On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:38AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:47:24 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:30PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: How about we implement a working AP system? As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.
The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers, politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.
The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good implementation.
And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned against honest people".
Naturally, I feel I must respond to this, as well. At one point, very long ago (1990's) I believe I made the following point, probably on the CP list. The current legal (then and now) environment, at least in America, is that the vast majority of adults can walk into a gun-store, and legally buy a gun and ammunition. Then, they can walk out, possibly after a few-day 'waiting period' (which didn't exist in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, which I take as violating the principles of the Supreme Court decision Heller v. McDonald 2008). Hypothetically, these people could then load their newly-purchased guns, walk up to some random person, and shoot them dead. Hypothetically. In other words, there is no law-of-nature which prevents this kind of thing from happening. So, my question is: Does this hypothetical possibility somehow prove that America's legal environment towards ownership of guns is somehow "wrong"? That merely because there is no law-of-nature that would prevent that wrong deed, people should not be allowed to own guns, even those who had never, and would never, misuse them? Above, you said: ">And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned against honest people"." So, I could respond: "And I can conceive of no firearms system which cannot be turned against honest people". Okay, that statement that I just made is arguably true. Let's agree that you cannot build a gun that cannot, somehow, be misused in some way. Even if it can only be used as a bludgeon, and hit somebody over the head with a few-pounds of steel. Nevertheless, nothing can absolutely prevent such use. Some, certainly some of those who live and grew up outside America and its environment of gun laws, would take the hypothetical possibility that somebody could do this as being a "defect" in the system, thus justifying saying the laws were wrong, and further justify taking them away. Americans, however, at least those who believe in the Second Amendment, think differently: I argue that they think something like, "Even though it is possible that some people will misuse guns, that does not justify taking them away from the general public". I am among those people who believe that. And lest some people are inclined to argue, I will point out that tire-irons, hammers, baseball-bats, heavy logs, iron pipes, and many other objects are similarly subject to the 'defect' of being possibly used for improper purposes. As well as knives, axes, spears, and other devices can be similarly misused. Rakes, trowels, shovels, etc.
Does anybody out there "get" this concept? It certainly seems very basic to me. So, I then ask: Does the POSSIBILITY that the AP system could be misused justify somehow banning it? Or even denouncing it?
Your exposition is of course not the full comparison, so let's unpack that a little. The one who shoots someone publicly, has at least the following checks and balances: 1. that the deed is done "publicly" 2. and done by his own hand 3. the time factor - preparation, planning, arranging funds, planning the deed, doing the deed Your AP market removes both of these checks and balances, and by doing so, by any of billions of people being able to "pitch in a few fiats" for a murder, and to do so anonymously, such that someone else can conduct the murder and anonymously pick up the proceeds, AP thereby liberates the following dynamics: 1. AP liberates the callous, angry and other such natures of humans. - amongst billions, there are millions of such persons 2. AP liberates the emotive, compulsive mob, to act in unison in the heat of the moment. - again, amongst billions of people, millions have experience traumatic childhood experiences which are unresolved, and so in the heat of the moment, they act impulsively 3. AP liberates the mob. - it is not one, but 1 in a 1000, out of 100s of millions of humans, who will devour the murder of the day, whilst the remaining 99.9% of humans decry "the mob mentality, what a fucked up world we have, f___ you Jim Bell" And the power of such a beast unleashed, may be extraordinarily difficult to ever unwind, after its manifestation.
My comment from the last posting follows: Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember:
"Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS."
The reason is money.
Those who can print money at their whim, can game any and every assassination market, to have all the anarchists shot or otherwise assassinated.
Any person who has enough money to buy a steel hammer can subsequently use it to murder somebody else. Do we ban hammers? Kitchen knives? Do we ban MONEY, itself, currency and cash, simply because it can be used to buy an object which can be misused? How about automobiles, which society has learned over the last few years can work as a weapon? How about banning gasoline, which certainly could be used to commit arson?
I think I've made my point. From my standpoint, an American who actually believes in the Second Amendment, I view the possible abuse of a gun as fundamentally identical to abuse of hammers, baseball bats, axes, and kitchen knives: There is simply no logical reason to ban ONE of this kind of object, as if it was somehow logically 'different' or 'special' from a standpoint of 'objects which can be used as weapons'. Arguably, a gun can be described as a 'more-efficient' weapon, but America's Second-Amendment rights were not limited to 'inefficient' arms.
In 1791, the America's Founding Fathers decided to take one option off the table: In proposing and later ratifying the Second Amendment, they decided that Americans should never have to grovel or beg for their right to own tools of their own self-defense. They knew that weapons could be misused. Nevertheless, they made their decision. They wanted to guarantee the continuation of the kind of gun-rights that existed in America in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, regardless. They did not describe it in detail, because they didn't think they needed to: They KNEW what "the laws" allowed, and guaranteed. They knew that those laws were written down, and those laws would not simply evaporate. They wanted that system to continue, so they wrote the Second Amendment. The Second American DID NOT GRANT, but in fact GUARANTEED the "right to keep and bear arms". And AP is potentially just as much an "arm" as is guns, baseball bats, or knives. And I would argue that AP is LESS abusable than common cutting and bludgeoning weapons. Killing somebody with a hammer does not require anybody else's assistance, let alone their "approval". Or even knowledge So anybody who thinks AP shouldn't be "allowed" should have to explain why such common weapons should be allowed, and yet not AP. They will simply have no credible answer, at all. Jim Bell
See above. It's an entirely different dynamic, thus a completely unfair comparison (albeit it is a comparison one ought make for the purposes of discussion, we may do ourselves a great disservice by not considering the larger picture of a fundamentally new dynamic). For a similar and hypothetical "false comparison", remember the (only half) tongue in cheek "recreational nukes" meme: - imagine we could present the plans to build actual back yard 100 megatonne nukes, in say only two A4 pages of text and a couple diagrams and now imagine that we say exactly the same comparison applies "well, since you support the right of every Amercian to walk into a gun store a buy a gun and shoot someone if they so choose, in broad daylight, how can you possibly deny the right of folks to share the plans to building 100 megatonne nuclear bombs in a weekend and $1,600 in parts from the hardware store?" Those who hear such a hypothetical "Recreational Nukes for all, yay! It's no different to the right of every American to buy a gun!" would presumably do a double take and consider "well, may be that's neither a good idea, nor a fair comparison".