Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."
At 12:23 PM 5/26/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 1996, jim bell wrote:
:At 09:48 PM 5/25/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote: :How "removed" do they have to be to be innocent, in your opinion?
If they didn't pull the trigger or give the order, they're innocent. Making these criteria any laxer will cause problems as more and more people are drawn into the category of offenders, pretty soon you're the only victim, everyone else is out there to steal from you or assist in the theft.
Qualitatively, perhaps. But quantitatively, no. I think that blame for any given situation or government behavior will be distributed in a reasonably fair fashion, with those directly responsible for abuse becoming "dead meat" while those on the periphery only marginal targets. Your generous interpretation of their guilt is certainly not binding on me. And in any case the fact that the people involved will usually be able to resign will be a logical "out."
:Nuclear bomb design. Done with funds stolen from taxpayers. Done to :protect the leadership of this country, not the public.
Pure mathematics as far as the people working at the lab were concerned. You really think if the receptionist had died, it would have been self-defense? A couple of kids died in computer labs at other schools where this happened, they were there feeding punched cards into the machines. Somehow that doesn't sound right to me.
I agree. Which is why I'd much prefer a method to preferentially target a relatively smaller number of people, and I've invented (discovered?) just such a system. Why not let it work?
:And isn't it immoral for George Bush, for instance, to choose a solution :that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of comparatively innocent :Iraqis, both during and after the Gulf war, rather than bumping off Saddam :Hussein? Think about it. Exactly why does he do the former, rather than :the latter?
And the Iranian leaders really think Clinton is an ungoldy kafir for meeting Rushdie the apostate. Why not kill him, after all various Americans have suggested this is a valid tactic?
Why not kill those Iranian leaders, using AP? And if you're afraid they'll retaliate against "our" leaders, I see nothing wrong with that, either. It's the leaders who maintain the dispute.
Your methods will be used for ends you do not agree with.
Hey, I realized that long ago! But I'm not under any illusion that this system can be molded to conform to my wishes alone: If I could, I'd become a dictator and the cycle of tyranny would continue.
From what I've learnt of the Gulf war (I was reading most of the time, kept away from the TV), they did try very hard to kill Sadaam Hussein, but got nowhere.
"Very hard"? If they'd tried "very hard" they would have succeeded. No, the various leadership groups controlling different countries have far more in common with each other than with the ordinary citizens. They all are perfectly aware that if a precedent is established that killing the leadership is to be used to solve a dispute, eventually they'll all be dead. Thus, they reject this solution like the plague. The government only pretends to not be able to succeed at this task in order to assuage the natural desires of the public.
As is apparent, political leaders value their own lives more than they do those of the foot-soldiers. Many among the foot-soldiers belive their lives would be "brutish, nasty and short" without the mechanism of the state and are willing to defend it and those who currently operate the machine.
They are misled, of course.
Of course George Bush I don't trust at all because the man was practically glowing during "his war", anyone who enjoys a war, revels in it, is not someone I admire, respect, or even talk to. However, when you propose that we kill this person, I'm not going to stand with you either. Rest assured, there will be many others waiting to take his place when he is killed, and some of them will spell potato like the English feudal lords did.
The only reason there might be "many others waiting to take his place" is that assassination is actually a rare event. Make it easily accomplished, and who would want to take any politician's place?
:"Another set of costs"? Yikes! Read the essay, governments as we know them :can't possibly survive post-AP.
Oh no, I think they will survive post AP. The odds are quite high that the people who are convinced to act on the AP philosophy will be branded terrorists and become the objectives of many witch hunts the world over.
Unless I capture the public's imagination, and they realize what kind of improvements it promises. Or, at least they recognize that opposition by those in government is entirely self-serving.
:Well, I disagree. Until recently, public opinion was almost entirely :manufactured. It was a joint project of the government and the news media.
I too think Chomsky has perceptive vision when it comes to the media.
It doesn't take a great deal of perception to see this. The media and the government are dependent on each other: The media needs access to news, the government needs a pliable sounding board. Chomsky has gotten smart on this subject, a little bit late in my estimation. Chomsky's main advantage is that he's been a public figure for years, which means when HE spouts this stuff it's considered news. When we talk about it, it's ignored.
:Is there any significant likelihood that the people in power today will :relinquish power absent a system such as AP? I'm not optimistic about that.
No, noone "relinquishes" power. They fight to keep it, but the struggle does not always have to be violent,
It isn't that it "has to" be violent. Resignation is always an option. Problem is, they don't want to give up their positions of power.
and it hurts our cause to instigate violence when none has been used directly against us.
That depends entirely on what your definition of instigating violence really is. I happen to believe that the act of collecting taxes, involuntarily, IS the "instigation of violence" even if the victim gives up his assets without a fight, if there is the prospect of eventual violence should he refuse to cooperate. Until you see this, you'll have a warped view of the propriety of AP, not to mention the libertarian non-initiation of force principle. (NIOFP.) Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 26 May 1996, jim bell wrote: :At 12:23 PM 5/26/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote: :Qualitatively, perhaps. But quantitatively, no. I think that blame for any :given situation or government behavior will be distributed in a reasonably :fair fashion, with those directly responsible for abuse becoming "dead meat" :while those on the periphery only marginal targets. Your generous :interpretation of their guilt is certainly not binding on me. And in any :case the fact that the people involved will usually be able to resign will :be a logical "out." Nor is your generous interpretation of the guilt of of hte peripheral binding on those who do not like them for whatever reason. Your suggestion is that open season be declared on those who work for the state (or are the state). Your claim is that one has to satisfy everyone (or the small minority that is unsatisfied might come out and kill you) andd the only way that will happen is when there is no state at all. Of course there are those who fervently believe in the socialist ideal and would probably feel justified in killing the do nothing libertarians (as opposed to old-style liberals, i.e. minimalists) who ostensibly form the state. For them, inaction might be sufficient cause to initiate an AP campaign. Now what happens if one group feels another group's AP campaign is directly hurting their interests (for a smaller/larger state). Isn't there the possibility that they will begin to assign to the other's AP leaders the status of the state (after all their AP campaign is determining the nature of the state, and we can begin a reverse AP campaign on them to halt that). The ideal of the minimalist state permits an out clause, so the socialists (or anyone who wants a paternal govt.) can form their own little community with their state acting as mother. If you envision "resigning" as a means of escaping being the target of AP, you must be aware that we don't forgive easily and there will be groups who wish to kill politicos who've "ruined our lives because of what they did x years ago". If those who begin AP campaigns on "retired" govt. employees will be "playing unfairly" and your system has a clause to tackle them, I can see a group using a succession of politicos (each of whom gains amnesty by retiring after a bit) to accomplish what they wish to. :I agree. Which is why I'd much prefer a method to preferentially target a :relatively smaller number of people, and I've invented (discovered?) just :such a system. Why not let it work? I'd prefer a system that doesn't "target" people at all. :Why not kill those Iranian leaders, using AP? And if you're afraid they'll :retaliate against "our" leaders, I see nothing wrong with that, either. :It's the leaders who maintain the dispute. Sure, and suppose the option is that there be no dispute at all. So Rushdie (or you or I) becomes the sacrifical lamb, precisely because the "leaders" value their own lives, but ostensibly to kill the "dispute" in the bud. One of the fundamental principles of justice is that it be comensurate (in some sense) to the crime, AP lacks that aspect. "Final solutions" are all it has, but final solutions aren't always desireable. :Hey, I realized that long ago! But I'm not under any illusion that this :system can be molded to conform to my wishes alone: If I could, I'd become :a dictator and the cycle of tyranny would continue. The question is not one of becoming a dictator, but rather one of what values will be protected, what freedoms will people have in the world/state you imagine. I think the values AP engenders are not the ones we want. We probably don't want to legitimize murder. It's difficult to operate in a vacuum of principles/values, we can't simply say, "well whatever people will want to happen will happen and why not give them that choice". Marx was not the first to poitn out that institutions influence our actions, that we are products of our times, that the choices we face are as much determined by our own preferences as they are by the world around us. AP will create an environment where, I believe, an undesireable set of options will be presented to each of us. This is the "outcome" argument, i.e. undesireable ends, the means themselves are reprehensible. :The only reason there might be "many others waiting to take his place" is :that assassination is actually a rare event. Make it easily accomplished, :and who would want to take any politician's place? Only the fanatic :It isn't that it "has to" be violent. Resignation is always an option. :Problem is, they don't want to give up their positions of power. You've heard about the elections where libertarian candidates ran for office with the objective of doing away with the office if they were elected. I believe one such candidate won the election and came through on his promise. :That depends entirely on what your definition of instigating violence really :is. I happen to believe that the act of collecting taxes, involuntarily, IS :the "instigation of violence" even if the victim gives up his assets without :a fight, if there is the prospect of eventual violence should he refuse to :cooperate. Until you see this, you'll have a warped view of the propriety :of AP, not to mention the libertarian non-initiation of force principle. :(NIOFP.) As I've said, the minimalist state is desireable in my opinion. The most efficient system of taxation is the truly flat tax (i.e. a fixed amount for each individual), since each person derives aprox. equivalent benefits from the minimalist state, their contributions are also equal. Each of us derives some benefits from the existence of the state, some of these benefits are non-exclusionary. Till these benefits are dependent on territory and jurisdiction taxation of those who reside within the jurisdiction/territory will have to be enforced. You must of course, be aware of the medieval practice of making an offender an "outlaw", i.e. not under the protection of any laws. These outlaws were then fair game for anyone. When we have arrived at the point where the free-rider problem does not exist for things like national defense (i.e the shields won't exist over your property, and you'll enforce your ownership of it yourself) you will have the option (once again) of becoming an outlaw. I don't think it's going to be very pretty. To bring up another subject, we make compromises. I personally find socialists endearing and am willing to make certain compromises to live with them amicably. AP will draw battle-lines that will make such associations extremely hard to maintain. I'd rather not be the member of a "group" and have that membership/taint dictate the degree to which I can associate with a particular set of people. AP, in providing "final solutions", will bring about a state of affairs where the actions of a particular group (which they think are legitimate and do not run counter to the rules of the game) will be unacceptable for another group and the "finality" of these actions will create rifts. Violence does not beget peace. hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Key Escrow = Conscription for the masses | 2048 bit via finger iQB1AwUBMakHvBwDKqi8Iu65AQEmnQMArCatzEoPOHSiSSlb8yhMupx0sbx4ZwZs pY6A78B+LQwceyTnPE9mQ/4C8Zyr+IF9MPEKJgXJ8TPkeL/P24k8+oqiUwXq0pMN UsyS8c4RUW3d72s/ctV9tDQKumu9zc/p =BZV+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
jim bell -
Subir Grewal