(Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
Sorry Vlad Z. Nuri, but this message was intended for Cypherpunks, to be cc'd to you. Unfortunately, I wrongly addressed it. To CPunks: the reply that should have hit CPunks: ============================================================ To: jf_avon@citenet.net Subject: Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace Date sent: Sun, 19 May 96 19:52:45 -0700 From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> there is no ethical basis for killing. please kindly keep your trash out of my mailbox I've evaluated all sides of the story, and am not influenced by corrupt machiavellianism ============================================================= -------Original Message Follows ------- From: Self <Single-user mode> To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> Subject: Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace Reply-to: jf_avon@citenet.net Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 01:59:00 On 18 May 96 at 12:43, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
maybe talk to Jim Bell some more. perhaps eventually you will perfect the method of perpetrating the perfect killing!! I really do admire you, because killing people without getting caught is surely a great unrecognized art, and one of the most unappreciated and misunderstood. something that has only been a dream to the blighted wretches prior to our glorious new phases of cyberspatial technology, which makes human morality completely obsolete.
I think that you are writing way out of context. First, wether or not the AP scheme is used for the control of government, as Jim Bell pushes it, does not mean that it will not be implemented for other purposes, such as killing successful businessman or your neighboor's son who is screwing your wife (noticed that she smiles all the time since a while? ) . Second, everybody like Jim Bell who is pushing the AP scheme is doing so on ethical basis: that the coercion the government imposes on to the individuals by regulations, and guns backed taxation justifies the killings. I have to see yet any cypherpunks who seems to agree with AP that envision another use than govt control. Third, you will notice that even Jim Bell discusses issues of anonymous transactions and businesses that, if conducted properly, makes the AP scheme irrelevant. So, it seems that AP is only a tool instead of being an end in itself. Fourth, you lack some basic psychological insight: intrinsic murderers do enjoy the knowledge of the details of their actions and the derived perception of power. AP prevents that by anonymising everything: a donator cannot know if he caused the death of somebody (unless he spends several tens of grands himself, but then, there are other, more satisfying ways for a power seeker to fullfill his passions...) . You seems to oppose the proposed violence entailed by AP but you positively blank out what everybody who reflected on AP put in the opposite pan of the balance, i.e. the ethical standards of contemporary govt actions. And you'll also note that the anonymity issue generate more interest from more CPunks because it (hopefully) will acheive the same goal without any killing. Until you accept to evaluate both side of the story, your recriminations opinions are as evident as the magnetic monopole... jfa DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants; physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.
Jean-Francois Avon appears to be a new vocal proponent for Jim Bell's "assassination politics". he quotes my private mail in his latest sniveling defense.
Second, everybody like Jim Bell who is pushing the AP scheme is doing so on ethical basis: that the coercion the government imposes on to the individuals by regulations, and guns backed taxation justifies the killings. I have to see yet any cypherpunks who seems to agree with AP that envision another use than govt control.
right, and Hitler didn't have any other use for his government other than to bring utopia to the masses, and used all the ovens for cooking pizzas (after all, what else could an oven be used for?!?!?). the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing, not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means" argument used by most here), but that in addition it is supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? for g*d's sakes, promote your depraved scheme under any other heading, but do not claim it is "ethical" unless you want to further demonstrate how far from morality you have twisted your brain. the assassination politics is quite Hitleresque at its root. "kill our enemies, and everything will be better. it is our enemies that are the root of all evil in the world. extinguish them, and you solve all problems automatically" such is the total moral perversion of the thinking behind "assassination politics". most of the adherents work from the following argument, nicely summarized by JFA above: 1. the government is corrupt 2. therefore, it is okay to kill people who further that corruption. wow, what brilliant logic. I must admit it proves to be superior to that embodied by any second grader, a high accomplishment for its proponents. there is a trite saying, "two wrongs do not make a right" (trite because most have mastered the simple truth of it in their pre-teen years). a concept not grasped by some second-graders. some require a lifetime of lessons to comprehend it in the end.. I'm very disappointed that others have not chased Assassination Politics proponents to take their trash somewhere else. of course the real situation is that those that started this list have sympathies for this kind of thinking, so no such thing will happen. to Jim Bell and Avon: please read Machiavelli. read about ancient assassination clubs and the history of bloody politics. if you want to seriously further your ideas, start a web site with ample historical research. your ideas are not new whatsoever. if you really wish to become masters of assassination abilities, study carefully the errors of those who have come before you. write a long treatise with lots of footnotes to past assassination difficulties and how you would advance past them. I tell you flat out that any respectable assassin would be quite embarrassed to be associated with you at the moment because of your arrogance and ignorance. I wish you the best of luck <g>
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
the assassination politics is quite Hitleresque at its root. "kill our enemies, and everything will be better. it is our enemies that are the root of all evil in the world. extinguish them, and you solve all problems automatically"
It is more the MAD theory brought down to the personal level. The government has the power and authority to kill anyone of us, AP brings out into the open the fact that WE ALL HAVE THAT POWER. KIlling people is (physically) very easy, AP turns the THREAT back on those who hold the power. Note: I don't necessarily think that AP is a good idea. I think that people should do their own dirty work.
such is the total moral perversion of the thinking behind "assassination politics". most of the adherents work from the following argument, nicely summarized by JFA above:
1. the government is corrupt
2. therefore, it is okay to kill people who further that corruption.
wow, what brilliant logic. I must admit it proves to be superior to that embodied by any second grader, a high accomplishment for its proponents.
How about this: Goverments, and the people in them are corrupt. This corruption, caused by acts of these people, lead to oppression and death. By THEIR MORALITY oppression and killing are ok, so it is ok to use their tools agaisnt them.
there is a trite saying, "two wrongs do not make a right" (trite because most have mastered the simple truth of it in their pre-teen years). a concept not grasped by some second-graders. some require a lifetime of lessons to comprehend it in the end..
Putting people in cages is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Is putting people in cages for stealing wrong?
carefully the errors of those who have come before you. write a long treatise with lots of footnotes to past assassination difficulties and how you would advance past them. I tell you flat out that any respectable assassin would be quite embarrassed to be associated with you at the moment because of your arrogance and ignorance.
I might be wrong here, but I don't think that Mr. Bell actually wants anyone actually shot, well, maybe he does, but what he wants is to have the same power over members of governments than they have over him. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@crash.suba.com
I might be wrong here, but I don't think that Mr. Bell actually wants anyone actually shot, well, maybe he does, but what he wants is to have the same power over members of governments than they have over him.
the way to exercise power of the government is to organize and wield that power. JB and others are people who have never tried this process and in fact are dysfunctional human specimens whose sheer irritability cause them to be incapable of successfully interacting in a society. so, like Ted Kaczinsky, they come up with their own novel solution. JB reminds me of people who start to play a game, but then find that they are losing by the rules of the game, and then throw up the game and hit their opponent. the rules of the game of our government are mostly fair. there are legitimate ways to revolutionize the system, working from the inside. those working on overthrowing it have no qualifications. have they personally tried to organize? of course they claim it is fruitless. but I think it is only fruitless because everyone claims it is. if everyone acted as if it wasn't fruitless, it wouldn't be. the recent actions in congress regarding clipper are STRONG EVIDENCE that our political system will respond to our demands, and more so the more pressure we put on it. it would have been unthinkable even say 6 months ago to imagine senators publicly opposing Clipper. we not only have Burns outright opposing Clipper and the Clinton administrations' stand, we also have Dole up there as well. they have made it a MAJOR ISSUE. we have very strong pro-crypto bills in the works. the whole idea of the senators even taking an INTEREST in this case was unthinkable only a short time ago. yet the system has changed DRAMATICALLY. you expect the tax code to be abolished TOMORROW?? sorry, it won't happen. but the amazing resonance of the flat tax with Forbes this year, which again would have been unthinkable only a few years ago, shows that strong currents are coming to bear on the system. do you hear any cpunks rejoicing about these new dramatic victories and motions? no, because they are mostly a bunch of whining nihilists, anarchists, and cynics. no matter what happens, they will tell you that the sky is falling and Big Brother is still hiding in your closet, that the world is hopeless so we might as well just go out and shoot our enemies. they want instant gratification. they don't want to work to have a better system, they would much rather kill a few people in government this weekend and get the satisfaction from it. "ah, a job well done" they would conclude. perhaps so, by their standards. why am I so incensed at all the APers? because they don't realize they will devastate our society far more than it is already devastated. we don't have a great system now, but what they are proposing is an apocalypse of sanity. our system can be pressured to change. are we acknowledging how pathetic our skills are in manipulating politicians? how can it be that a government that is so corrupt can have such power over you? are you saying that you are powerless against it? it takes two to tango. a corrupt government is the perfect match for a corrupt populace.
"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> writes:
it takes two to tango. a corrupt government is the perfect match for a corrupt populace.
So why are you here? Go back to Sovok and improve the government there. (I know, you like American welfare :-) --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote:
So why are you here? Go back to Sovok and improve the government there. (I know, you like American welfare :-)
I wonder how long it will take them to create a cypherpunks-robomoderated list. :)
You mean to filter out Sovoks like the nuriweiller? --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (5)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Jean-Francois Avon -
snow -
Vladimir Z. Nuri