[WAR] ... and AP

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:57:49AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
> > Zenaan Harkness <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.
> 
> 
> > > 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.

I read his point as "the status quo is chaos, so AP may not be much
worse, if at all". Whether his opinion of AP would accord with that
future reality is another matter.

The USA presently makes chaos in foreign lands, just to take mostly
financial, but also some 'control', advantage of that. This is highly
unethical, abhorrent, disastrous for millions of people and many other
things. So from that perspective AP being "chaos as usual, but probably
bringing a bit more of it to "comfortable folks at home" may be seen by
some as a possible advantage.

I'm confident that those with the monopolistic power to print (and
therefore devalue) paper money, would outgame 'we plebes' in an AP
world, in the short and medium term, and do everything they can to
create systems of control of that system for the long term - which will
ultimately bring a system of significantly greater tyranny than we see
now. The star chamber, but with added anonymous assassination by the
moneyed "elite". The reality of greater uncertainty for the elite, that
they might be popped at any time, could be an improvement, but
fundamentally, turbo charging an assassination market is not something
that I feel, nor believe, to be in 'our' collective nor individual
interests.

This is not something I shall be flipping a coin on.


> 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.

Much shall happen in the next few years.