Chat Room Psycho Babblers

The Web is like life. And for most people, life is a set of aliases that vary in how strong they are coupled to our 'real' ID.

Of course the Web does allow people to have aliases that go to greater extremes because the cloak of privacy protects their 'real' identities and the Web itself makes it easy to 'be' the alias.

The classic male playing the part of a female is one relatively tame example. There are those who are willing to go through the physical effort of appearing to be female because it appeals to them and is one of their aliases. There are even those who go to the extreme of becoming structurally female through surgical and biochemical means because that alias is a closer match to their 'real' ID.

With the Web, onecan go multiple directions and still keep their 'real' ID intact.

Now, is that good or bad? I can see situations where multiple aliases on the Web could indicate that psych problems exist. I can even see situations where they cause psych and/orsocial problems.

It leads to some interesting areas of discussion.

18 years past his due date, big brother is late, but he's here. Really, whether it's online or off big brother could be watching in many ways so there really is little difference whether you say it outloud or type it down. Every transaction you proceed with is logged and accesable to all when you use that plastic.

There are cameras on street corners, cameras in buildings. There are people listening to your calls at work, and more freedom for agencies to monitor your home as well. There are people who would report you if they stood to gain, and there are those who will interpret what you say as subversive no matter what medium in which it was said.

This is as it is, and there is little to be done to change it so long as people are as timid as cattle and go with the herd or where they are led without thought. The only question is, which big brother do you fear more, the corporate one or the government, or the combined efforts of the two?

Me, I refuse to let such things change who I am. There is a price for everything and I willingly pay the price for the freedom to be myself and be true to what I feel and believe, big brother or popular opinion be damned.

True chat rooms are a "dime a dozen" as the saying goes. They are everywhere..and with ICQ, AIM, Yahoo Messenger!, etc. even more so now.

I find it kind of sad, pathetic and yet ironic actually. I mean people will blab for hours a week online - speak out on issues once thought taboo but then all too many times I've experienced such dull conversations in "real life" places - restaurants, pubs, sports events and of course parties. What is it? Is there a lot of people who "save their talk" for the computer chat rooms these days? Its it a decline in social skills based on the prevailence of technology in our lives? Or perhaps, based on many chats on the 'net, that people are so limited in their topics that if you aren't talking trash about someone or trying to "hit on" someone of the opposite sex - they are lost for words? ;)

In the business world - chat is a useful tool, for short and to-the-point messages...I loathe it for anything longer though, at which point I feel its more worthwhile to just phone the person (if I can't speak to them face to face).

I'm guilty of being a past user of ICQ and wasting a few hours of my life in meaningless chat sessions with "artifical" people. Maybe that's why today, I feel so strongly that 90% (if not more) of all chats on the Internet is just wasting valuable hours of peoples lives on valueless conversation.

By that's just my opinion - and everyone's entitled to their own.

You have to love the hypocrisy and mixed messages being sent out to people today.

Example. Police officers:

It seems that everyone today encourages people to seek professional counseling if they're having a hard time coping with something. Now, say a cop goes and seeks treatment for some mild depression or grief counseling for the loss of a child. UH, OH, the officer has to use his weapon in the line of duty, and it is completely legitimate. The fact that he did his job properly won’t stop the media from portraying him as a loose cannon on the edge of sanity. All of a sudden reporters will say "the officer was under counseling" at the time of the shooting, and that they are not sure about his “state of mind.” Now you tell me, is any cop ever going to get help, especially now that he knows it could be used against him someday. Hell no. He’ll suck it up.

The examples are endless, and they apply to everyone in society, not just cops. The rule is, ask me no questions, I tell you no lies.

As a side note, I see people getting there balls busted about something they said twenty-five years ago. Give me a break. You mean to tell me people are frozen at some stage in their development?

Many of you commented that there are social concerns here. As an IT person who manages these discussion groups and chat rooms at least technically, do you feel any obligation to review or manage the conversations? How can validation occur? Should chat rooms be chargeable?

I would think if people paid for a discussion group or chat room then a traceable and validated individual would be id'd. This would limit or reduce the amount of crap.

Additionally, as a techie would you want a Government or Agency overseeing the site. Establishing processes and methods to ensure credibility. I could foresee the government establishing operating guidelines for technology. Perhaps called Generally Accepted Information Practices that are somewhat like General Manufacturing Practices or Generally Accepted Accounting Practices.

Well, there are some drawbacks to IDs online and there are some things that validate such desires.

The drawbacks are increased opportunities for identity theft, no guarantees that the ID will be un-crackable, and there is the increased opportuninity for big-brotherism and neo-macarthyism. Yes, you might be more sure that the person you talk with is who they stated they were, but may be very reluctant to share honest opinions in fear of reprisals by managers/businesses that monitor or track individuals. (that's a drawback for individuals and a big bonus for corporations) Government can already track a great deal of usage and thus find people who delve into such things as child porn or the like. (think of all the raids about a year ago)
All required and government enforced IDing does is bring all of these activities into the forefront, but changes little since these things are already done quite a bit. The problem is that many from other nations can use anonymously since their government may not enforce such regulations, and those may even host anonymous sites as well.

Again, this is where self governance is preferable. If you want to discuss things with people who are verified in their identity and those people are willing to deal with the consequences of that then make a system that enforces that and invite those people as your user base and exclude those who do not wish to conform to your ideal. This is the basis of self government by proxy of forming associations with others of like mind for the purpose of doing what you have a like mind about.

After all, whatever you think gives you the right to control others gives others the right to control you, and that's what government is all about, power over others despite their will. I just suggest that you do what you want with others who's will matches your own for the intended purpose.

Would that be a real name or? Anyway.... I agree on the rights thing, by introducing others, or several others in a group, into your life, you start limiting rights. This is the point of joining a Chatroom, a BBS or IRC internet or private network based. By agreement or consent of the members in the group then, certain rules (or lack of rules) are then introduced and those outside the group can choose to join or stay away.
Some people don't need, want or encourage government oversight and itis a waste of our national resources to bother them unless they break outside of their group and start spamming their opinions on others without consent.
This is why we have physical conventions, like if you want to practice the art of stripping, do it in a strip club, not on the steps of your workplace. If you don't want stupid opinions by "false alias" then stay out of the clubs. It's that simple. We don't need to be wasting taxpayer dollars on some stupid attempt to control consenting adults.

BTW the internet, and open space DO NOT belong to the public in the USA. The use of them does.

personal validation. I would much rather have each individual accountable for their actions.

Having said that, the current technology we have does not lend itself well (or much at all) to making this possible. I can easily spoof my location on the internet. (For that matter, I can fake a drivers license too) I could steal your ip your mac address your isp info and even spoof the hardware in your computer. Actually physical and virtual identity theft are real problems and the smart criminals DO NOT get caught often. I do computer evidence work at times, and let me tell you, most of the cybercriminals that are caught are not the smartest cards in the technology deck. The smart ones, as my friends in law enforcement say about the physical world, don't get caught. Organized crime is of course worldwide now and well funded. These people are excited about identities because it keeps the average cybercriminal or script kiddies in line and sends more denario their way while lessening public outcry and investigation against them. I don't think Technology will ever live up to this ideal of personal responsibilty and identity, but we, as individuals, are free to embrace it -and I do cherish that :)

Although most of the replies here arethoughtful, I have seen nothing that calls ANY of this what it really is... an attempt at censorship.

In the age of keystroke loggers and secret searches, it SHOULD be clear that not only is the government interested in what you say, but to whom you say it.

For the record, my outspoken nature has already been rewarded with a layoff and the installation of the keystroke logger on this very computer.
I suggest each and every one of you reboot with a startup log and step by step confirmation of every item on your computers... you may find that I am not alone in the existence of a few lines that read "enumerating unknown" and "starting unknown".

The source of the problem is liberalism with a twist. We may have HAD freedom of speech, but nobody seems to see that liberalism and political correctness are diametrically OPPOSED. If liberalism it to ALLOW more, how is it that SAYING MORE is not allowed?

Although this forum discussesaccountability for what one says in a chat room, i would like to point out to all of you that freedom of speech is a right given by GOD not government. Identifying a specific individual is only useful in destroying the right to say what you wish. Itis also clear that those who wish to impose this upon us would in the very same moment exempt themselves from such oversight.

Censorship works...ask HITLER, STALIN, HUSSEIN, or anybody who ever may have dealt with them.

You can make nearly anything outside of perhaps ritual suicide, look good on paper.

Proper discussion and analyzation of forms of government can in no way be done in just a little dinky 1930 characters-allowed forum, however I disagree that Anarchy is superior to Democracy.

You over simplify enormously in your assumptions of self-responsibility and personally, as for mentioning how Eric Raymond proved that Anarchy doesn't create holocausts is not enough to convince me of the point you aretrying to make.

And why, do I feel you are mis-informed with what Anarchy would be/do for our society? Simply put you are giving way too much credit to majority of American citizens (oddly enough since I *AM* an American citizen I feel no guilt of making that accusation). People *ARE* irresponsible, people *ARE* lazy, people *NEED* leadership. This is years of US governmental brain washing either - travel the country poke an interest at court cases filed, look at the jobless rate, drunks, domestic violence.... Anarchy wouldn't solve problems it would create more.

Finally, let me make one thing perfectly clear - ALL forms of governments suck to a degree, I'm not saying democracy doesn't have a *TON* of things I *LOATHE* but it is thelesser of all the other evils (governments) in the world.

"When you go online it may be of value to hold people accountable for their rants rather than have a false alias spewing garbage."

Note that the following applies to rants and not those activities that are harmful to society. (Of course, this assumes that you live in a society where rants are considered freedom of speech and not subversive activities that are harmful to society…)

Would this accountability for rants apply to everybody in all venues?

There are areas where rants are a way of life, something expected by those who frequent them. As long as you stick to the formal or informal rules of these areas, ranting isn’t a problem so accountability isn’t a problem. If you don’t like the rants in these areas, either get the rules changed or ignore the rants. It may be painful at times, but it is the price you pay if you support the freedom of the venue.

Using aliases in these areas can be useful, especially when a person wants to rant from multiple points of view in an effort to prove a point or stimulate discussion. Trying to restrict these types of rants by restricting aliases in the name of accountability would be a bad form of censorship.

(Continued: Rant Accountability Part 2)

There are other areas where rants are considered to be bad taste at best and forbidden actions at worst. This is where you have formal rules and procedures to ensure accountability, even if you have aliases. A person who rants in this environmentwill find themselves restricted or removed if they exceed the rant tolerance level. This applies even if they are using an alias.

Of course, they will be able to rant at least once, since the act of ranting is the thing that violates the rules.Whether that rant makes it to the rest of the population would depend upon whether there is a gatekeeper (aka censor) that allows the rant to be posted. Whether it stays there would depend upon the policies of the organization providing the platform for the discussion.

The ranter could even rant again if membership is something that is automatically provided without using some sort of secure, easily accessed, universally recognized cybernetic ID.

And even with a CyberID, you could createaliases used for ranting.

Of course if you had to pay a good sized sum for a CyberID, and had to verify your identity with voice print, retina print, finger prints, genetic sampling, multiple notarized witnesses and a warm body, you might be ableto get some accountability. And if you could only have one CyberID at a time, you couldn’t have multiple aliases in those areas that require CyberIDs.

At this point it would be possible to get accountability if the ranter’s CyberID can be terminated by organizations that use it for accountability. That would ‘encourage’ accountability because the CyberID owner would lose something of value if they violated the rules.

Unfortunately, there is always a chance that an unscrupulous person would lay a false trail in order to kill the CyberID. And there would also be a chance that somebody could spoof the CyberID with the same intent to kill.

I'm watching and reading "very carefully" everything that is said here.

ISP

Why is someone who hasn't revealed his own identity calling for the goverment to force others to reveal theirs?

Why do I find this funny when it really isn't at all?

It's just indicative of those who call for a loss of the freedoms of others that they are unwilling to give up themselves. I guess that's what government is for.

There is a good book out called "The Founding Brothers" that discusses the 8 principles who created the United States of America. In it you'll see that 200+ years ago they struggled with the same issues as today. Their conclusions have been rediscovered and reinforced many times in the following years after their reign.

Having citizens accountable for thier actions is not a bad idea. We do this in our legal system when we put people in jail and fine them. Like operating a car the internet isa privilege extended to us by the Government. I agree it would be wrong to license people to stand in a natural public forum to exercise thier rights but the internet is not a natural forum and subject to 'controls'.

Today the internet has become a place for pediphiles, porno, and scams that infringe upon peoples rights. With little 'controls' inplace young children are being inappropriately influenced and parents have few abilities to manage it. People are losing life savings in scams and the scale of internet crimes is astronomical. Most businesses have had intelligene gathering conducted on them and never know it.

So how do you all suppose we create a more equitable system?

Right of way, eminent domain, and easements are usually known at the time of purchase of a property. There is rarely a surprise.

As for the internet, it resides on wires and the airways. People gather there to present content. Internationally there are sovereignity issues and some countries like Saudi Arabia are installing control points but because of packet switching everyones packets at one time or another pass through others sovereign borders.

This introduces a bigger problem if a state sponsors computer attacks against another state. Today airplanes must request permission to fly over a country but computer attacks may pass through or even originate in many other countries if a DDOS attack having 10,000 zombie machines. It makes it difficult for a state to determine where the original threat is coming from.

Side note, during the grounding the EP-3 in China last Spring numerous US civilians conducted a private war against the Chinese. 100's of 1000's of private citizenslaunched a vast array of attacks against Chinese sites in protest. Of course, the US government could not do anything about it - they have a right to express themselves!

Obviously "They don't have to own it" is an admission that the US government DOES NOT own the internet as reinforced abvove in your reply to generalist entitled "Exceptions" points out in more detail.

I am curious as to this new point however. Do you believe that if something is not in the constitution that it is not a right? I am hoping that this was more a last ditch effort than something you really believe. If we went by the constitution literally, women would not be able to vote and essentially be afforded no rights. People would have the right to abuse animals as much as they wanted. There would be no rights of the American public in your aforemention of airwaves and a whole host of other things. In reality, the internet, arpanet,worldwide web and personal pc were not around during the era of drafting the constitution as far as I can tell...... Do you really think that we can survive into the next few centuries intact if we do not allow the constitution to be a living document?
Personally, I love the constitution of the United States of America a great deal and have the utmost respect for it and its intent, however, I would consider it wrong for me to imply constitutional law upon all of the people in the world and I certainly wouldn't claim that it somehow should be the be all end all of deciding whether the web is a privilege or right for the entire world. I especially wouldn't post this ascertation in a world wide public technical forum. I would like to believethat as in science, there is a worldwide brotherhood of IT workers that is reaches above the mark of who's country is the best, but that's just me :)

and get some real info behind the alias :)

Checks and balances would be both internal and external and would also involve independent organizations.

It is a classic case of who will guard the guardians.

You would also have to guard against stagnation, bureaucracy and other organizational problems. I suspect that it could be done, but it would take a paradigm shift to do it right. The organizations involved would have to continuously reinvent themselves to stay healthy.

When you get down, this reinvention process would be a form of check and balance.

DblOhGawd, you have it backwards.

The US Constitution does not “bestow” rights on the individual, but rather grants certain “rights” to the government and limits the citizenry in regards to others. In short, the US Constitution declares what the government may or may not do, it does not declare what the citizen may or may not do. In addition, the government doesn’t just “take” those rights away, but rather the people (through their representatives)relinquish certain rights for the common good. If they are not “specifically” relinquished, then everything else is indeed a “right”. Furthermore, the Constitution does not even suggest that the US government “grants” ANY rights. In fact, it specifically states that all “rights” are granted by God.

Indeed there are certain rights spelled out, such as the right to free speech, etc., but just because something is not specifically stated does not mean it’s not a right. To use your example that the, “Constitution does (not) state (that) you have a right to the internet”, does not imply that one does not have that right. On the contrary, it certainly does. (Since it does not limit that right.) The Constitution, for further example, does not even mention schools, but I certainly do have the right to attend any school of my choice, or send my children to any school of my choice.

In summation, we all have the “right” to do whatever we please as long as it is not specifically limited within the text of the Constitution. (And, of course, if it is in compliance with all Federal, State and Local laws.)

And that’s the civics lesson for today.

Maxwell

I am not for more Government in general. However, we are approaching a time when the Freedom of the Internet act will come to an end. Chat rooms are loaded with people who often discuss inappropriate material, advance subversive ideologies, or are pediphiles. There are alot of honest and sincere people too.

In our new world we are faced with the clash of the civilizations. In our society there are vulnerabilities everywhere. Somehow we need to install credibility into these things. Did you know that Timothy McVeigh used websites and chatrooms extensively. That was evidence against him.

We need to reduce the time between learning and course of action in order to respond to identified threats.

Many seem to think industry can regulate itself. Others think independent private organizations can do it. I wonder if that is possible or should there be overarching control and monitoring?

DblOhGawd, I certainly don't profess to know you, not even a little bit. However, there is one thing I have learned about you in regards to how you conduct yourself, especially in a forum such as this. You simply won't admit when you're wrong.

And thank you so much for the reading suggestion. I am quite the history buff, especially when it comes to American history, and I am an admirer of Thomas Jefferson. I’ve read scores of books about him and the other founding fathers, as well as the events that started this great “experiment” in democracy. (I know, I know, it’s a republic, not a democracy.) I will indeed make it a point to read "Founding Brothers". And I have a reading suggestion for you as well. I suggestyou read the Constitution itself before you claim to be an expert on the subject. It's obvious, at least to me, that you understand neither the content nor the context, and you certainly don't understand the intent.

These “rights” about which we are debating, were not – and are not - granted by any individual government. They were assumed to be granted by God. They were called unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson. (And, by the way, is not part of the US Constitution.) And James Madison, who was the primary author of the US Constitution, often referred to them as “the great rights of mankind”. These rights are simply not limited merely by their absence in any document. There were, of course, certain rights specifically spelled out, based on time and circumstance. These “spelled out rights” were included in the Bill of Rights, which actually comprise the first ten amendments to the original Constitution. The Constitution represents only a set of general principles out of which the implementation of statutes, codes and laws has emerged.

(continued...)

you got me. I am Dugie Howser.

I uasually hit this site late at night and sometimes I stumble over the keys.

The law already deals with most of this. The adult is always held accountable irregardless of what a minor says.

Getting back to the original questions:

1) Just what is our exposure? Our exposure is worldwide and quite traceable if someone desires to track us personally, but lies in an overwhelming amount of hardware that many people either do not have access to retrieve unless there is a pretty good reason or just wouldn't want to waste their time at. This is not because of "rights" etc. but because of the overwhelming amount of data on the www. What entity has the ability to collect, store and archive every single bit (hehe) of it? Alternately, there are some simple tools that allow most anybody the ability to track some stuff. In my opinion the www is kind of like our atmosphere, you can collect and test and make a positive ID of any segment ofit that you want but it is pretty impossible to get every molecule's footprint individually at the same time. It's just too overwhelming. People can construct a pretty darn good idea of finding out who I am and my families habits by going through our trash too, but this doesn't stop me from throwing away stuff or incinerating everything because frankly my life isn't really all that interesting as is the case with most of the garbage at the dump. I bet that much of what I have said online over time has been re-written over to the point of little hope of recovery.

"Just what is our exposure?
Is a web presence good, moderate, or bad?
Should we maintain many online alias's not associated with our real id?

I'm not sure anyone still knows what the initial question was -- but I think a Web presence CAN be moderate while it also CAN be bad. Im simplistic terms, without delving into the constitution i.e., I feel it is essential that we maintain more than one online alias for varied reasons, which reasons are apparent to most that think about that question. So may talk about inappropriate web contacts re: minors etc. Is that not the same argument that floated around regarding cable TV? Eveyone hemmed and hawwed and its here,,,, and the answer has been put forth that one can "just change the channel" if one finds it offensive. Cable TV comps also monitor who watches what and when. This goes back and on and on........ Watch what you please - surf the web wherever you choose and let the watchdogs watch.

Not an Alias,,,,,
A real person

"Anarchy Rules"? hehehehehhee :)

I would like to thank you all for your inputs. Its time other discussion move up in the hot topics.

Thanks!

When you monitor communications like you suggest it becomes censorship by the intent with which such monitoring is done. It is censorship by threat of punishment if you say something that the monitor does not agree with.

As for your credit crap, I really don't use credit cards, I refuse to because of how that data is tracked and used and abused. All this data that is collected does not even come close to describing any person in any real terms and it's quite insane to use such figures to predict future actions of individuals for commercial purposes like marketing and even insurance risk assesment, or even for job applicants, which is most vile. It's more than just insane, it's flat out immoral and I strongly object to such activity and thus boycott the use of credit cards and credit reporting agencies.

America has always had a two party system. The parties have had different names, such as Federalists, Whig, Democrat, Republican, Democrat-Republican, et al, but maintaining the power base has always been a battle between two strong parties. Sure,there have always been third parties and/or minority parties, but they’ve always been left out in the cold, not really having any influence on the real power base nor able to have a real voice in deciding major issues. They have always been unable to make a real difference in that regard. The only real difference any third party has ever made has been that of a “spoiler”. For example, Ross Perot’s Reform Party had only enough support to swing the 1992 election to the Democrat party. And in 1912, Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party only served to take votes away from the Republicans, which in turn gave the White House to the Democrats. And more recently you’ll recall that Ralph Nader’s Green Party, the extreme left wing of the Democrats, only managed to take votes away from Al Gore. (Thank you Ralph Nader!)

How does this relate to “voting Libertarian”, you might ask? Consider this, in the early 1850s, the two primary political parties were the pro-slavery Democrat party and the opposition Whig party. However, there were really two factions within the Whig party, those looking to appease the Democrats with various compromises on the slavery issue, and those who were adamantly anti-slavery. The current day Republican Party was born by those who were against both slavery and any compromise on the issue, and felt that a split from the Whig party was the best way to promote their cause. The “split-off” Republicansliterally changed the political landscape, and soon had their first winning presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln.

(continued...)

Keeping that in mind, any “Libertarian” agenda could only, most likely, be promoted by a split-off from one of the current major parties. I believe that it’s possible, but not very likely, at least not for a while. There certainly is a Libertarian faction within the Republican Party, but not nearly enough to assume any real power, and that’s where any real change would have to take place. Therefore, any vote given to the Libertarian Party is only a vote taken away fromthe Republican Party, which is more closely aligned with Libertarian values. So any vote to the Libertarian Party is really a vote for their real opposition, the Democrat Party.

There certainly is the thought that one should “vote their conscience”, and there are a lot of Libertarians (and “Greenies”) doing just that. In fact, Harry Browne, the Libertarian’s 2000 Presidential candidate, received 382,892 votes. And Ralph Nader carried about 3 percent of the vote nationally, including 5 percent in Minnesota and 1 percent in Florida, the state that did indeed decide the presidential race.

If anything, the 2000 election certainly did prove that ONE vote COULD make a difference. So go ahead and continue to vote your conscience. But how would you feel if that ONE VOTE gave the election to someone that would be your last choice of the two primary choices. I did it in 1992 when I voted for Ross Perot. What a mistake that was. The only thing I did was help swing the election to Bill Clinton instead of to the person I would have preferred in a two-way contest. Voting with your conscience instead of voting with your brain is kind of like that old saying, “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. I’ll never do it again, and I would encourage others to refrain from it as well. In the long run, as history has proven time and time again, it doesn’t do any good.

While I agree that there is truth in this, I believe the Libertarian party does have some "real world" influence. It is the strongest third party of our era and has produced a number of elected local and some state officials that have enacted real change. Therefore I believe that it is more than "voting for your conscience", although at the national level I understand how voting for another candidate that has a chance of winning could be beneficial, especially in a close election. There is definately, however, a faction in the Republican party that notices and is influenced to some extent by the Libertarian party. Beyond "voting for conscience" there is a political influence on all parties when vocal credible constituents support Libertarianism and vote this way even nationally in my view, but I can see the sense in voting along the 2 parties in National election and Libertarian locally where races are actually possible to win.

Too often republican candidates come forth with strange ideas about how to reduce government while increasing the amount that it interferes with the individual's rights. Through promising to impose moral directives to the populous from the christianreligeous front to sitting heavily on the side of corporate rights while imposing more restrictions on the rights of employees including the prohibition of strikes in many cases. (Republicans riegn over more strike breaking directives than democratsin recent history, which is suprising given their supposed goal to reduce government!)

Overall, Democrats are not a choice for an anarchist or libertarian voting concience or otherwise. Yet, republicans seem no better if not worse in some respects, but overall are just the same as democrats and at least just as corrupt.

The old anarchist saying seems to hold true here: "If voting could really change anything, it would be illegal!" I mean, really, was there any difference between Gore and Bush? Do you really think anything would be different if one or the other won or lost?

I do not... Because money is in power, not politicians.

Can be found at Practical Anarchy, an Anarchist Publication where they further "Popular Democracy" in the use of the Internet, food production, and a host of other things.

http://www.practicalanarchy.org/

Specifically, an Anarchist viewpoint on Internet Use is at:

http://www.practicalanarchy.org/internetworking.html

I think this is of some interest to us as IT pros as is the philosophy behind Open Source which is linked through:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.html

to find the philosophy of these pioneering software people which is at:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html

Where you can find that whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Anarchist or from another country at least on the Internetand in computer related sciences, Anarchy has been extrememly beneficial to all of us that are today working in the IT field. :)

Sure, but it can be done... I'm just not willing to subject my family to the rigors of squatting since I know what that is like and do not want my children to grow up in poverty like I did.

Oh well... As Maxwell would say, it's my fault for beingborn into a poor family. hehe

I'd agree that handouts frequently backfire. But they can help the right people in the right circumstances. Finding those people can be a risk though.

I would disagree that words of encouragement are useless, though I would have to add a major qualifier. When you're dealing with a pessimist or a cynic you might as well not offer words of encouragement because they will be rejected 99.9% of the time. (And that is an optimistic estimate.)

I can agree to the principle of the third choice, but I have my doubts about the phrase 'give equally'. The phrase 'give a fair share' would work better in my opinion.

Of course, the people doing the distribution would need to be honest/generous and base their decisions on product/service maintenance/improvement rather than stockholder profits. They would also have to consider how people like janitors and maintenance techs keep things running, thus making it possible to work on the product/service side of things.

There are a handful of organizations that work on the 'fair share' principle. But they are greatly outnumbered by those who reward the CEO with millions while cutting back on those who actually do the work.