On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:57:49 -0700
Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> 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.
> >
>
> Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for
> turning money into death without knowing where the money came from.
> Rich people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can
> hire bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed
> anonymously.


        That's what first comes to mind. However I then realized (and I
        profusely apology if the point was already made by Jim Bell or
        others) AP could be used to finish off cops. Getting rid of an
        ordinary cop should be a lot cheaper than getting rid of bill
        gates or your bosses at google.

        AND, if cops start to die like they deserve, it would be
        interesting to see what happens to the rest of the system which
        obviously relies on 'enforcement' by...cops.


>
> Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of
> wealth equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.
>
>
> > > Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much
> > > higher level of education and discourse.
> > >
> > > "When all you have is a hammer ..."
> > >
> > > In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
> > > "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota
> > > of power that presents such as any public lynching, where
> > > intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never
> > > exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP
> > > would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
> >
> >         Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice
> >         change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who
> >         richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is
> >         just business as usual.
> >
> > > I support anarchism, not chaos
>
>
> And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos,
> as long as it's not
> the status quo.


        'chaos' is just a propaganda term, at least the way you are
        using it. If I support 'chaos' then you support the 'ordered'
        fascism we live in?

The question is always "support" relative to what? I would have to be convinced that any shift I was to help bring about would be likely to eventually lead to something better, preferably within our lifetimes. Making things worse is easy. Making them worse in such a way that they eventually get better is harder.
 
> Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who
> benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people
> happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such
> people don't have enough power and influence to bring the system
> crashing down.

        The double negative makes it kinda harder for me to parse your
        sentence...

        I'm not sure what incentive you are referring to and what it
        accomplishes.

Sorry. That's what happens when I try to write out a complicated thought without going back and reediting multiple times. What I mean is that having enough people eventually decide that "anything is better than this" serves as a useful check on those in power. Can't make things too bad or people band together to bring it down without regard to what follows. No different from an election where a bunch of people vote for "the other guy" even though the other guy is totally unqualified, just because they're so dissatisfied with you, and your own supporters stay home.
 
> Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF
> crashing down without needing much if any help.

        Why? Didn't you read 1984?

Yes. And Brave New World. We're basically in the world depicted by Huxley already. The thing that struck me most about Brave New World is that none of the Powers That Be worried about bringing an outsider into the world -- because it was stable! People for the most part liked things the way they were. That scares me a hell of a lot more than 1984.

I believe the system will bring itself down because the financial system of the "developed world" is a house of cards. There are hungrier nations that are far less vulnerable to the "seizing up" the system will experience when people stop trusting the prices in the market. In order for people to transact in the marketplace, they have to trust that the prices in the marketplace are at least somewhat reflective of value. This is why you saw banks sitting on repossessed houses or holding off on foreclosing on non-performing mortgages; they believed the government would intervene to raise prices, so they were waiting for a better deal. But things have only gotten worse since 2008, and every subsequent intervention will only become more costly and create ever more perverse incentives.