At 09:40 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote:

jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> wrote in article

<5ch9f2$cuu@life.ai.mit.edu>...

...

Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see any recognition of this fact.

Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility or consistency.

"I love you too! B^) Question: What is a "whacko solution"? Why do you believe AP qualifies? Can you list any other "solutions" which are, indeed, "solutions" which are NOT "whacko" by your definition? (I'm trying to determine whether or not you even agree that there is a problem!) Let me pose an issue here by counterexample: Suppose there was a plantation, containing a master and his slaves. You are told that the slaves are "unhappy". (They're unhappy because they're slaves!!!) That's a "problem." Okay, let me propose that there are at least two broad "solutions" to this "problem": First, change the working conditions just enough to make the slaves acceptably happy. Or, second, eliminate the slavery altogether. Both are "solutions". The first, obviously, is only a "solution" from the stanpoint of the master. The second appears to be only a "solution" from the standpoint of the slaves, since the master obviously doesn't want to lose his slaves! Could you legitimately call the second solution a "whacko solution"? (It would be, from the limited standpoint of the master.) How about the first? That's the problem with using such a poorly-defined term as "whacko" to describe anything, particularly when many people don't agree. And here's a question: What do you mean by "credibility"? I've explained it in enough detail to convince a rather substantial number of intelligent people that it is likely to be possible, and to some it sounds like it is desireable.

If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be dead as a doornail in a week.

A claim which doesn't disprove the functionality of AP one whit. In fact, quite the opposite: If AP was, indeed, non-functional, then nobody would bother with me at all. The fact that you think they would shows that you believe AP threatens SOMEBODY. This means that your arguments, as minimal as they are, are internally contradictory. They simply don't hold together. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com