At 02:47 PM 6/6/96 +0000, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:

On 6 Jun 96 at 11:19, jim bell wrote:

...

...

...

I _do_ believe, however, that the number of people unjustifiably targeted will be rather low. <snip> Retaliation is possible, in that case.

Sorry Jim, I did not get that at all in the past. I assumed a context where the inner workings of AP would not be well understood by the population while here, you seems to indicate that everybody would operate under the threat / deterrance of mutual anihilation principle.

Hmmm... sorry, I thought that was obvious. Well, perhaps not "obvious," but it's one of those facts that will become second nature to people once AP starts up.

A argued that an impulsive guy might target somebody unjustifiably while I overlooked that he could think twice before doing so. But by his nature, being a violent or thug at heart, he will understand this "peace based on threat" maybe even better than a pacifist at heart. So, my arguments might not stand.

As can be expected, people will be looking out for themselves in an AP-dominated system, just as today. I think most people will have a fairly good idea who's targeting them if the hit's not justified. Almost every justified hit can be fairly anonymous. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com