[Some people will object to this thread, and rightly so. This is very off topic. I understand it is off topic. But it needs to be said... If you don't want to read this, hit 'n' or equivalent now. I also request that responses to this be made in private e-mail and not to the entire list.] [Also note that I stripped off the references to the Libertarian list and the Democracy now list and avoided the urge to add the psychoceramics list.] Jim, I used to take your postings at least semi-serious. I ignored the ad hominem as much as I could and tried to concentrate on the validity of the arguments. I had difficulty with many of your ideas, but I have that problem with many people so it was not a big deal... Then I met you at the Portland Cypherpunks meeting. You blew whatever credibility that you had with me at that time. At that meeting you made claims that were fantastic and beyond belief. You gave no evidence to support those claims, just relying on some sort of future "proof". (Sorry, but the burden of proof in these sort of cases lies on the claimant, not the rest of the audience.) Assassination politics is immensely credible compared to your plan to disable electronic equipment. (And that is saying alot.) Assassination politics suffers from a number of problems. The biggest being its difficulty in being implemented. Such a system would suffer from Federal agents posing as hit men, outright fraud, and attempts to destroy the system from within and without. I have seen nothing that makes me believe it could ever be put into place. I have yet to see you address any of the flaws without resulting to flames and rant. Unfortunately, you would rather attack your critics than deal with the flaws in your beliefs. The following is an example... At 08:30 PM 1/26/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
At 01:54 AM 1/27/96 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
Jim Bell writes:
While this would normally be my cue to offer up my "Assassination Politics" idea, which (if presumed to be correct) would stabilize "anarchy" and prevent "lawlessness and social disorder" (at least as normally seen by the average reader) I think that under the circumstances that would be redundant here.
I'm not *sure* that your Assassination Politics trip is the worst piece of tripe I've ever seen on the list, but if it's not, it's right up there.
I notice that you responded through an anonymous remailer, and didn't even use a nym. This is strange. If anything, the people who criticize my idea seem to be under the illusion that it is _I_ who should be embarrassed for proposing it, and in fact vociferously promoting it. "Those of you" who object to it should be the ones who are "proudly" taking the "moral high ground" and thus should be happy to identify yourself and defend your position.
There are reasons why an individual would do that. Maybe they did not want to create a nym just to respond to one message. Maybe they thought that you would recognize their other nyms. Maybe it is someone you know. Whatever the reason, it does not diminish their arguments.
Even if, arguably, you invented the fiction that you feared for your life trying to argue with people like me, nothing prevents you from developing a stable nym and arguing your position using it, secure in the knowledge that your body is safe from attack. Your arguments would still be subject to sudden death, however.
You think very highly of your arguments, but have shown nothing that would make me believe that you could actually do that without resorting to ad hominem attacks. In fact the poster brings up some interesting questions which you totally ignore, due to your unwavering belief in your pet theory. All you do is flame him, instead of dealing with the immense flaws in that theory.
Those of us who are anarchists
What?!? You imply that you are an anarchist, yet you don't approve of a system which might not only produce anarchy, but in fact in record time? Well, EXCUUUUUUUUSE MEEEEEE! Sorry to put you out of a "job."
Not all anarchists believe in killing others. Sorry, but there are as many variety of anarchy as there are anarchists. As for the results of "Assassination Politics", you have yet to show that it would produce any results whatsoever, or if it is even possible to implement. In fact, I cannot see a way that it can be put into place without everyone involved being put in jail.
are often that way because we think the *means* the State uses are evil, not to be excused by any amount of mumbo-jumbo.
I think the state's ENDS are evil, too, not merely their MEANS.
Yet you never explain why it is valid to use evil to fight evil. It is this lack of willingness to discuss the details of your beliefs that make people unwilling to take your ideas seriously.
And you gleefully propose to let us *all* in on the immoral game of murdering those who annoy us sufficiently.
Actually, if you followed my arguments carefully, you will notice that my position is most accurately described by pointing out that I _could_not_ keep you from participating in this "immoral game", even if I wanted to.
Or not participating... Jim, if annoying people were a qualification for murder, you would need to watch your back pretty damn carefully. But it is not a qualification yet... You have yet to show, however, how your plan could ever be enacted. If it was possible to enact, you would probably be in jail for "conspiracy to commit murder" or some similar charge. Anyone who assisted in such a plan would also risk such charges. The feds are pretty ruthless in ferreting out people who try an hire hitmen. Especially from private citizens. the only people who are able to hire hitmen and get away with it are the heavily funded or the government themselves. Setting up an organization to compete with these groups will not be viewed favorably.
For the record, I suspect some people who are total pacifists view the rest of us, those willing use use violence to defend ourselves, as "immoral."
This is not as easily defendable as self-defense. If you were shooting the politico yourself, then I might agree. But you are not. You are hiring someone else to do your dirty work for you. If you were actually helping out in the slaughter, then i might have a bit more respect for your argument. As it is though, I find it about as toothless as those who eat meat, but are too squeamish to go hunting themselves.
I'll pass.
Others won't.
The digestibility of your plan has little relevance to its possible adoption...
You know, if I were constructing an agent provacateur, I'd want a persona who's willing to be loudly clueless with ideas that show minimal or non-existent awareness of basic human hopes and fears, like security from random hit-squads. I'd have him go on and on with his ideas, until eventually they can splashed all over headlines and used to discredit the whole realm of privacy protection.
Aha! You're implying (actually, implying is an understatement here) that I am an "agent provocateur." Naturally, it would be useless to deny this (although, for the record, I will deny it), because anybody who was convinced of its truth wouldn't expect me to tell the truth anyway.
Nope. The poster is claiming that you are *TOO CLUELESS* to be an Agent Provocateur. You are missing the point.
But hey, let's put it up for a vote. How many people out there believe that I am an "agent provocateur"? C'mon people, don't be shy, you've seen my prose. What do the rest of you think?
I don't think you are any such thing. I believe that you are convinced of the rightness of your ideas and no amount of rational discourse will sway you from that belief. Being a fanatic does not make you evil or an Agent Provocateur. It does make you less credible though...
But no, I don't think you're an agent.
Good! I'd hate to argue with a person who didn't realize I am SERIOUS.
You seem to miss the point that the poster was making, but no worry...
More fool you, you're willing to do the government's disinformation work for it without even thirty pieces of silver or a 401K.
To be perfectly honest, I did a lot of soul-searching in early 1995 about whether I should publicize my ideas. No, it wasn't because I was AFRAID that it might happen. I _WANTED_ it to happen. Every little bit. Every government on the face of the earth, to come crashing down in a heap. Complete, total, absolute anarchy. (But not the "anarchy" that most people are pre-programmed to think of...) No more governments, no more borders, no more taxes, no more holocausts, no more wars, no more politicians. Forever and ever and ever.
Rather, I was fearful that by publicizing the idea, I might end up PREVENTING it from occurring. You know, by giving the governments advance warning about what was going to happen, I might actually help them prevent it.
That worried me, a lot. But eventually, I made my decision. After a huge amount of thought that some day I might be inclined to relate. However, if I'd REALLY wanted to PREVENT this, I would have alerted the government secretly, so that they could manipulate things behind the scenes, secretly, to prevent this "crypto/digicash/internet anarchy." _That_ I did not do. I publicized it, allowed it to be criticized and therefore "perfected" (not that it's "perfect, by any means!) it, and I'm now promoting it the best way I know how. And with all due modesty, it's getting a pretty good reception, considering how extreme and drastic it initially might appear.
Part of my reasoning was that unless I engaged in the absurd conceit of believing that I was, cumulatively, smarter than everyone currently in the government, I had no choice but to conclude that the government was already aware of the potential problem. And if that were the case, they were, at that very moment, working desperately to PREVENT what I wanted, desperately, to ACHIEVE.
At that point, I made the choice of forcing the government's hand.
The above speaks for itself. (I could say that this is one of the looniest things I have read in a while, but I do take the Psychoceramics list... It is pretty high up there.) It is definitely hard core crankdom of the purest form. If you were a threat to the Government, even a small one, you would have been picked up and put away. You seem to forget that this is an open mailing list. Many of the people who read this list are Government employees. (I am willing to bet that a sizable percentage work in some variety of law enforcement.) They know what you believe and what you are agitating for. But you are not a threat because you are not credible. No one is going to adopt your ideas because every time you open your mouth, you make yourself look like a loon. Not only do you make yourself look like a loon, but every organization and group you associate with looks bad. If you really desire to make your views accepted, you need to look at how you present yourself to others. Willingness to analyze your own belief structures and refine them is a first step. Ability to take criticism is a second step. Without that, your ideas will be taken as the views of an unwavering fanatic. You will not sway many people with fanaticism.
At this point I recommend to you the 12-step program I explained to Vladimir.
Signed, A Friend
Recommendation: If you really want to be taken seriously, use your real name or at the very least generate a stable nym. Preferably, with messages signed by the nym's public key. Without it, you are a silly, unbelieveable ass. Even with it, you may STILL be a silly, unbelieveable ass, but at least people would pay more attention to you.
I think that you have little to nothing to say about being taken seriously. If you continue to go off on pseudo-science rants at meetings at the drop of a hat, no one will take you serious there as well... Alan Olsen -- alano@teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ Is the operating system half NT or half full?