"AP is presupposed on an anonymous money betting ring - i.e. on money, which is collected by people who climb the hiearchy of the day, therefore they have more of it. Many orders of magnitude more of it."
But merely having more money, at least initially, does not translate into being able to USE that money to target his enemies. And people who are CURRENTLY "billionaires" got that way using a NON-AP system. Can you describe how anyone can become, or stay, a "billionaire" in a post-AP world? Why should you think that would not change?
Game theory.
Sociopaths game the system, no matter what that system is.
All you guys are arguing about, is that BAD people will abuse GOOD things, but here's a tool which will up the ante or the bet. There are several problems with the inherent premises in this formulation of, let us call, the "bad guy problem". (First premise to question: Are there bad guys?) But before we get into that old problem, let's address the issue at point. I can't be sure I'm not confused, but if I've grokked the debate, Jim's tool has advantage of ignorance. The tech Jim's releasing gives advantage to the COMMUNITY he releases it in, presumably chosen by the creator of the tech. In the "arms race" of tools to defeat your enemies, first to battlefield gives an immediate victory. Perhaps you get preferred access to the media for being an informant and your reputation goes up. Yes, eventually, the enemy integrates these techniques, but you've already gotten a victory. The enemy cares about their reputation and eventually if your life depends on your reputation, you too can be victim of your own system. But this is just the same old battle -- that doesn't reduce the value of the tools made in such warfare, but to truly win the war, you have to do one thing: Realize there is no one BUT yourself. The Cold War showed that a victory for America would be a defeat for America. At some point, THERE IS NO ENEMY. Why? Because you have a common ancestor, for example (don't we all? (according to science)). Because you each want kids to be happy. Because you both like spending time in the countryside. So, the "bad guy problem" is premised that there are BAD people. But each of those people were children once who didn't care about your household estate, your equine performance, or your wife's/husbands tits/cock. So, is the whole formulation of punk/activism wrong? NO. Because, while there are no inherently bad people (cf. Jesus), there are simply people who have not benefitted the SAME WAY and EXTENT of the current incumbents of power and property. As someone in poverty, I know how this feels. Everyday I am a victim of the current incumbents. Can I get elected and change it? I don't know anymore. That was the design of the US government. My strategy was, instead, to get arrested, and convince the Court that power has become too misused at the "End of the West", my term for the era, arrived at in the last century, where property and the ability to LIVE without reporting to anyone are no longer operational. This little fact makes living EXTREMELY difficult unless you have property or working at a job. Now, last time I knew, it is not REQUIRED by law to have a job, so this little issue of property has to be solved by the incumbents or result in activism by the propertyless, because neither seemed to see it coming. And power requires responsibility, so.... The argument returns to JUSTICE for all: is it necessary, how to do it, why should I do it when I don't want to, what will/can they do if I don't, were the Founders and GOD right the whole time (which both, notedly, were concerned about the question)? For this, I await your reply, Marcos Earth