On 9/7/16 5:59 PM, jim bell wrote:
On 9/6/16
9:01 PM, jim bell wrote:
...
>I didn't comment about it. The Purge movies
always remind me of AP. Not the same, but related.
http://www.thepurgemovie.co.uk/
>My preference is to consider ideas that are
likely to improve things. AP doesn't seem
promising, although good to keep in mind.
>>That's
a rather weak answer. Why is AP unlikely to improve
things? Some people have said it will work "too
well". Be specific. What do >>you say are its
faults? Will it get rid of governments? Will it
defend libertarian or anarchic regions?
>A system where anyone can be targeted for any reason will cause
fear, certainty seeking, last resort alliance building, fatalist
resignation and >cynicism in the general population, and similar to
spiral out of control.
Imagine you're living in a different country, with no 2nd Amendment. Nobody can own guns, at least not legally. Now imagine somebody advocates allowing 'anyone' to walk into a gun store, buy a gun and ammunition. Somebody else points out that if a person can buy a gun, he can walk out of the store, load the gun, and shoot to death anyone he sees on the street. Does that circumstance justify not changing the laws to what we have in America, today? I say, "no". The mere existence of a possible negative scenario doesn't mean that such rights shouldn't exist.
> Groups will develop feudal protection
rackets, clans, private protection details, and events, mistakes or
not, will trigger a cascade of blood >feuds.
Why will they need that? Will they do any good?
>I haven't analyzed it thoroughly, at a glance it seems that kind of
negative dynamic, regardless of actual risk, will sour the whole
society.
That's the problem. You haven't thought about it, and certainly not sufficiently.
Jim Bell