Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."

At 09:48 PM 5/25/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote:
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.
And any successors that take their place, as well. Remember, even a tiny fraction of the population can eject (by forced resignation or worse) an officeholder. The only ones who survive (literally or figuratively) are the ones who don't irritate even a tiny fraction of the public. Those will be the ones who don't do anything, and are not paid by stolen taxes.
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.
To a great degree, the "public perception" of drugs and drug laws has been a _product_ of the news media, in particular the TV networks and the newspapers, as influenced by the government. Study the matter and you'll find this is true. There is no reason to believe that the community will be as anti-drug as the conventional wisdom says they are.
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.
This "whipping" is quite intentional. It keeps cops, prosecutors, and judges employed. Not to mention politicians.
But I reall don't think killing a few Presidents or Joint Chiefs of Staff or Prime Ministers will solve this (or anything).
Please understand: While the term "assassination" is usually used to refer to killings of high-level people, I'm using a broader definition to refer to ANY target, including middle and lower-level people. My solution is far more thorough than you've implied. Anyone who exercises force for the state is subject to "recall." Even people who just take a government paycheck are at least nominally at risk.
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.
How "removed" do they have to be to be innocent, in your opinion?
: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)
Nuclear bomb design. Done with funds stolen from taxpayers. Done to protect the leadership of this country, not the public.
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.
In practice, it probably WAS "self-defense." However, it may not have been a particularly selective example of self-defense. The system I describe is, in fact, vastly more effective than this at getting rid of the bad guys, and far more selective than a planted bomb.
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.
That's why I think my system will be far better.
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.
Notice, however, that the US government fails to use a cleaner method to defeat its opponents (killing the leaders) and in its place puts the lives of thousands of solders at risk. Isn't this illogical, unless you realize that if WE can do that to those foreign leaders, THEY can do the same to OUR leaders? Isn't this more than a bit self-serving on the part of our leaders? And isn't it immoral for George Bush, for instance, to choose a solution that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of comparatively innocent Iraqis, both during and after the Gulf war, rather than bumping off Saddam Hussein? Think about it. Exactly why does he do the former, rather than the latter?
: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.
"Another set of costs"? Yikes! Read the essay, governments as we know them can't possibly survive post-AP.
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.
It may be looked at as an example of vigilante action, but it will be ANONYMOUS vigilantes.
A minimalist state is generally considered desireable as it provides a framework within which individuals can engage in mutually beneficial interactions with each other.
That's conventional wisdom. Historically, anarchy is considered unstable. Freud though so, but he was wrong. Read part 9.
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.
Well, I disagree. Until recently, public opinion was almost entirely manufactured. It was a joint project of the government and the news media.
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)
Is there any significant likelihood that the people in power today will relinquish power absent a system such as AP? I'm not optimistic about that. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 25 May 1996, jim bell wrote: :At 09:48 PM 5/25/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote: :How "removed" do they have to be to be innocent, in your opinion? If they didn't pull the trigger or give the order, they're innocent. Making these criteria any laxer will cause problems as more and more people are drawn into the category of offenders, pretty soon you're the only victim, everyone else is out there to steal from you or assist in the theft. :Nuclear bomb design. Done with funds stolen from taxpayers. Done to :protect the leadership of this country, not the public. Pure mathematics as far as the people working at the lab were concerned. You really think if the receptionist had died, it would have been self-defense? A couple of kids died in computer labs at other schools where this happened, they were there feeding punched cards into the machines. Somehow that doesn't sound right to me. :And isn't it immoral for George Bush, for instance, to choose a solution :that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of comparatively innocent :Iraqis, both during and after the Gulf war, rather than bumping off Saddam :Hussein? Think about it. Exactly why does he do the former, rather than :the latter? And the Iranian leaders really think Clinton is an ungoldy kafir for meeting Rushdie the apostate. Why not kill him, after all various Americans have suggested this is a valid tactic? Your methods will be used for ends you do not agree with. From what I've learnt of the Gulf war (I was reading most of the time, kept away from the TV), they did try very hard to kill Sadaam Hussein, but got nowhere. As is apparent, political leaders value their own lives more than they do those of the foot-soldiers. Many among the foot-soldiers belive their lives would be "brutish, nasty and short" without the mechanism of the state and are willing to defend it and those who currently operate the machine. Of course George Bush I don't trust at all because the man was practically glowing during "his war", anyone who enjoys a war, revels in it, is not someone I admire, respect, or even talk to. However, when you propose that we kill this person, I'm not going to stand with you either. Rest assured, there will be many others waiting to take his place when he is killed, and some of them will spell potato like the English feudal lords did. :>- 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. : :"Another set of costs"? Yikes! Read the essay, governments as we know them :can't possibly survive post-AP. Oh no, I think they will survive post AP. The odds are quite high that the people who are convinced to act on the AP philosophy will be branded terrorists and become the objectives of many witch hunts the world over. The IRA has a bad rep, though most sympathize with their cause. And they engender Thatchers, or others who are convinced of their "rightness" and can only get to those posts by making public their convictions and gaining some sympathy from the populace. The fact that their targets, and know it but still do not waver, makes them heroes in many eyes. :Well, I disagree. Until recently, public opinion was almost entirely :manufactured. It was a joint project of the government and the news media. I too think Chomsky has perceptive vision when it comes to the media. :Is there any significant likelihood that the people in power today will :relinquish power absent a system such as AP? I'm not optimistic about that. No, noone "relinquishes" power. They fight to keep it, but the struggle does not always have to be violent, and it hurts our cause to instigate violence when none has been used directly against us. 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 iQB1AwUBMaiFnBwDKqi8Iu65AQGSngMAluS3YrESGUjk/e9DQxP5AIovFfaF8kcg hF3WO7k7UvAhhcOq9FAHg2B7QnllEdPTohQqoxcC/F4RHZE7Ak1aHkhpxq3hopCO 1YOO3M3fGiz32TX8GnM9M61xiEUQ814b =igsk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
jim bell
-
Subir Grewal