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

[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 fags 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 fags 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 fags 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.