Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
At 12:37 PM 5/22/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
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?!?!?
Then you've obviously dramatically mis-read my ideas. I don't claim that _EVERYBODY_ who will fall victim will "deserve" it by your or my opinions,
oh, so in other words, a lot of "innocent" people will be murdered under AP. ah, another great "feature", not a "bug", right??
Tell ya what: name a weapon that CANNOT be used to harm an innocent person. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
For example, if you believe in NIOFP, then anyone who violates it has initiated force, and the victim of such force (or, perhaps, anyone else?) can legitimately use a system like AP to fight back.
what is "legitimate"? in our government, "legitimate" refers to our judicial system.
"Legal" is the word you're looking for, not legitimate.
it is what determines what is "legitimate" based on laws. in your AP anarchy scheme, the word "legitimate" has no meaning. "legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. this ridiculous and impractical definition was discarded centuries ago because of the free-for-all bloody violence it inevitably leads to.
What?!? You mean that after 100 million war deaths in this century alone, you're suggesting that we DON'T have "free-for-all bloody violence"? Or are you simply used to the kind of violence that exists today? That's a common trap people fall into: They simply accept whatever current system we have, as if it is somehow required or okay or...
be very clear about what you are advocating: in AP, there are no laws.
Right! There are no "laws" per se. But there are people, and their interests, and what they believe to be their rights.
people do not rely on the judicial system to solve their problems.
RIGHT! But as importantly, they aren't the _victims_ of that "judicial system" either. Rodney King, for instance. Donald Scott. Randy Weaver. The Branch Davidians, etc. All these people were fundamentally victims of an organization political/legal heirarchy filled with people who had (defacto) greater rights/authority than ordinary citizens, and abused the public with it.
they take the "law" into their own hands and take out contracts on anyone who offends them. would they feel justified in killing people who disagree with them on cyberspace mailing lists? perhaps, who is to tell?
I've explained that I believe that the post-AP world will be far less violent than today, partly because there will be no people in positions of authority who can abuse the rest of us with impunity, or force us to go to war against our will. It will also allow GOOD people to punish BAD people without depending on the "system" to do it. It will also tend to prevent the enforcement of "victimless crime" laws that currently result in 60-70% of the prison and jail population. You need to show that yes, you see the advantages, but also show that you have a plausible belief that my system will be worse than the status quo. Citing a specific potential problem without quantifying it is pointless.
You seem to be assuming that if there are TWO "wrongs" here. But I've tried to make it abundantly clear that justification for the self-defense comes from the initial "wrong."
but who decides what is wrong?
Each individual, for himself. True, he may occasionally make mistakes, but I contend that the vast majority of these decisions will be entirely justified. The truly bad people, the REAL criminals, will not last long.
the arbitrary opinion of some single human idiot out anywhere in the world? don't you see the tyranny of this? it is far worse than the tyranny of a government if I were to be killed by someone who believes that I violated his rights by breathing air particles or whatever. via AP, you wish to give him the mechanism to murder me without trace.
If the danger you describe was of higher probability than the alternative, the status quo, you might have a point. But it isn't. Further, the prospect of AP getting rid of (or reforming, because they'll have no choice) most of the real criminals (plus de-populating government and preventing its abusiveness) results in a dramatic reduction in the violations of rights that will occur.
Where, then, is the SECOND "wrong"? What, exactly, makes it wrong? If a person can't get justice any other way (not to be confused with merely a chance at justice) then why deny that person his rights?
deny rights, legitimacy, justice, blah, blah, blah. the terms you use have no meaning in the system you are advocating. there are no "rights" in an anarchy, because a government is the entity created to safeguard/protect them.
Just because we currently think of "the government" as "the entity created to safeguard rights" doesn't mean that this is really so, and it doesn't mean that it actually achieves a net protection of our rights. What government actually does is to monopolize (as best it can) the use of force, and then force the public to pay for a protection service. And monopolies result in classicly bad service, as we all know.
all actions are legitimate in an anarchy, because there is no civilized system that rejects any ones in particular.
If the probability of an improper action is dramatically reduced, without being eliminated, that is an improvement, right? Tell me, as a citizen don't we deserve changing to a system that reduces violations of rights?
It should be obvious to anyone around here that if AP "works," it will work regardless of whether it meets with your approval or any other subset of humankind. That makes it worthy of discussion even if you don't like it.
it will "work" exactly as anonymous murdering now works. AP already exists, that's what you don't understand.
No, it doesn't, certainly not quantitatively, and in practice not qualitatively, either. Take a 5-foot wave, and notice that it doesn't overflow a 50-foot seawall. Twenty of them, separately, likewise don't get past it. But combine them in one large wave, and the 100-foot wave does get by. The fundamental advantage of AP is that the desires of thousands of people can be combined in order to accomplish what no individual would be able to induce on his own. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
What?!? You mean that after 100 million war deaths in this century alone, you're suggesting that we DON'T have "free-for-all bloody violence"? Or are you simply used to the kind of violence that exists today? That's a common trap people fall into: They simply accept whatever current system we have, as if it is somehow required or okay or...
ah yes, more "two wrongs make a right". "dammit, the government gets to kill people all the TIME, why can't we share the same JOY in doing so? the world would be a far better place. Assassination Politics-- it's only *fair*!!"
Right! There are no "laws" per se. But there are people, and their interests, and what they believe to be their rights.
as I was saying, I believe one of my rights is that anyone who disagrees with me about the horror and depravity of AP should be snuffed out immediately.
RIGHT! But as importantly, they aren't the _victims_ of that "judicial system" either. Rodney King, for instance. Donald Scott. Randy Weaver. The Branch Davidians, etc. All these people were fundamentally victims of an organization political/legal heirarchy filled with people who had (defacto) greater rights/authority than ordinary citizens, and abused the public with it.
ah, so two wrongs make a right. if a court anywhere at any time in the US, in centuries of perhaps hundreds of thousands of decisions, makes a decision YOU PERSONALLY DISAGREE WITH, then you are fully justified in going out and shooting some people (or government bureacrats, that is, who cannot really be considered human)
I've explained that I believe that the post-AP world will be far less violent than today,
hee, hee. that's like Hitler explaining why the enemies of the state must be expurgated for any meaningful advancement in the glorious 1000 year reich. read "mein kampf". surely you can borrow a lot of his ideas. obviously you already have many of them. partly because there will be no people in positions of
authority who can abuse the rest of us with impunity, or force us to go to war against our will.
ah yes. kill everyone who moves. then you will finally have peace. what about simply resisting a government that supposedly "forces" you to do something? well, I have to admit that just shooting government bureacrats is probably much more fun. I guess that is the definition of resistance for you. it's so @#$%^^&* tedious and time consuming to do anything else. It will also allow GOOD people to punish BAD people
without depending on the "system" to do it.
hee, hee. that's funny, because you have alway struck me as a BAD person. and I KNOW that I am a GOOD person. It will also tend to prevent
the enforcement of "victimless crime" laws that currently result in 60-70% of the prison and jail population.
uh huh. it probably leaves your dishes virtually spotless too. gosh, can you tell me where I can buy this wonderful stuff?
You need to show that yes, you see the advantages, but also show that you have a plausible belief that my system will be worse than the status quo. Citing a specific potential problem without quantifying it is pointless.
yes, clearly I have utterly failed to demonstrate why shooting random government bureacrats would not improve our reality but in fact make it worse. I'll have to work on my case some more. I fully concede to your superior debate skills that have left me choking on dust.
but who decides what is wrong?
Each individual, for himself. True, he may occasionally make mistakes, but I contend that the vast majority of these decisions will be entirely justified. The truly bad people, the REAL criminals, will not last long.
you've got something there. it's an easy way of looking at it all. if a lot of people are dying like flies around me because of AP, I only need conclude they were the real criminals. what a relief!! it would be quite horrible if innocent people died. that's the part I like most about your plan. only criminals are killed. the innocent would be left alone. now that you explain it in those terms I find it far more appealing and perhaps even workable.
If the danger you describe was of higher probability than the alternative, the status quo, you might have a point. But it isn't. Further, the prospect of AP getting rid of (or reforming, because they'll have no choice) most of the real criminals (plus de-populating government and preventing its abusiveness) results in a dramatic reduction in the violations of rights that will occur.
actually, your ideas sound so outstanding and progressive that I wish you would run for office. in fact if you don't I'm going to put your name on the next write-in ballot. we'll get you in a place where your ideas can have some application if it kills somebody. hehehehhee
Just because we currently think of "the government" as "the entity created to safeguard rights" doesn't mean that this is really so, and it doesn't mean that it actually achieves a net protection of our rights. What government actually does is to monopolize (as best it can) the use of force, and then force the public to pay for a protection service. And monopolies result in classicly bad service, as we all know.
right. so the solution to this thing is to just kill everybody that is participating in its perpetuation. of course you shouldn't use words like "kill" outright. use words like "self defense" ad nauseam. such is the true art of the propagandist. congratulations on your mastery!!
If the probability of an improper action is dramatically reduced, without being eliminated, that is an improvement, right? Tell me, as a citizen don't we deserve changing to a system that reduces violations of rights?
yeah. and I like the idea of shooting people as the only means to do so. I guess that once I learn to read between your lines, and find what you are really advocating, I feel much better.
it will "work" exactly as anonymous murdering now works. AP already exists, that's what you don't understand.
No, it doesn't, certainly not quantitatively, and in practice not qualitatively, either.
yeah, assassinations of political leaders are kinda rare. like kennedy. and then there's the bungling like with Reagan. really, we need a better system. we need to increase the percentage. it doesn't work right now because the efficacy is way lacking. I'm glad someone with brains such as yourself is working on this problem. again, perhaps you should talk to TCM who also believes that a more mafia-like reality would be the salvation of humanity.
Take a 5-foot wave, and notice that it doesn't overflow a 50-foot seawall. Twenty of them, separately, likewise don't get past it. But combine them in one large wave, and the 100-foot wave does get by. The fundamental advantage of AP is that the desires of thousands of people can be combined in order to accomplish what no individual would be able to induce on his own.
beautiful. I always love your analogies in which you talk about waves instead of killing and murdering politicians. its so much more poetic. your opponents are the ones that use all the crass words. well, screw 'em.
participants (2)
-
jim bell -
Vladimir Z. Nuri