'Another key trait of human networks is their ability to magnify inputs, Christakis said. If someone is altruistic and helps out a friend, that will likely trigger a cascade, making that person more likely to help others and making those others more likely to pass it on. This generates a higher benefit to the whole group than the original input itself. The downside of networks, of course, is that they can also magnify violence, germs, panic, and other negative factors. “Networks magnify whatever they are seeded with, good or bad,” Christakis said. Different people occupy different positions in a network, with the more popular in the center, with more and closer connections. Whether it is better to be in the center or out on the fringe depends on the situation, however, as does the desirability of tight-knit friends who all know one another compared with friends who are attached to unconnected others. A central position has greater access to information, but greater vulnerability to germs. A tight-knit group might perform better on a hunt or a raid, while a looser, more extended group might be more effective at gathering far-flung information. -- A later experiment involving a different group of people found that cooperators in groups with noncooperators tend to sever links with noncooperators and form new bonds with other cooperators. This leaves cooperators in like-minded groups and noncooperators with no choice but to team up with people like them. When network membership was fixed, however, cooperators eventually stopped, creating groups dominated by non-cooperators. “Generous people hang out with generous people. Ungenerous people hang out with ungenerous people,” Christakis said.'

'...heart rates increased when they witnessed someone behaving badly, but this increase was tempered when they were able to pass on the information to alert others. "Spreading information about the person whom they had seen behave badly tended to make people feel better, quieting the frustration that drove their gossip," Willer said. So strong is the urge to warn others about unsavory characters that participants in the UC Berkeley study sacrificed money to send a "gossip note" to warn those about to play against cheaters in economic trust games. Overall, the findings indicate that people need not feel bad about revealing the vices of others, especially if it helps save someone from exploitation, the researchers said. -- "People paid money to gossip even when they couldn't affect the selfish person's outcome," Feinberg said.'

"Once you've really gone against social convention you realize how almost all rules are enforced through social convention and how powerful that is. And people who say anarchism doesn't work are people who I know have only swum with the current their whole life."

'The creation of the #riotcleanup hashtag, along with others including #riotwombles, #liverpoolcleanup and #solidarity, was followed by the launch of the Twitter account @Riotcleanup. -- ...the social networks are also being used to vent anger with two sites launched already to name and shame the looters. Using the vast amount of video footage and photographs that people have captured whilst out on the streets, or simply trying to get home -- members of the public are being asked to identify looters. Metropolitan Police officers are now trawling social networks for photographs of looters or for looters boasting about their hauls, but they are also urging members of the public to send images and footage in. They are posting them online to their Flickr account.'

'#Ostracism of Persons: 55. Social boycott; 56. Selective social boycott [Positive social preferencing of voluntaryists]; 57. Lysistratic nonaction [The withholding of sexual relations]; 58. Excommunication [Negative social preferencing of statists/government workers]; 59. Interdict #Withdrawal from the Social System: 65. Stay-at-home; 66. Total personal noncooperation; 67. "Flight" of workers; 68. Sanctuary; 69. Collective disappearance; 70. Protest emigration #Action by Holders of Financial Resources: 86. Withdrawal of bank deposits; 87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments; 88. Refusal to pay debts or interest; 89. Severance of funds and credit; 90. Revenue refusal; 91. Refusal of a government's money #Political Intervention: 193. Overloading of administrative systems; 194. Disclosing identities of secret agents; 195. Seeking imprisonment; 196. Civil disobedience of "neutral" laws; 197. Work-on without collaboration; 198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government'

'A crucial lesson, he said, is the power of nonviolence: “If somebody is beating you, don’t attack him. Don’t use any violence against them. Just take photos of them and put them on the Internet.”' -- Everyday anarchy

'Anonymous works via message boards in which nobody posts under a name. That means that in general whether something happens or not is dependent on whether the basic call being issued is appealing or not. In general if anonymous is after you it is because you are just annoying enough to make going after you a priority for the world hacking community. This is why it is impossible to stop or discredit. Quoting a spokesman for anonymous has exactly as much value as asking a random person on the street. Anonymous is anonymous – that means that no one directs it and nobody speaks for it. What ideals it has are those held by the mass of humanity – these truths that we all hold to be self evident. This is also why one can’t really call anonymous “hated.” Without names there is no identity – so tactics aimed at identities fall flat. Anonymous is immune to ad-hominem attacks. The only real alternative is to try and modify your behaviour or come up with a good argument against anonymous action.'

'...the now-sovereign individual will have to meet the dictum of the marketplace: produce or you do not eat; no law will help you. In his public behavior he must be decent or suffer the sentence of social ostracism, with no recourse to legal exoneration. From a law-abiding citizen he will be transmuted into a self-respecting man. If we should quit voting for parties and candidates, we would individually reassume responsibility for our acts and, therefore, responsibility for the common good. There would be no way of dodging the verdict of the marketplace; we would take back only in proportion to our contribution. Any attempt to profit at the expense of a neighbor or the community would be quickly spotted and as quickly squelched, for everybody would recognize a threat to himself in the slightest indulgence of injustice. Since nobody would have the power to enforce monopoly conditions, none would obtain. Order would be maintained by the rules of existence, the natural laws of economics.'

"Slaves attack each other for stepping out of line. The State is the willingness of your fellow slaves to attack you for pointing out the truth. If you want to be free, you simply have to stop associating with people who will attack you for pointing out the basic moral, economic and practical realities of our situation, of our lives. The State is your fellow slaves."

'In a stateless society, contracts with DROs are required to maintain any sort of economic life—without DRO representation, citizens are unable to get a job, hire employees, rent a car, buy a house or send their children to school. DROs would have clauses allowing you to cancel your coverage, just as insurance companies have now. Thus you would have to notify your DRO that you were dropping coverage. No problem, you’re off their list. However, DROs as a whole really need to keep track of people who have opted out of the entire DRO system, since those people have clearly signaled their intention to go rogue, to live off the grid, and commit crimes. Thus if you cancel your DRO insurance, your name goes into a database available to all DROs. If you sign up with another DRO, no problem, your name is taken out. However, if you do not sign up with any other DRO, red flags pop up all over the system. What happens then?' -- You either rejoin an existing DRO or you start your own.

Gisted 2/2 -- It is the truth-telling slave who extends the universalization of ethics to the masters – and thus exposing them as morally evil – who is the greatest threat to every other slave because of their past horror and humiliation of having been enslaved to evil through their desire to be good, of having that which is the best of you turned into service of that which is the worst in humanity: lust for power, domination, theft, murder, war, debt. They react with the hair-trigger psychological defenses called slave-extending-morality-to-masters-will-get-us-all-killed! People can't easily process the universalization of morality, so all they can do is get mad at it. They have to create exceptions to universal morality because that's what we've all been programmed to do throughout the violence of history. So how do we change this? We have to reveal the negative consequences for immoral actions. We have to replace statism with voluntaryism. WE have to replace violence with ostracism.

'The next time you feel angry at a friend who has let you down, or grateful toward one whose generosity has surprised you, consider this: you may really be bargaining for better treatment from that person in the future. According to a controversial new theory, our emotions have evolved as tools to manipulate others into cooperating with us. -- You get angry not when someone hurts you, but when their actions betray a setting of their cooperation dial that is lower than you expect, and your anger is both a threat to turn down your own dial and an inducement to them to turn theirs up. You show gratitude not when someone benefits you, but when their dial is set higher than you expect, and this signals that you plan to turn yours up in response.'

'“The selfish gain on the altruistic, but once in a while, the groups composed of selfish guys get clobbered in competition with groups that have altruistic individuals.” Asked whether the willingness to participate in battle might be taken for fear of within-group punishment, Bowles said that merely “displaced the question.” “I might hope that someone would punish you, but why should I do it? You might hit back. The idea that I can exert order on you presupposes the idea that someone is altruistic.”' -- Survival of the witness. (My public selflessness is self-interested since it enhances my social status; my private selflessness is self-interested since it enhances my self-esteem.)

DB: 'In free-market common law, the aggrieved party and putative offender might both pay a judge to render a verdict. The judge, who did this for a living, would have every incentive to present a fair verdict because such verdicts would add luster to his or her reputation and generate additional business. Additionally, common law has the added advantage that not everyone would take advantage of it, and that some would seek to settle grievances on their own. This would result in a very polite society (and has in the past) as no one would want to offend anyone else. Once upon a time, "manners" were far more elaborate and prevalent for a reason. There is also an issue of honor and morality. In communal societies, where power has devolved to local levels, religion [?] can often play an important role in how society is organized and how law is administered. Such societies are often shame-based, or have been in the past, and the prospect of shaming may act as a behavior modifier...'

Gisted -- You can't understand how a stateless society will work if you've never stood up to a social group; if you've never stood up for what is right in the face of what is socially accepted. But if you *have* stood up, you totally get how powerful social ostracism and non-violent methods are in enforcing social norms. One of the ways we really understand how society works is to act against its prejudices. And through that process we experience first hand the power of social cohesion, of social exclusion, of social ostracism, of disapproval, of criticism, of negativity, etc. And once you've understood how incredibly powerful social ostracism is as a form of social organisation, then you're pretty comfortable with the idea that it can run society.'

'A dispute resolution organization, or DRO, is a conceptualized organization providing services such as mediation and arbitration through the private sector. A perceived advantage of dispute resolution organizations over governmental court systems is that the former can exist in a competitive marketplace in which entrepreneurs on the lookout for profits seek to outdo their rivals in providing good service, low prices, and other features valued by their clientele. #Enforceability of verdicts: Murray Rothbard opines that court decisions need not be enforced by the government in order to be effective. Even before the decisions of dispute resolution organizations were considered legally enforceable in government courts, merchants obeyed them to avoid the risk of ostracism and boycotts. A merchant who refused to abide by the verdict would be blacklisted and thus become unable to avail himself of an arbitrator's services in the future.'

Shame, embarrasment, gossip, ostracism.

'Web users who choose to move to the desolate village are guaranteed an environment free from Google products and natural light from the sun.' -- <3 u google dont let the h8rz get u down :(

'There’s a powerful human urge to belong inside the group, to think like the majority, to lick the boss’s shoes, and to win the group’s approval by trashing dissenters. The strength of this urge to conform can silence even those who have good reason to think the majority is wrong. You’re an expert because all your peers recognize you as such. But if you start to get too far out of line with what your peers believe, they will look at you askance and start to withdraw the informal title of “expert” they have implicitly bestowed on you. Then you’ll bear the less comfortable label of “maverick,” which is only a few stops short of “scapegoat” or “pariah.”'