On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:46:30 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) there's no anonymous network
There ought to be.
Oh yes. I wholeheartedly agree. It's a moral imperative. And the rights to life liberty and property ought to be respected as well. But they are not. In other words, your comment is completely irrelevant. There's no anonymous comms, so no AP. End of story.
> 2) putting a bounty on someone's head doesn't necessarily mean the target would get killed. The thinking that 'the market' will magically provide any 'service' is just magical thinking. Wishful thinking.
Apparently you are pretending that you don't realize that an actual "killing" is necessary for AP to do its job.
I think you meant to type "an actual "killing" ISN'T necessary" So let me explain the obvious : If you point a toy gun at people and tell them "obey me!" they will laugh at you. If you point a real gun and start killing them, they will obey. Likewise, if AP is just a bluff and people like trump and bezos AREN'T actually killed, then the system would be just a joke that nobody would pay any attention to.
The real issue is deterrence.
And the only way to get deterrence is to HAVE the ACTUAL ability to kill the criminals and KILL the most important ones. Then see what happens. Now, the fact that I had to explain such basic facts...is...akward to say the least. But it clearly shows that you make shit up as you go. Which is very un-engineering-like.
People will indeed change their behavior if to continue it means that they would eventually be killed.
Nah. They will change their behavior ONLY IF they actually GET KILLED.
3) the list of problems is prolly (a lot) longer. Those two are just off the to of my head.
Since you are probably wrong, maybe you ought to list them
Nah. It's clear that you ignore anything you can't answer. If you give any meaningful reply to the two points above, then I might.
on the political side :
tyrannicide is fully legitimate and useful, but the idea that AP is an option for a liberal justice system is sheer nonsense, as illustrasted by Jim's 'idea' of executing thieves.
Interestingly, one episode of Star Trek Next Generation addressed this. Its legal system recognized only one punishment: Death. But the probability of actually enforcing the rules varied. Wesley trespassed, and the was seen.
Looks like you didn't finish your last sentence or the paragraph. Anyway, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that your proposal of murdering thieves is insane and I guess I'll have to add fully criminal. And yet you keep ignoring the objection. Now you made a completely irrelevant comment about some piece of fascist american shit, 'startrek'. "one episode of Star Trek Next Generation addressed this." Did it address the fact that your proposal of murdering thieves is insane? Please, let us know when you admit that your understanding of political philosophy is seriously flawed.
At that point Jim invokes voluntary courts,
No, I had that idea DECADES ago. You just weren't paying attention.
Dude. I'm referring to how you present your argument here. You first propose random murders then try to patch it up with 'courts'.
And you cannot understand things well enough to figure out how it would work.
Dude. You should pay more attention to your betters.
>while conveniently ignoring that liberals 'invented' liberal anarchy in the 19th century.
Needless to say, you don't explain that statement, or its relevance.
What do you want me to explain? Voluntary courts and 'production of security' in the free market were first discussed around 1850 (as far as I know, but there must surely be 'previous art') So when you say regarding courts "No, I had that idea DECADES ago." ...the proper reply is : molinari and spooner had the idea 170 YEARS AGO. So who gives fuck about you 'having' that idea?
>Then again, that's the typical modus operandi of advocates of 'intellectual property' - which is actually intelectual theft.
And you go off on yet another tangent of questionable relevance.
It's fully relevant. You never cite 'previous art'. That's intellectual fraud.
> It's also quite notable that Jim has flatly 'claimed' that :
> "very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work"
Yes, and my tongue was at least partly in my cheek. B^).
Oh really. So you are still 'partly' claiming that sort of garbage. (and frankly I don't believe you were partly joking, but meh)
Read David Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman
fuck friedman. Now, if you have some point to make, make it on your own. But since you keep naming that psycho, I'll make another inference about you. You don't think natural rights are a valid concept I take it? You have repeatedly ignored all my comments about rights being the justification for anarchy, so I assume you don't 'believe' in rights?
and his 1973 book, The Machinery of Freedom, and specifically "The Hard Problem". https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem/ People who claim they want 'anarchy' (many so-called 'anarchists' are merely Communists, socialists, or other types of leftist nuts)
and 99% of 'libertarians' are actually americunt fascists. Let me know when you acknowledge that fact. And like I said in my previous message your comment about lefty fake anarchists was irrelevant. And is still irrelevant.
probably don't realize that David Friedman stated this problem quite well. Nobody else found the solution.
friedman wants the americunt empire minus taxation for big business. So he wonders how to keep the empire while pretending he doesn't want the military. That's certainly a problem for him...
Using AP, a region run under principles of anarchy can defeat the governments and militaries of conventional nations.
no they can't. The americunts will simply nuke them.