From: coderman <coderman@gmail.com>
   On 10/31/15, jim bell <[1]jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
   > ...
   > Uh, it's hard to understand what you are saying.
   >to be more clear:
   >- Assasination politics: easy to compute, easy to apply, globally
   inefficient.
   But you don't explain why it's "inefficient".  You only allege it.
   >- Rational anarchy: difficult to compute, difficult to apply, globally
   optimal.
   What is "rational anarchy"?  On Google-search, I see a reference to
   Heinlein's
   "The Moon is  a harsh mistress".  I read that a decade ago, but I don't
   connect
    what you are saying with it.  But again, you don't explain why it's
   "globally optimal".
   For that matter, you haven't explained WHAT "globally optimal" means.
   You
    seem to be assuming a lot today.
   Further, while it's hard to understand, "globally optimal" sounds like
   it might
   assume a compromise, in contrast to equality.    Why should I accept
   something
    which you call "globally optimal" if someting else is better for ME,
   personally?
   >just because AP is better that Status Quo, does not mean that AP is
   >the ideal to strive toward.
   Unfortunately, that sounds like a truism.  If you agree that AP is
   better than
    the Status Quo, then unless you (or somebody else) can establish
   something
   is better than AP, you don't establish that AP shouldn't be the goal,
   at least
    temporarily.

References

   1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com