(Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace

[jim bell]

At 12:37 PM 5/22/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

>>>the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing,
>>>not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means"
>>>argument used by most here), but that in addition it is 
>>>supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? 
>>
>>Then you've obviously dramatically mis-read my ideas.  I don't claim that 
>>_EVERYBODY_ who will fall victim will "deserve" it by your or my opinions, 
>
>oh, so in other words, a lot of "innocent" people will be murdered
>under AP. ah, another great "feature", not a "bug", right??

Tell ya what: name a weapon that CANNOT be used to harm an innocent 
person.  Go ahead, I'm waiting.


>>For example, if you believe in NIOFP, then anyone who violates it has 
>>initiated force, and the victim of such force (or, perhaps, anyone else?) 
>>can legitimately use a system like AP to fight back.
>
>what is "legitimate"? in our government, "legitimate" refers to our
>judicial system.

"Legal" is the word you're looking for, not legitimate.

> it is what determines what is "legitimate" based
>on laws. in your AP anarchy scheme, the word "legitimate" has no meaning.
>"legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. this ridiculous and
>impractical definition was discarded centuries ago because of the
>free-for-all bloody violence it inevitably leads to. 

What?!?  You mean that after 100 million war deaths in this century alone, 
you're suggesting that we DON'T have "free-for-all bloody violence"?  Or are 
you simply used to the kind of violence that exists today?  That's a common 
trap people fall into:  They simply accept whatever current system we have, 
as if it is somehow required or okay or...


>be very
>clear about what you are advocating: in AP, there are no laws.

Right!  There are no "laws" per se.  But there are people, and their 
interests, and what they believe to be their rights.

> people
>do not rely on the judicial system to solve their problems.

RIGHT!  But as importantly, they aren't the _victims_ of that "judicial 
system" either.  Rodney King, for instance.  Donald Scott.  Randy Weaver.  
The Branch Davidians, etc.  All these people were fundamentally victims of 
an organization political/legal heirarchy filled with people who had 
(defacto) greater rights/authority than ordinary citizens, and abused the 
public with it.

> they
>take the "law" into their own hands and take out contracts on anyone
>who offends them. would they feel justified in killing people who
>disagree with them on cyberspace mailing lists? perhaps, who is to tell?

I've explained that I believe that the post-AP world will be far less 
violent than today, partly because there will be no people in positions of 
authority who can abuse the rest of us with impunity, or force us to go to 
war against our will.  It will also allow GOOD people to punish BAD people 
without depending on the "system" to do it.  It will also tend to prevent 
the enforcement of "victimless crime" laws that currently result in 60-70% 
of the prison and jail population.

 You need to show that yes, you see the advantages, but also show that you 
have a plausible belief that my system will be worse than the status quo.  
Citing a specific potential problem without quantifying it is pointless.


>>You seem to be assuming that if there are TWO "wrongs" here.  But I've tried 
>>to make it abundantly clear that justification for the self-defense comes 
>>from the initial "wrong."
>
>but who decides what is wrong?

Each individual, for himself.  True, he may occasionally make mistakes, but 
I contend that the vast majority of these decisions will be entirely 
justified.  The truly bad people, the REAL criminals, will not last long.

> the arbitrary opinion of some single
>human idiot out anywhere in the world? don't you see the tyranny
>of this? it is far worse than the tyranny of a government if I were
>to be killed by someone who believes that I violated his rights
>by breathing air particles or whatever. via AP, you wish to give him
>the mechanism to murder me without trace.

If the danger you describe was of higher probability than the alternative, 
the status quo, you might have a point.  But it isn't.  Further, the 
prospect of AP getting rid of (or reforming, because they'll have no choice) 
most of the real criminals (plus de-populating government and preventing its 
abusiveness) results in a dramatic reduction in the violations of rights 
that will occur.


>>  Where, then, is the SECOND "wrong"?  What, 
>>exactly, makes it wrong?  If a person can't get justice any other way (not 
>>to be confused with merely a chance at justice) then why deny that person 
>>his rights?
>
>deny rights, legitimacy, justice, blah, blah, blah. the terms you use have no 
>meaning in the system you are advocating. there are no "rights" in an anarchy,
>because a government is the entity created to safeguard/protect them.

Just because we currently think of "the government" as "the entity created 
to safeguard rights" doesn't mean that this is really so, and it doesn't 
mean that it actually achieves a net protection of our rights.  What 
government actually does is to monopolize (as best it can) the use of force, 
and then force the public to pay for a protection service.  And monopolies 
result in classicly bad service, as we all know.

>all actions are legitimate in an anarchy, because there is no civilized
>system that rejects any ones in particular.

If the probability of an improper action is dramatically reduced, without 
being eliminated, that is an improvement, right?  Tell me, as a citizen 
don't we deserve changing to a system that reduces violations of rights?


>>>It should be obvious to anyone around here that if AP "works," it will work 
>>regardless of whether it meets with your approval or any other subset of 
>>humankind.  That makes it worthy of discussion even if you don't like it.
>
>it will "work" exactly as anonymous murdering now works. AP already exists, 
>that's what you don't understand.

No, it doesn't, certainly not quantitatively, and in practice not 
qualitatively, either.  

Take a 5-foot wave, and notice that it doesn't overflow a 50-foot seawall.  
Twenty of them, separately, likewise don't get past it.  But combine them in 
one large wave, and the 100-foot wave does get by.  The fundamental 
advantage of AP is that the desires of thousands of people can be combined 
in order to accomplish what no individual would be able to induce on his own.


Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com