Re: is there no end to AP & Creative Wiretap Arguments?
At 11:52 AM 10/18/96 -0400, Hallam-Baker wrote:
Steve Schear wrote:
How about as a means of coercing war criminals ethnic purgers, as those in Bosnia/Serbia, to turn themselves in to proper tribunals for judging. Having AP bettors wager $100,000s on your untimely retirement, unless you turn yourself in, could induce one to consider conventional justice.
On the other hand it would provide said war criminals with a convenient mechanism for carrying out their crimes.
Actually, no. AP "stacks the deck" dramatically against those few who engage in war crimes. People from all sides of a dispute who object to them can donate, and anybody considering participating in war crimes has to keep this absolutely secret.
It does not work for Bell and his appologists to wave their hands and say "trust me it will be better". There is absolutely no reason to believe that AP markets would be used by anyone but psychopaths.
No mechanism is proposed which restricts the purposes to which the AP markets can be put. They would inevitably be used by the KKK and neo-NAZI groups for hate-crimes.
How long do you think that such groups would last with AP functional? Consider all those bleeding-hearts who are going to be voting for Clinton this year. I expect that many of them would gladly donate money to see organizations like the KKK dead. How effective will these hate-organizations be if they're running for their lives?
All human rights are Naturally derived as are the 'Laws of the Jungle'. Governments instituted among men should derive their rights from the soverignty of its citizens. Unfortunately, many countries choose to ignore this. AP should serve an occassionally competitive system to keep the 'duly consistuted' system on its toes lest those in authority reap the law of the jungle.
Rights do not exist outside a legal framework that supports them.
Many if not most philosophers disagree. My _opinion_ of my rights exists, and for the vast majority of the people that's quite enough to remind them to steer clear.
Arguments from natural law have been discredited for 300+ years. Such arguments merely reify the prejudices of one society into axiomatic rights without the bother of having to justify them. There is no logical basis to prefer the "rights" of th US constitution over the "rights" recognised by the Islamic Jihad.
Since "they live there" and "we live here" there doesn't have to be any contradiction in this.
If you read the US declaration of Independence it is very clear that its authors rejected natural law arguments. The rights that they hold to be "self evident" are extreemly abstract principles which could be justified within almost any ethical system. The removal of the word "God" was deliberate and reflects a concious rejection of the natural law argument.
AP is not dependant on any sort of "natural law" argument. It doesn't really matter where you got the opinion of your rights that you have. "Natural law," or "gift of God," or anything else. Most of the time things will work out just fine. True, if you start believing that you have a right to a dozen free doughnuts per day from the shop down the street, and the owner of that shop disagrees, there may be a dispute. However, I suggest that disputes of this kind will be rare and short-lived, for reasons which should be obvious: You may have wanted a dozen doughnuts, but you'll end up with a dozen holes!
AP is self-contradictory. It claims to uphold "rights" by infringing them massively and disproportionately and in such a way that no rights would remain.
It's odd that you would say this. Most societies operate today against crime by putting people in jails, which would (absent a crime to justify this) be a violation of THEIR rights. As for whether this is "disproportionate"... Let's see, a person can easily get a few years in jail for doing a bank robbery where he gets a thousand dollars or so. Yet, there were a number of bankers in the 1980's in the US who got no greater sentences for stealing tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. You find the "proportionality" in this and send me a note. My solution is to allow the victims of a crime to purchase the punishment of the criminal, which I claim will be a fair fairer solution, and one that will accomplish far more deterrence than the status quo.
It is impossible to justify AP except in extreeme authoritarian terms that could be used to justify any system of government. Phill
Some of us seem to disagree. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
Actually, no. AP "stacks the deck" dramatically against those few who engage in war crimes. People from all sides of a dispute who object to them can donate, and anybody considering participating in war crimes has to keep this absolutely secret.
You hve absolutely no idea of what is happening in Bosnia. There is widespread support in each of the communities for genocide policies. You do not demonstrate any reason why people would be more interested in murdering politicians than other people. You assume that contract murderers do not have political or social agendas of their own. A member of the KKK is much more likely to become a contract killer than a liberal.
How long do you think that such groups would last with AP functional?
Murder Politics (lets give your psychopathic scheme an acurate name) will never be functional. If anonymous cash implied muder politics then society would be right to reject anonymous cash. It is easily done since money only has value so long as it is convertable. Not only are rights dependent on a social infrastructure that guarantees that they will be respected but currency is as well. Without the social and political infrastructure of the US government a dollar bill has only the value of the paper its printed on. An electronic balance has zero value. If you want to live in a society where the political system has been "reformed" through murder of inconvenient politicians then go and live in Columbia. Its the nearest thing you will find on the planet to libertopia. Phill
hallam@ai.mit.edu wrote:
Actually, no. AP "stacks the deck" dramatically against those few who engage in war crimes. People from all sides of a dispute who object to them can donate, and anybody considering participating in war crimes has to keep this absolutely secret.
You hve absolutely no idea of what is happening in Bosnia. There is widespread support in each of the communities for genocide policies.
This is exactly why the hell *we* shouldn't be in Bosnia.
You do not demonstrate any reason why people would be more interested in murdering politicians than other people.
Very simple explanation. You go to that much trouble (murder) when you *really* need to get some SOB or parasite off of your back. I'm still not sure BTW how to relate to the betting pools, etc., as a (relatively) healthy market-driven instrument.
You assume that contract murderers do not have political or social agendas of their own. A member of the KKK is much more likely to become a contract killer than a liberal.
If you're talking about the "new" KKK (a la David Duke), forget it. Duke was and is a CIA agent, from his missions in SE Asia for his father circa late 1960's. It's amazing how much of this media hooey sticks in people's brains. Did you know that the largest contingents of KKK members of all time, by far (50,000 per city), were in Akron and Columbus, Ohio? And where the KKK originated, in SE Tennessee (about a mile from where I worked for four years), is also where one of the greatest events for freedom ever took place - an armed uprising of the citizenry with its sole purpose to get an honest vote count for local sheriff, which they did. It'd be nice to get a public vote count today. As far as contract killers with an agenda of their own, Joey the Hit Man (a real person, and very scary) says that professional killers very rarely kill for personal reasons outside of getting paid. Just don't do something stupid like John Gotti's next-door neighbor did, and backing out of your driveway, accidentally back over Gotti's daughter and kill her.
How long do you think that such groups would last with AP functional?
Murder Politics (lets give your psychopathic scheme an acurate name) will never be functional. If anonymous cash implied muder politics then society would be right to reject anonymous cash. It is easily done since money only has value so long as it is convertable.
This in some ways is the most crucial question in these rants. Are you saying that society can really reject digital cash? That it will go away completely when this society says it should? I guess I'm to assume here that the "secret" agencies will maintain use of such cash for their purposes, while *preventing* the rest of us from using it somehow.
Not only are rights dependent on a social infrastructure that guarantees that they will be respected but currency is as well. Without the social and political infrastructure of the US government a dollar bill has only the value of the paper its printed on. An electronic balance has zero value.
Can I assume that since the Internet is global, that e-cash will be too?
If you want to live in a society where the political system has been "reformed" through murder of inconvenient politicians then go and live in Columbia. Its the nearest thing you will find on the planet to libertopia.
A lot of people make disparaging remarks about "third world" countries, where you have to bribe everyone to get anywhere. But can these ranters really claim that the U.S. is any different when it comes down to serious issues? Try attending some city council meetings, with the intention to "make a difference", and you'll see what I mean.
participants (3)
-
Dale Thorn -
hallam＠ai.mit.edu -
jim bell