^^ Agreed, I question the premise that a military or militia would be necessary if DACs become the way the world operates.
While I disagree with his ideas and take an anti-violent stance I also take an anti-censorship stance. There should be a portion of the forum properly tagged for this kind of talk. This primarily because we know at some point these sorts of ideas are going to be discussed.
My opinion on it is that while the government isn't good at many things, when it comes to defense and war the government is the best at that particular business.
----------
I think what you're thinking of is a cyber militia. You're thinking about it in the context of a cyber war. I'm sure the three letter agencies around the world already have plans in place for that.
As far as law enforcement goes, that is not something which can be decentralized anytime soon. Checks and balances are necessary to prevent abuse. How would you prevent these tools from being misused to abuse innocent people without checks and balances?
For that reason I take on an anti-violence stance. There are no current checks and balances in the world where we already know who is in charge and there would similarly be no checks and balances when we don't know who is in charge.
Violence doesn't really benefit the people who want to live a long life or who want freedom in most cases. Perhaps there should be a clause put into the social contract which stipulates that all DACs which adhere to the social consensus will not promote or make use of physical violence, force, or coercion? Because in my opinion opening the door to violence would invite it right back.
I have no problem having this removed.
As a hardcore NAPer my goal was to brainstorm defense against aggressors, not aggression.
I wanted to see how it could be done.
Does anyone have ideas regarding a defense DAC?
Like a police DAC.
A "don't rape me, beat me or home invade me" DAC.
I'm looking for brainstormers here!
If your goal really is defense against aggressors the best defense against aggressors is evidence provided by sousveillance. Secrecy allows aggressors to get away with abusing innocent people, break laws, and more. Surveillance is a tool of hierarchy to protect those at the top from those at the bottom while souseveillance is a tool of heterarchy to protect those at the bottom "the little guy" from those at the top.
The Rodney King beating was filmed and police brutally was caught on tape. That was sousveillance. The ability to pseudo-anonymously exchange information means that evidence of corruption or of a crime can captured and distributed. The same laws which are used to enforce on the little guy can take down the big guy if the right law enforcement agent receives the evidence.
I think if information flows freely, it will become more difficult for those with power and authority to abuse that power and authority. Violence isn't really necessary to get a person fired or arrested for a crime, if in fact a crime has been committed. A jury is the only way to evaluate the evidence to determine if that was the case, and the evidence has to be collected by detectives and people trained to make those kinds of cases.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/18/sousveillance-turns-the-tables-on-the-su