[WAR] ... and AP

[Razer]

On 09/01/2016 10:57 AM, Sean Lynch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com
> <mailto:juan.g71 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
>     Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net <mailto:zen at freedbms.net>> wrote:
> 
>     > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
>     > > How about we implement a working AP system?
>     >
>     > As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally
>     > flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in
>     > the long term.
> 
>             The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,
>             politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.
> 
>             The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be
>             turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good
>             implementation.
> 
> 
> Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for
> turning money into death without knowing where the money came from. Rich
> people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can hire
> bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed anonymously.
> 
> Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of wealth
> equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.


Stop Stop! You're making too much sense!

(Cue Juan's scatological scatting)

Rr

Ps. I say Juan can lead the charge. The only thing honky libertards are
good for is to jack up for lunch money (you have to jack them ...
They're not exactly 'givers') or toss between me and the cops.


>  
> 
>     > Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher
>     > level of education and discourse.
>     >
>     > "When all you have is a hammer ..."
>     >
>     > In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
>     > "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of
>     > power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent
>     > "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and
>     > certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best
>     > a hammer to completely destroy society.
> 
>             Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice
>             change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who
>             richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is
>             just business as usual.
> 
>     > I support anarchism, not chaos
> 
> 
> And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos, as long as it's not the
> status quo. Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who benefit
> from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people happy enough
> that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such people don't
> have enough power and influence to bring the system crashing down. Of
> course, this system will probably bring ITSELF crashing down without
> needing much if any help.
>