Some wannabe philosopher: philosophokiddies
Reading philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher. Thinking does. Fucker.
On 9/6/16 1:50 PM, PhiloKing wrote: A king now? You have an impressive grasp of cutting edge political systems.
Some wannabe philosopher: philosophokiddies Reading philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher. Clearly; that was my point. But I didn't say anything about reading philosophy.
Thinking does. Just random thinking? Hiding in your remote cabin imagining that you understand the world and how and why it is going all wrong? Mad that your magical fixes to everything are just not getting the attention they deserve?
There _are_ people talking about improvements and new models, including me. In other more appropriate venues. Those who are serious and thoughtful usually have something better to say than...
Fucker.
Well, yes. But that's off topic. sdw
On Sep 6, 2016 9:41 PM, "Zenaan Harkness" <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 05:11:58PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
But that's off topic.
Couldn'ta said ut batter mahself. Yes Stephen, you're offtopic.
Stephen is so 'off-topic' as most of us, Zenaan. Like you and me, for example. I don't agree with everything that he writes, but he has the same right than us of expressing his oppinions in this public list. And, being sincere, I really like to read his messages. It's always interesting to know new points of view.
On Sep 6, 2016 10:06 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:54:53 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
And, being sincere, I really like to read his messages. It's always
interesting to know new points of view.
You seem to like a fair amount of american fascists...
But I _love_ an Argentine anarchist too... Hahaha!!! <3 I love you very much, 'mal cogido'. I am not fascist and you know it. I just like to read other points of view. I read everything, until those boring links that Zenaan always sends, because it is always interesting to verify how other persons think. I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P
We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first, and prove it. https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government /Churchill by Himself <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1586486381/?tag=richmlang-20>/, 574: Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed *it has been said* that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.… sdw
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 19:14:07 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
/Churchill by Himself <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1586486381/?tag=richmlang-20>/, 574:
https://mises.org/library/real-churchill The Real Churchill0 2/27/2004 Adam Young "With his lack of principles and scruples, Churchill was involved in one way or another in nearly every disaster that befell the 20th century. He helped destroy laissez-faire liberalism, he played a role in the Crash of 1929, he helped start WWI, and by bringing in America to help, prolonged the war and created the conditions for the rise of Nazism, prolonged WWII, laid the groundwork for Soviet domination, helped involve America in a cold war with Russia, and pioneered in the development of total war and undermining western civilized standards." disclaimer : the assholes at the mises instute are dangerous conservatives but sometimes they published some decent stuff, like the article above linked.
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:32:07PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 19:14:07 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
/Churchill by Himself <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1586486381/?tag=richmlang-20>/, 574:
https://mises.org/library/real-churchill
The Real Churchill0 2/27/2004 Adam Young
"With his lack of principles and scruples, Churchill was involved in one way or another in nearly every disaster that befell the 20th century. He helped destroy laissez-faire liberalism, he played a role in the Crash of 1929, he helped start WWI, and by bringing in America to help, prolonged the war and created the conditions for the rise of Nazism, prolonged WWII, laid the groundwork for Soviet domination, helped involve America in a cold war with Russia, and pioneered in the development of total war and undermining western civilized standards."
disclaimer : the assholes at the mises instute are dangerous conservatives but sometimes they published some decent stuff, like the article above linked.
Juan, Juan, Juan! You should know that facts are frowned upon round here ;)
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:14:07PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first,
That's a reasonable foundation.
and prove it.
That's a troll tool. Check the thread dude.. When alternatives are only permitted "when they're proven" we have a catch 22 which binds us to non action. And more so, you try to bind us to not even discuss such alternatives, prior to proof of a provably better system, which of course could not arise without discussion of alternatives in the first instance. But this is logic 1 0 1, and that does not appeal to fascist email list dictators who try every trick in the book to control the dialogue. Or are you going to maintain some different position now?
https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
/Churchill by Himself <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1586486381/?tag=richmlang-20>/, 574:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed *it has been said* that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
As Juan (and others) has so eloquently pointed out so many times, we do not have democracy, and we have never seen democracy. We see only oligarchy controlled semi-fascist (some would say mostly fascist) dictatorships dressed up as democracy. Or will you try to hold an alternative position to these facts?
On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:08:00 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
As Juan (and others) has so eloquently pointed out so many times, we do not have democracy, and we have never seen democracy.
I don't think I said that. We certainly have democracy if we go by common definitions of democracy. What we never had is a liberal system where people's rights are respected. Or we never had a system based on individual self-government. But I don't think that's usually called democracy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/06/2016 10:14 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first, and prove it.
Proofs only exist in formal systems like maths and geometry, and then only because those systems expressly define what constitutes a proof within the given system. In the real world, one may collect evidence based on observation, analysis and experiment, leading to varying degrees of confidence in various conclusions: A massive weight of evidence supports the first law of thermodynamics, but no one will ever prove it "true." In purely practical terms, demonstrating that one economic and social system works better than another economic and social system depends on two things: The definition of "better" and observation of full scale practical implementations. The massive number of variables, feedbacks and turbulence in economic and social systems rule out accurately predicting outcomes based on thought experiments or simulations. "Proof" invokes two value reasoning, which strongly appeals to human cognitive and emotional biases but can not accurately model any but the very simplest of systems in the material world. Propagandists love to exploit two value reasoning: I have found that the presence of the word "proof" in the title of a story circulated on the Internet identifies a deceptive or delusion-based story with about two nines confidence. Two value reasoning creates and strongly supports irrational, delusional, and counter-productive belief systems - especially in the sphere of political ideology. Are you done thinking and ready to impose your will on all the idiots and assholes who disagree with you by force? Then "proof" is your golden ticket to rationalizing violence as a moral imperative for the greater good. :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXz4XRAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqN8AH/0QYzEz1/Zxn4QBWj7mM0+2t RqF4zi2y0VAPeJTckz3h4C5mT64ZyeNg3nXEKT4E/0O8V0V7enVXzrtcEer57wJy akyFqgavrnj7qag8BSlivv3+p8F6TFMNvpnYyw4sMgTCfL/5hMdcJTcMtbwWYhHD EMX7hWI9S6MuxYJTKSSQh9zrvKB/xOwSp5/14o1pb1ZkX/YUT3pz6hiH87WF9O9j TUvrkw/5V/BEg1CP+EpYJ+HiyeiMcujp6JFxmlBG27pB4qJWu56AQwARcHGj1VR8 exI47CNYbv7hMu2Quqzb11DijeqKPlKsdqndE4RksRKPyR7MyM1BqjyyZMD4n2I= =DEm+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 9/6/16 8:13 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 09/06/2016 10:14 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first, and prove it.
Proofs only exist in formal systems like maths and geometry, and then only because those systems expressly define what constitutes a proof within the given system. In the real world, one may collect evidence based on observation, analysis and experiment, leading to varying degrees of confidence in various conclusions: A massive weight of evidence supports the first law of thermodynamics, but no one will ever prove it "true."
Providing proof doesn't necessarily mean "2 nines" or "a proof" in the mathematical sense. You can win a civil case with a "preponderance" of the proof, >50% for instance. But you need some good evidence in larger and larger test cases. To have a serious discussion, you at least need to have a good theoretical basis that involves reasoning about known aspects of human nature, psychology, and sociology that might plausibly work.
In purely practical terms, demonstrating that one economic and social system works better than another economic and social system depends on two things: The definition of "better" and observation of full scale practical implementations. The massive number of variables, feedbacks and turbulence in economic and social systems rule out accurately predicting outcomes based on thought experiments or simulations.
"Proof" invokes two value reasoning, which strongly appeals to human cognitive and emotional biases but can not accurately model any but the very simplest of systems in the material world. Propagandists love to exploit two value reasoning: I have found that the presence of the word "proof" in the title of a story circulated on the Internet identifies a deceptive or delusion-based story with about two nines confidence.
Two value reasoning creates and strongly supports irrational, delusional, and counter-productive belief systems - especially in the sphere of political ideology. Are you done thinking and ready to impose your will on all the idiots and assholes who disagree with you by force? Then "proof" is your golden ticket to rationalizing violence as a moral imperative for the greater good.
:o/
sdw
From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote: On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote: I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first, and prove it.
https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government Churchill by Himself, 574: Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all->wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from >time to time.…
Are you aware that I invented a new form of government, in 1995? https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Don't pretend I didn't. With all of the advances in technology that have occurred since 1995, or even 1980, why should you assume that technology shouldn't develop a better form of government. Jim Bell
From: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote: On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote: I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first, and prove it.
https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government Churchill by Himself, 574: Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all->wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from >time to time.…
Are you aware that I invented a new form of government, in 1995? https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Don't pretend I didn't. With all of the advances in technology that have occurred since 1995, or even 1980, why should you assume that technology shouldn't develop a better form of government. Jim Bell Also, take a look at this: https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-f...
On 9/6/16 9:01 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> *From:* Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> <mailto:cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first, and prove it.
https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government /Churchill by Himself <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1586486381/?tag=richmlang-20>/, 574:
>Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all->wise. Indeed *it has been said* that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from >time to time.…
Are you aware that I invented a new form of government, in 1995? https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Don't pretend I didn't.
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.
With all of the advances in technology that have occurred since 1995, or even 1980, why should you assume that technology shouldn't develop a better form of government.
I don't assume that at all. In fact, I've worked on formulating my own ideas for improvements. I assume the current system, designing changes that hack that by contract and similar.
Jim Bell
Also, take a look at this: https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-f...
sdw
From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> On 9/6/16 9:01 PM, jim bell wrote: We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first, and prove it.
https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government Churchill by Himself, 574:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all->wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from >time to time.…
Are you aware that I invented a new form of government, in 1995? https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Don't pretend I didn't.
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? Jim Bell
Also, take a look at this: https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-f...
On 9/7/16 5:59 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> On 9/6/16 9:01 PM, jim bell wrote: ...
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?
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. Groups will develop feudal protection rackets, clans, private protection details, and events, mistakes or not, will trigger a cascade of blood feuds. 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.
Jim Bell
Also, take a look at this: https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-f...
sdw
lets target juan that USA troll. 100 euro now on his lil green troll head. and see how that bullshit anarchy troll topic he always spew works in real life.
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. Groups will develop feudal protection rackets, clans, private protection details, and events, mistakes or not, will trigger a cascade of blood feuds.
Is it just me or did poking the Censored Tor hornets nest release a very poorly scripted attack of retardedness from low level butthurt CIA apologists :D On 8 September 2016 13:32:14 GMT+01:00, Cypher Piggie <oinker9003@mail2tor.com> wrote:
lets target juan that USA troll. 100 euro now on his lil green troll head. and see how that bullshit anarchy troll topic he always spew works in real life.
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. Groups will develop feudal protection rackets, clans, private protection details, and events, mistakes or not, will trigger a cascade of blood feuds.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
tor is piece of shit company just like usa citizen agent troll juan who have 100E on his head
On 09/08/2016 06:35 AM, oshwm wrote:
Is it just me or did poking the Censored Tor hornets nest release a very poorly scripted attack of retardedness from low level butthurt CIA apologists :D
Hard to say, bro. Maybe Cypher Piggie is Juan ;)
On 8 September 2016 13:32:14 GMT+01:00, Cypher Piggie <oinker9003@mail2tor.com> wrote:
lets target juan that USA troll. 100 euro now on his lil green troll head. and see how that bullshit anarchy troll topic he always spew works in real life.
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. Groups will develop feudal protection rackets, clans, private protection details, and events, mistakes or not, will trigger a cascade of blood feuds.
From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> On 9/7/16 5:59 PM, jim bell wrote: From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> On 9/6/16 9:01 PM, jim bell wrote: ...
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?
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.
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?
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. Jim Bell
>>Also, take a look at this: https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-f...
On 09/08/2016 09:32 AM, jim bell resonds to:
*From:*Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net>
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?
Dunno. But, as the corporate slogan goes, "People Do", anyway. Someone once said survival insecurity is humanity's driving force. John Lennon had it as: "Happiness is a warm gun .. bang bang shoot shoot." Rr
On 9/7/16 5:59 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:*Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> <mailto:sdw@lig.net> On 9/6/16 9:01 PM, jim bell wrote: ...
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?
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.
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?
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. Jim Bell
Also, take a look at this: https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-f...
On 9/8/16 9:32 AM, jim bell wrote:
*From:*Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net>
On 9/7/16 5:59 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:*Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> <mailto:sdw@lig.net> On 9/6/16 9:01 PM, jim bell wrote: ...
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. The whole dynamic of society would have to change. Hard to see how that would work. One of my views of much of the past is that most people in most populations were repeatedly traumatized. Watching people being drawn and quartered in England tends not to produce a caring, cooperative, civic minded, progressive population.
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? 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.
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.
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.
Jim Bell
Also, take a look at this: https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-f...
sdw
From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> On 9/8/16 9:32 AM, jim bell wrote: 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
>>Also, take a look at this: https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-f...
On Sep 6, 2016 11:01 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course,
putin. Yup, I really hate _all_ the politicians and would love to trash all of them. Hyllary, Trump, Putin, Obama (was a great deception for me!), Temer (Brazil), etc, etc... :((
But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically
disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen... We need to respect and, at least, try to understand the differences, my dear Juan. I hate politicians. Some people love them.
participants (12)
-
Bastiani Fortress -
Cecilia Tanaka -
Cypher Piggie -
jim bell -
juan -
Mirimir -
oshwm -
PhiloKing -
Razer -
Stephen D. Williams -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness