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?
>Ruining the confidence, sense of safety, and decorum is no small
thing.
I assume you're saying that AP would 'ruin the confidence, sense of safety, and decorum' of the world.
Needless to say, I disagree. Consider a statistic that in the 20th century, about 240 million people were killed by government action.
Do you call that compatible with 'confidence, sense of safety, and decorum'? If you have no solution to that, what is your point?
> The whole dynamic of society would have to change.
Duh!!! So, you're still in love with the way things happen now? In Part 2 of AP, I wrote:
"Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes. No military? One of the attractive potential implications of such a system would be that we might not even need a military to protect the country. Any threatening or abusive foreign leader would be subject to the same contribution/assassination/reward system, and it would operate just as effectively over borders as it does domestically."
Please try to make the case that the present world, with ALL its faults, would be better than an AP world.
> Hard to
see how that would work.
How long have you been thinking about it? I have been thinking about it for 21.5 years.
> One of my views of much of the past is
that most people in most populations were repeatedly traumatized.
And frequently, they were 'traumatized' due to government actions.
> Watching people being drawn and quartered in England tends not to
produce a caring, cooperative, civic minded, progressive population.
What does that have to do with anything relevant here?
>>>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.
>Different situation. Why was vigilantism weeded out in the US?
Why is vigiliantism relevant here?
>The Second Amendment is sort of a license to kill about 1 other
person or so, if you're willing to trade your life to do so.
The First Amendment is a license to speak lies, if you choose to do so. Is that really a problem?
>>> 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?
>To gain more peace of mind. Doesn't matter.
Why do you think the advent of AP won't give them "peace of mind". Some people agree that it will produce a VERY peaceful, POLITE society. I've long claimed that a well-functioning AP system will totally eliminate wars, by supplanting them. That will give plenty of "peace of mind".
>>>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.
>I've analyzed it more than the general population. They're going to
be the ones reacting. I'm fairly certain the blow back would be
worse than any benefit. But I'll read your proposal more closely.
Individually, their reactions are irrelevant. That, hypothetically, 50% of the population might not actively employ the AP system, doesn't impact its function appreciably.
Jim Bell