Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>:
You stole from me. *BANG*
yep
You raped my sister *BANG*
yep
As is the first two cases the "criminal" has violated my property & family. Such crimes are worthy of immediate death. You steal, you assault or threaten me or my family you have committed suicide.
It is a quite simple and effective philosophy:
"You fuck with me, my family, or my property you die. You leave me alone and I leave you alone."
Even someone like you can understand such a philosophy.
Well, I can't. It's very confusing. Are there judges in your philosophy, or do you just decide for yourself who to shoot? "You walked on my property." BANG. "Your music kept me awake all night." BANG. "I warned you to cut that tree down, and now it fell on my house." BANG. Or how about escalation: "You raped my daughter" "No way, she wanted it as much as I did" "That's not what she tells me. You die." BANG. "You shot my son" "Bullshit, he had it coming after what he did to my daughter." "Bullshit yourself." BANG. "You shot my pa" "He shot my son" "You're gonna die." "I'm taking you with me then." BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. You know, there's a reason people started using judges to help settle disputes. There's a reason the common law evolved with the idea of proportionate response and restitution. This kind of shoot-everybody-I-think-harmed-me approach just doesn't work. Nobody knows what someone else will consider harm worth shooting over. If somebody disagrees that a shooting was justified, they'll shoot back, and feuds begin. The current system stinks, but your idea is no better. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
On Thu, Aug 28, 1997 at 06:17:09PM -0500, snow wrote: [...]
There is also a clear difference between shooting a guy carrying your stereo out of the house, and a guy who probably carried a stereo out of the house.
Anyone can construct scenarios where the distinction is as fuzzy as you please -- eg -- your best friend is getting you a new stereo for your birthday, and is arranging a surprise. Ambiguous situations are a ubiquitous feature of reality. You may think in black in white, but the world is not only many shades of gray -- it's a parade of color. The fundamental problem is that people are different, and have different moral values. Some people think that murder is wrong under any circumstances. Others think it is all right to kill in "self-defense" (whatever that means). Some people think it is perfectly moral to kill in defense of property. Some people think it is all right to kill if they are insulted. Some think it is ok to kill an unfaithful spouse. Some people think it is all right to kill in a burst of righteous or temporary insane anger. Some people excuse a murder when when the killer is drunk. Each of these are honest, real beliefs on the part of a significant fraction of humanity.
The current system stinks, but your idea is no better.
Well, the current system stinks, but enough people are buffalo'd into thinking that it works, so it is doubtful that it will get better.
People are not "buffalo'd" -- they are happy with a system that gives them a good life. Therefore, it has to get worse before it gets better.
If on the otherhand the system ceased to exist, maybe it could be improved.
Ah yes -- libertopia. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
On Thu, Aug 28, 1997 at 06:17:09PM -0500, snow wrote: [...]
There is also a clear difference between shooting a guy carrying your stereo out of the house, and a guy who probably carried a stereo out of the house. Anyone can construct scenarios where the distinction is as fuzzy as you please -- eg -- your best friend is getting you a new stereo for your birthday, and is arranging a surprise.
Yeah, and most people are pretty good at figuring these things out. If you saw your best friend carrying your stereo out of your house, you'd wonder why, but you wouldn't shoot him.
Ambiguous situations are a ubiquitous feature of reality. You may think in black in white, but the world is not only many shades of gray -- it's a parade of color.
Nope. Black and white. White is _all_ colors. Black is none. Any grey you see is a failure of resolution.
The fundamental problem is that people are different, and have
s/different/stupid/g.
different moral values. Some people think that murder is wrong under
Anyone who could think clearly would say that _murder_ is wrong. Distingushing murder from killing is the problem.
any circumstances. Others think it is all right to kill in "self-defense" (whatever that means). Some people think it is
It means you wack the other fucker before he wacks you. It means you prevent damage to yourself, people you care about, and the shit that belongs to you and them.
Well, the current system stinks, but enough people are buffalo'd into thinking that it works, so it is doubtful that it will get better. People are not "buffalo'd" -- they are happy with a system that gives them a good life. Therefore, it has to get worse before it gets better.
Crap. If anyone is happy with this system, they are either on the top, or not paying attention.
If on the otherhand the system ceased to exist, maybe it could be improved. Ah yes -- libertopia.
We're fucked as it is. It wouldn't be much worse.
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, John Smith wrote:
You stole from me. *BANG* You raped my sister *BANG* or threaten me or my family you have committed suicide. It is a quite simple and effective philosophy: "You fuck with me, my family, or my property you die. You leave me alone and I leave you alone." Even someone like you can understand such a philosophy. Well, I can't. It's very confusing. Are there judges in your
"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>: philosophy, or do you just decide for yourself who to shoot? "You walked on my property." BANG.
Works for me. You post no trespassing, I have no excuse.
"Your music kept me awake all night." BANG.
Well, turn the shit down.
"I warned you to cut that tree down, and now it fell on my house." BANG.
If the warning was issued, then *BANG*.
Or how about escalation: You know, there's a reason people started using judges to help settle disputes. There's a reason the common law evolved with the idea of proportionate response and restitution. This kind of
Yeah, the reason was that the Nobles looked at their peasants as property, and didn't want their property killing each other.
shoot-everybody-I-think-harmed-me approach just doesn't work.
There is also a clear difference between shooting a guy carrying your stereo out of the house, and a guy who probably carried a stereo out of the house.
The current system stinks, but your idea is no better.
Well, the current system stinks, but enough people are buffalo'd into thinking that it works, so it is doubtful that it will get better. If on the otherhand the system ceased to exist, maybe it could be improved. Petro, Christopher C. snow@smoke.suba.com
participants (3)
-
John Smith -
Kent Crispin -
snow