Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."
At 10:39 AM 5/25/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote:
I think an insight your analysis may benefit by is that certain institutions/societal norms create incetives for "corrupt politicians". Hayek argues against the "benevolent dictator" concept because he says no gentle person would ever aspire to be a dictator. The system itself calls for people who are ruthless to take the reins. A similar argument can be made for the various functions of a modenr democracy (like the US). It is rarely that we hear of a considerate IRS auditor, or a principled politician. The structures themselves call for and promote those who (in that an individual is more successful if they) are corrupt, power-hungry, unprincipled and ruthless.
Which means that attempting to clean up the system by half-measures is doomed to failure, wouldn't you say?
As for Assasination Politics, I can understand such proposals in jest.
Ironically, I originally proposed it to myself in jest. However, I quickly realized that there was far more to it than a joke. I went through most of the objections that were later commonly raised against it, and then concluded that those objections were invalid. I also noted that most people recognized the flaws in those objections after they were explained to them. It has the prospect of enormously changing society. Too many pieces fell into place, like a jigsaw puzzle. This system is NOT an accident; it is fundamental. Admittedly, it is still a bit scary, because of the depth of its changes, but that does not make it wrong!
I too say things to appear controversial.
AP was not publicized "to appear controversial." I think it's "controversial" simply because it is so different from the current system, and those in power in that system (and their sympathizers) realize how serious and enormous such a change would be.
As a serious political structure, however, it is reprehensible.
Unfortunately, that's not a particularly specific claim. "reprehensible"? I'd call the current system reprehensible. Why should the government be able to put over a million people in prison, most for victimless drug crimes? Why should the government be able to start a war and send millions of people against their will, and thousands to die (as in Vietnam)? Why should their be repeated mass killings (Armenia, Russia, Germany, China, Uganda, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc)? If you could show that the current system had somehow been fixed to prevent these kinds of incident, you might have a point, but you cannot. Your claim is also biased: Everything you think about the term, "political," is based on the kind of systems you know and have known. For you, and most of us, politics is just about defined as that system by which a small number of people manipulate a larger number, ostensibly guided by the wishes of the larger number.
Murder cannot be condoned (as a pacifist, the argument that politicians create wars and must be killed for that reason does not hold much water for me)
Then you need to learn to be more consistent. While you may, indeed, be a pacifist, most of the rest of us see nothing wrong with the concept of self-defense. You may argue as to what's really self-defense and what isn't, but the reality is that government engages in violence and the threat of violence regularly. Are you, by your statements, implicitly tolerating violence by government that you wouldn't tolerate from individuals? It is easy to fall into such a trap.
and the proponents of such systems would do well to look more closely at the systemic ills rather than individuals.
Why? Isn't it possible that it is not possible to reform a system because embedded within it is a fundamental flaw which makes real freedom impossible? The current system is heirarchically structured, and results in situations where millions die in the place of the very few. I'd say that's a serious, systemic flaw that needs fixing.
The argument that AP is an institutional dis-incentive for "bad" representatives that offsets other incentives is problematic since I do not believe the methods are just.
I invite you to provide an alternative solution. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 25 May 1996, jim bell wrote: :Which means that attempting to clean up the system by half-measures is :doomed to failure, wouldn't you say? The exception I took to your proposal was that it seemed like a half-measure to me. From what I understand of it the porposal is that elected officials who "do wrong" (or violate a particular code of conduct) should be killed. I would suggest that this is problematic because it does nothing to solve the ills of the system, simply clears those players whom a particular set of people do not believe are playing fairly/well. :fundamental. Admittedly, it is still a bit scary, because of the depth of :its changes, but that does not make it wrong! Yes we do have fear the unfamiliar. <some discussion about the actions taken by the state against its citizens and other nations> I'm not sure I'd accept the claim that millions of offenders (I too find drug laws stifling, illogical and counter to the liberal ideal) are put in jail, deprived of their freedom by a particular set of people. Drug laws are a reflection of the opinions held by many people in this country (and others), of course we wonder sometimes whether people have really thought about it or whether the "just say no" jingle was too irresistable, and the concept of "a war on drugs" another tool to define outsiders against whom to band against and maintain a cohesive identity. And the manner in which Americans (and indeed other peoples) have been whipped into fervour by the rhetoric that accompanies a war is truly frightening. But I reall don't think killing a few Presidents or Joint Chiefs of Staff or Prime Ministers will solve this (or anything). It seems as if you were trying to say that AP is acceptable because similar methods are employed by the state all the time. I will not defend the coercive actions of the state, but I do not believe they give one the right to coerce others, especially if they are removed from the actual act. :Then you need to learn to be more consistent. While you may, indeed, be a :pacifist, most of the rest of us see nothing wrong with the concept of :self-defense. You may argue as to what's really self-defense and what :isn't, but the reality is that government engages in violence and the :threat of violence regularly. Are you, by your statements, implicitly :tolerating violence by government that you wouldn't tolerate from :individuals? It is easy to fall into such a trap. But self-defense is not conductive either. To bring a rather fascinating example into this, in the 70s a group of students occupied a variety of buildings at NYU in protest against the Cambodian war. They set a bomb in our computing center that was defused just before it blew. But if it had detonated it would have destroyed a rather large computer (used for pure mathematical problems that the Dept. of Defense wished to incorporate into its Nuclear program) and a number of people standing outside the building. The rationale used was that this was "self-defense", the people of the world were banding together to protect each other from the actions of the state. While I sympathize with the feelings that led the activists to take such measures, I have no respect for their methods or the reasoning they employed to extend the argument for self-defense into a situation that had nothing to do with self-defense. No, I do not wish to condone the coercive actions of the state (and certainly not any violent ones), and certainly we all take exception to one or another act of the government machine. Incidentally, I do not believe the state has the right to take life in the quest for justice (aka the death penalty). A war against a foreign threat can be justified on grounds of self-defense. :>and the proponents of such systems would do well to look more closely :>at the systemic ills rather than individuals. : :Why? Isn't it possible that it is not possible to reform a system because :embedded within it is a fundamental flaw which makes real freedom :impossible? The current system is heirarchically structured, and results in :situations where millions die in the place of the very few. I'd say that's :a serious, systemic flaw that needs fixing. - From what I've gathered of AP, it attempts no radical reformation of "the system", simply adds another set of costs for individuals within the govt. to take into account. I don't think you're proposing a "true democracy" or absolute anarchy (without all the conotations of disorder, simply no-government), but rather a vigilante clause, I may have misunderstood you though. A minimalist state is generally considered desireable as it provides a framework within which individuals can engage in mutually beneficial interactions with each other. Our present structures do not "work" very well (though they have their redeeming factors when compared to other alternatives) and I'd say we need a greater degree of respect for personal liberty and individualism than is manifest in our institutions today, but these changes take place on a level very different from that of govt. the state is almost powerless when it comes to these metamorphoses in opinion. They take place through tradition and the spread of ideas not through legislation. The alternative I would suggest is an appreciation for the minimalist state (with the observation that there are some things the state does do very well, and which are desireable) and the liberty of the individual. Similarly a respect for life is in order, too often we think we're absolutely right and believe we should use "any means necessary" (no reflection on the misunderstood philosophy of Malcolm X) hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5 WHERE CAN THE MATTER BE Oh, dear, where can the matter be When it's converted to energy? There is a slight loss of parity. Johnny's so long at the fair. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Key Escrow = Conscription for the masses | 2048 bit via finger iQB1AwUBMae4ZBwDKqi8Iu65AQH/uQMAutPdsot4N9/dBFK1OhSmf9XHNsuic0yD JL19I68i0kgUt1omXqySVy0w/FfyUkqWo7XYsTfBkrRAGz2X8KNHkMRYEr2TGl9Q /TI6Kn5NBTXx49XXYeHU4q/dYAaZoJ0j =inqJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
jim bell -
Subir Grewal