the quantity, be committing any kind of violation?

Your notion of rights would allow a thousand people to crowd around one person in a public park, never touching them or hurting them directly but packed so tight that they could never leave.

How can the web business ask anyone to leave if their means of communication has been shut down? If I kidnap someone and gag them before they can say "stop", is it moral? Also, many web sites do have terms of use - they may have policies already posted about such activity, but I doubt the ddos attackers check that stuff or care.

What is really stupid about the ddos attack is that you don't even need a lot of people like you would for a real protest - just one person can do it.

[Sentient Void]

OK. Let’s analyze your people-walking-into-a-store analogy. Unless there is the unlikely sign out front stating, “do not enter unless you are going to buy something”, there is no reason hundreds of people cannot enter the store. The nature of a store is the standing invitation for the public to enter. Of course anyone who is asked to leave must leave, but that does not prevent hundreds more new ones from entering. So if no one refuses to leave when asked, there is no violation of private property (or attack). Now the store might have fire regulations keeping too many from entering, but that’s not really the responsibility of the customers.

So let’s apply this to a website. Even if there is a mechanism for asking a website visitor to leave (and not come back), that does not address (or indict) thousands of new visitors from coming in. IOW I can see how banned visitors who return would be violating private property, but not new visitors. How would new visitors, no matter the quantity, be committing any kind of violation?

The intent / motivation is the distinction and the key. In my analogy to DDOS, those going in the store have *no* intent to buy, nor are they considering a purchase in the future with their visit - nor are they even perusing in general. The *intent* is malicious, and the business is not open for such reasons. If a business owner condemns your actions on his property and clearly says you are not wanted, *on top of that*, then you are clearly trespassing and violating property.

ivflight also brings up some good points above.

[ivflight]

So let’s apply this to a website. Even if there is a mechanism for asking a website visitor to leave (and not come back), that does not address (or indict) thousands of new visitors from coming in. IOW I can see how banned visitors who return would be violating private property, but not new visitors. How would new visitors, no matter the quantity, be committing any kind of violation?

This is not exactly what is happening. It is not new people visiting. It is the same person, perhaps with a different ip. The analogy becomes closer to something like this: the owner of the store asks you to leave, so you walk outside and put on a different disguise then come right back in - repeat this thousands of times, and build a bunch of drones to do the same thing, which are also under your control.

[silverhandorder]

I do not think they are just. I do think there is a level of culpability to which they must be subject to. After all if you are actively trying to undermine an organization that is at war with government then you are going to be drawn into it.

[idirtify]

Your notion of rights would allow a thousand people to crowd around one person in a public park, never touching them or hurting them directly but packed so tight that they could never leave.

How can the web business ask anyone to leave if their means of communication has been shut down? If I kidnap someone and gag them before they can say "stop", is it moral? Also, many web sites do have terms of use - they may have policies already posted about such activity, but I doubt the ddos attackers check that stuff or care.

What is really stupid about the ddos attack is that you don't even need a lot of people like you would for a real protest - just one person can do it.

The public park analogy doesn’t fit because we are talking about a private business that serves the public (private property). The most analogous would be a physical store. If a crowd comes into an individual’s store and traps him, all he has to do is tell them to leave; since it is his private property/business. Any individual who refuses is in violation. But I can’t see how any individuals are in violation before that point, short of a sign out front saying something like, “do not enter at this time (if you do not intend to buy)”. I mean how is a potential customer supposed to know beforehand that his entering will constitute a violation the instant he crosses the property line? How is he supposed to know that his presence will present some kind of physical restriction/problem? Your answer would appear to be “because the current rush of customers has prevented him from hanging such a sign”. While that situation may be true, it would not constitute justification for charging customers with trespassing. IOW, a business owner that is overwhelmed with customers cannot really blame the customers, let alone new ones just entering. There has to be some kind of pre-notification.

Now let’s analyze your kidnap analogy. While the part about gagging the victim before he can say “stop” is relevant, the premise of a violent crime against an individual is not. Besides, no individual needs to hang a sign on his person saying, “Do not kidnap or gag me” in order for kidnapping or accosting to be a crime. These non-consensual crimes are universally recognized rights violations. But walking in a store is not.

[idirtify]

The intent / motivation is the distinction and the key. In my analogy to DDOS, those going in the store have *no* intent to buy, nor are they considering a purchase in the future with their visit - nor are they even perusing in general. The *intent* is malicious, and the business is not open for such reasons. If a business owner condemns your actions on his property and clearly says you are not wanted, *on top of that*, then you are clearly trespassing and violating property.

ivflight also brings up some good points above.

I don’t think we want to define aggression in terms of secret intent; only enforceable by determining “what he was thinking”. Conspiracy laws and hate-crimes = “thought crimes” = lots of problems.

[idirtify]

This is not exactly what is happening. It is not new people visiting. It is the same person, perhaps with a different ip. The analogy becomes closer to something like this: the owner of the store asks you to leave, so you walk outside and put on a different disguise then come right back in - repeat this thousands of times, and build a bunch of drones to do the same thing, which are also under your control.

But I don’t think the owner has asked anyone to leave. Besides, each visit would represent a new person, no matter whether they were all “under the control” of one. And even if the owner had asked the first to leave, if he doesn’t recognize the next ones as employees of the banned one and doesn’t ask them to leave, they are not in violation.

[Sentient Void]

I don’t think we want to define aggression in terms of secret intent; only enforceable by determining “what he was thinking”. Conspiracy laws and hate-crimes = “thought crimes” = lots of problems.

I'm not defining aggression in legal terms nor do I think it's a good idea for the law to get involved in determining intent arbitrarily (although it is possible and has been used often to find evidence in a case to show motive / intent to *help* a case - though such things are not grounds for a crime nor should they be) - I'm defining aggression in relation to if it is just and warranted.

I believe the concluded intent is misguided in regards to justice and the idea of proportionality of potential retribution.

[Sentient Void]

But I don’t think the owner has asked anyone to leave. Besides, each visit would represent a new person, no matter whether they were all “under the control” of one. And even if the owner had asked the first to leave, if he doesn’t recognize the next ones as employees of the banned one and doesn’t ask them to leave, they are not in violation.

Each of the companies have publicly condemned the DDOS attacks. Conclusion: if you are a DDOS attacker, you are not wanted on this property. I don't know how much more clear it can get.

No to mention that it's pretty prima facie as is.

[ivflight]

The public park analogy doesn’t fit because we are talking about a private business that serves the public (private property). The most analogous would be a physical store. If a crowd comes into an individual’s store and traps him, all he has to do is tell them to leave; since it is his private property/business. Any individual who refuses is in violation. But I can’t see how any individuals are in violation before that point, short of a sign out front saying something like, “do not enter at this time (if you do not intend to buy)”. I mean how is a potential customer supposed to know beforehand that his entering will constitute a violation the instant he crosses the property line? How is he supposed to know that his presence will present some kind of physical restriction/problem? Your answer would appear to be “because the current rush of customers has prevented him from hanging such a sign”. While that situation may be true, it would not constitute justification for charging customers with trespassing. IOW, a business owner that is overwhelmed with customers cannot really blame the customers, let alone new ones just entering. There has to be some kind of pre-notification.

Now let’s analyze your kidnap analogy. While the part about gagging the victim before he can say “stop” is relevant, the premise of a violent crime against an individual is not. Besides, no individual needs to hang a sign on his person saying, “Do not kidnap or gag me” in order for kidnapping or accosting to be a crime. These non-consensual crimes are universally recognized rights violations. But walking in a store is not.

I didn't offer the park as fitting analogy, I just said that given your idea of rights, that would be a possibility that is impossible to stop. If a private business can't keep troublemakers away then you surely can't do it in a public place.

You say that if a person is trapped on private property that all he has to do is ask them to leave, but you described yourself how they would leave and immediately be replaced by a new person who is not in violation. Do you see how your view never allows the property owner any freedom? You also fail to recognize that in a ddos attack you do not have new people coming in, just the same person wearing a different disguise over and over and over....

Your second paragraph only helps the point that Sentient Void just made. No one should have to post a sign to stop someone from doing obvious and intentional damage.


I mean how is a potential customer supposed to know beforehand that his entering will constitute a violation the instant he crosses the property line? How is he supposed to know that his presence will present some kind of physical restriction/problem?

He's supposed to know because it is his intent to cause a problem and he put up videos on the web stating that he intends to cause trouble. It's the reason he is there, declared by himself, and obvious to everyone.

[idirtify]

I'm not defining aggression in legal terms nor do I think it's a good idea for the law to get involved in determining intent arbitrarily (although it is possible and has been used often to find evidence in a case to show motive / intent to *help* a case - though such things are not grounds for a crime nor should they be) - I'm defining aggression in relation to if it is just and warranted.

I believe the concluded intent is misguided in regards to justice and the idea of proportionality of potential retribution.

I wasn’t basing my reasoning on the law; I was only citing bad law to defend my point that you can’t base a determination of aggression solely on intent. There has to be more. If the act itself is not inherently aggressive, there is no violation. We both agree that aggression needs to be defined, but intent isn’t a good measuring stick. Lots of badly intended acts are not aggression.

[idirtify]

Each of the companies have publicly condemned the DDOS attacks. Conclusion: if you are a DDOS attacker, you are not wanted on this property. I don't know how much more clear it can get.

No to mention that it's pretty prima facie as is.

OK, so the companies condemn DDOS attacks. Very well. Questions: Do the companies post signs/TOS that state this on their website’s home pages? If so, how do they define DDOS? Do they just say “no DDOS”, or do they specify “do not visit this website more than once per _____ (insert given time span)? If it’s the latter, how many visits per given time span constitutes a DDOS? Beyond that, what if I happen to visit a site just at the point when the hair breaks the camel’s back (crashes the server)?

Re prima facie: Plenty of things originally claimed to be “just common sense” end up being far from it.

[ivflight]

OK, so the companies condemn DDOS attacks. Very well. Questions: Do the companies post signs/TOS that state this on their website’s home pages? If so, how do they define DDOS? Do they just say “no DDOS”, or do they specify “do not visit this website more than once per _____ (insert given time span)? If it’s the latter, how many visits per given time span constitutes a DDOS? Beyond that, what if I happen to visit a site just at the point when the hair breaks the camel’s back (crashes the server)?

Re prima facie: Plenty of things originally claimed to be “just common sense” end up being far from it.

If someone tries to access data on the server and the access is denied because the server has determined that the ip is making too many requests, then that should be enough for the person to stop. When the person changes their ip or goes through a different route then that's when they have come back into the store with a different disguise. Like you said, once you've been asked to leave then it is wrong to come back.

[ivflight]

OK, so the companies condemn DDOS attacks. Very well. Questions: Do the companies post signs/TOS that state this on their website’s home pages? If so, how do they define DDOS? Do they just say “no DDOS”, or do they specify “do not visit this website more than once per _____ (insert given time span)? If it’s the latter, how many visits per given time span constitutes a DDOS? Beyond that, what if I happen to visit a site just at the point when the hair breaks the camel’s back (crashes the server)?

Re prima facie: Plenty of things originally claimed to be “just common sense” end up being far from it.

I copied this straight from Wiki and it is sourced: "Denial-of-service attacks are considered violations of the IAB's Internet proper use policy, and also violate the acceptable use policies of virtually all Internet service providers. They also commonly constitute violations of the laws of individual nations."

It would be very unusual for someone to post publicly that illegal behavior is not allowed (just like you said, no one should have to post a sign on themselves saying "do not kidnap me"). I'm not making the argument that because something is a law or rule it is just, I'm simply agreeing with you that it would be strange for someone to publicly post existing laws as rules on their turf.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not sure I can speak for how "just" these attacks may be in light of libertarian philosophy, but in the great "karmic" justice sense, damn right they are.

Corporations are creatures of the state, they are not, and never will be, "private enterprises" in the true sense of the phrase.

Voted "yes".

[Sentient Void]

I'm not sure I can speak for how "just" these attacks may be in light of libertarian philosophy, but in the great "karmic" justice sense, damn right they are.

Corporations are creatures of the state, they are not, and never will be, "private enterprises" in the true sense of the phrase.

Voted "yes".

I thought that for a while , too - that corporations and 'limited liability' was specifically a Statist institution... but I don't know about that anymore. I don't see any reason why even in an AnCap society, for example, people would not be able to pool their capital together and enter into an agreement with eachother, their shareholders, and their customers that their liability is limited solely to the capital itself. It's a voluntary agreement all the same and not required by the state.

[Sentient Void]

I wasn’t basing my reasoning on the law; I was only citing bad law to defend my point that you can’t base a determination of aggression solely on intent. There has to be more. If the act itself is not inherently aggressive, there is no violation. We both agree that aggression needs to be defined, but intent isn’t a good measuring stick. Lots of badly intended acts are not aggression.

Intent was just another thing to take note of. Ultimately, I feel it comes down to the fact that website are private property, and private property under a DOS attack is being trespassed on / vandalized - this being the violation and aggression.

[CCTelander]

I thought that for a while , too - that corporations and 'limited liability' was specifically a Statist institution... but I don't know about that anymore. I don't see any reason why even in an AnCap society, for example, people would not be able to pool their capital together and enter into an agreement with eachother, their shareholders, and their customers that their liability is limited solely to the capital itself. It's a voluntary agreement all the same and not required by the state.


The difference being, at least as I see it, that the scenario you describe does not bind uninvolved third parties. The statist system under which we live does.

[Anti Federalist]

I thought that for a while , too - that corporations and 'limited liability' was specifically a Statist institution... but I don't know about that anymore. I don't see any reason why even in an AnCap society, for example, people would not be able to pool their capital together and enter into an agreement with eachother, their shareholders, and their customers that their liability is limited solely to the capital itself. It's a voluntary agreement all the same and not required by the state.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree in the sense of business capital and pooling resources, (collective efforts eh? ;) ) what I find troubling is the concept of the corporation itself as an individual, with all the rights and protections of an individual.

How was Fanuiel Hall? Bummed I couldn't go...

[Anti Federalist]

The difference being, at least as I see it, that the scenario you describe does not bind uninvolved third parties. The statist system under which we live does.

That ^^^

[Inflation]

You can not essentially build a wall and prevent the public from accessing private property.

This is silly.

Do the 30% who voted yes really think that a person with multiple computers can just shut down google because they have enough computer power? Come on.

Google may well (continue to) turn out to be a tremendous threat to our Liberty.

Many countries are investigating them for their utter disregard for our privacy and their greedy desire to know everything about our profitable personal details.

In the words of Adam Freeland, they want your soul:

YouTube - Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul.mpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvwK-3cQ6gE)

If a lone hero emerged capable of destroying the CIA's (cough Google's) attempt at Total Information Awareness, we should support and applaud them.

Otherwise, we will have mandatory Google chips implanted at birth within 10 years.


your cellphone, your wallet, your time, your ideas
no barcode, no party, no ID, no beers
your bankcard, your licence, your thoughts, your fears
no SIM card, no disco, no photo, not here
your blood, your sweat, your passions, your regrets
your profits, your time off, your fashions, your sex
your pills, your grass, your tits, your ass
your laughs, your balls, we want it all (we want your soul)

your cash, your house, your phone, your life (we want your soul)

tell us your habits, your fads, your fears
give us your address, your shoe size, your years
your digits, your plans, your number, your eyes
your schedule, your desktop, your details, your life
show us your children, your photos, your home
here, take credit, take insurance, take a loan

[Inflation]

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/temple/images/tea_party.jpg

Oh no, just look at all that poor innocent tea being attacked.

That tea is not the property of King George. It belongs to the saintly, honest shareholders of the British East India Company.

How dare those communist Sons of Liberty let their emotions control them!

Why can't they be 100% Ideologically Pure, like great anarcho-libertarian revolutionaries such as Sentient Void?

They are violating property rights! That can never be allowed, especially against the property of artificially incorporated business that serve as willing tools to the King's intolerable power.



The real problem is that libertarian philosophy, itself, has been so limited and watered-down that we come to the absurd situation where a radical philosophy of political, social and economic revolution is now manifested in the defense of Mastercard.

I love the Boston Tea Party analogy. If the right-wing libertarians lived during the early stages of the American Revolution they would be too busy consternating over whether the destruction of the tea was an act against a "private" company to even appreciate or participate in the revolution happening around them.



^^^This, to the power of +plus one billion internets+

I'm disappointed to find out how useless is 60% of RPF, when push comes to shove. :(

[legion]

Google may well (continue to) turn out to be a tremendous threat to our Liberty.

Many countries are investigating them for their utter disregard for our privacy and their greedy desire to know everything about our profitable personal details.


If a lone hero emerged capable of destroying the CIA's (cough Google's) attempt at Total Information Awareness, we should support and applaud them.

Otherwise, we will have mandatory Google chips implanted at birth within 10 years.

Google's doesn't work for the CIA.

Google's master plan has been leaked online. Part of it includes replacing the "existing governments" and creating "google.gov" and "google.mil."


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9244/214685363dea961fabz.jpg

[ivflight]

I'm not sure I can speak for how "just" these attacks may be in light of libertarian philosophy, but in the great "karmic" justice sense, damn right they are.

Corporations are creatures of the state, they are not, and never will be, "private enterprises" in the true sense of the phrase.

Voted "yes".

I registered my business as a corporation with the state in order to pay less taxes and stay out of jail because I want to keep my money rather than fund the state. Tell me, if some assholes decide it is ok to attack my property because of this, will you help them burn my house down?

[Sentient Void]

Oh no, just look at all that poor innocent tea being attacked.

That tea is not the property of King George. It belongs to the saintly, honest shareholders of the British East India Company.

How dare those communist Sons of Liberty let their emotions control them!

Why can't they be 100% Ideologically Pure, like great anarcho-libertarian revolutionaries such as Sentient Void?

They are violating property rights! That can never be allowed, especially against the property of artificially incorporated business that serve as willing tools to the King's intolerable power.





^^^This, to the power of +plus one billion internets+

I'm disappointed to find out how useless is 60% of RPF, when push comes to shove. :(

Once again - EITC was *quite* different than MasterCard (EITC was to be considered as much a 'private' company as Halliburton is). I've explained this already in the thread, and won't do it again. Feel free to catch up.

I'm disappointed to find out how you and others are so quick to lose sight of justice and become so desperate you're willing to attack anything in sight with no regard to justice. Especially since the principled libertarian position has made so much headway in the last few years.


Edmund Burke]"Criminal means once tolerated are soon preferred. They present a shorter cut to the object than through the highway of the moral virtues. Justifying perfidy and murder for public benefit, public benefit would soon become the pretext, and perfidy and murder the end; until rapacity, malice, revenge, and fear more dreadful than revenge, could satiate their insatiable appetites. Such must be the consequences of losing, in the splendor of these triumphs of the rights of men, all natural sense of wrong and right."

[dannno]

The banking institutions, yes, but not the paypal/retail ones.