[WAR] ... and AP

[jim bell]

From: Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org>
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.
You didn't think you could say that without arousing my defensiveness of my 'baby', AP?
I think your error is that you are mixing pre-AP reality with post-AP reality.  In today's world (pre-AP) in order to make a societal change, ordinary people generallyhave to speak up, to yell, to protest, and (sometimes) to vote.  And usually the former  hasn't been easily done anonymously, so arguably the big, powerful people learn who thesetrouble-making little folk are.  In principle, this would allow the important people tokill the ordinaries:  Except that it is generally expensive and risky for such a thing to occur, and the protestors usually greatly outnumber the rich ones,  so the typical protestor is relatively safe from harm, today.
In an AP-functioning world, it would seem that the important, rich people would beable to kill off the complainers.  But remember, in an AP world it would no longerbe necessary for little ones to loudly complain:  A donation by AP (and those of thousands of other 'poor' people?) would provide the 'convincing' necessary, and do soanonymously.  Further, modern technology will allow, relatively easily, anonymouscomplaining, so people will be able to rouse others and solicit assistance with littlerisk of identification.  The Cypherpunks list is a fair example of that, despite the fact thatsome of us choose to post under our own, true names.
For these reasons, I am convinced that 'the rich' would not have any great power overthe far larger number of ordinary people.  'The rich' wouldn't know, precisely, WHO their enemies are.   They have more money, rhetorically similar to having more bulletsto shoot, but if they can't see the targets that advantage matters little.
>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.

Well, I don't see that.  Perhaps you would care to explain this.  'Rich' people dieas readily as the rest of us, and unless they somehow know who their 'enemies'are fairly powerless to prevent us from if they genuinely trespass against whatwe consider are our rights.
At the same time, I don't object merely because somebody gets rich, as long ashe does so in a fair, unbiased fashion:  Put another way, I don't object if somebodygets rich selling Epi-pens,  as long as many other people are free to enter the same market, generally without government restriction.  The patent for Epi-Pens probablyran out years ago; the current restriction is simply that the FDA has arrogated the power to decide if any given manufacture should be allowed to sell his version ofthe Epi-pen, or not.   Too many 'nots', and what you have is not a free market atall, but twisted version of that.  (Clearly, if Mylan Labs is able to jack up the price fora pair of Epi-pens from $100 to $600 over a period of 6 years, there is no way thata true 'free market' can be operating.)
This doesn't mean that I object to the current patent system.  In her book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand came out on the side of private intellectual property, objecting to the theft by government of metal-maker Henry Reardon's special metal alloy, "Reardon metal", by means of blackmail.  
Of course, I understand that by citing Ayn Rand's reasoning (and I am by no meansa Randian, having learned I was a libertarian years before knowing about Ayn Randand her books) it may seem I am committing the rhetorical sin of 'appealing toauthority'.   And, I realize that there is something of a conundrum about advocating a 'free market' and yet implicitly supporting the one remaining control, that ofa patent system somewhat akin to what the world uses today.  (Who enforces sucha patent system, except a government?)
Let me propose an outline of a solution which could square the circle:  At some early point, say age 18, each person would be asked whether he wishes to livehis life WITH Intellectual Property rules, or not.  He can choose either way, butif he refuses, manufacturers can band together to agree to sell only to people who agree to those rules.  Correspondingly, those who sign the pro-IntellectualProperty agreement agree thereby to bar themselves from buying products fromnon-intellectual-property agree-er manufacturers.  Violations could be policed byan AP-type system.  This wouldn't have to be a permanent decision, for any person.
 Other manufacturers may make products that are made for sale to non-Intellectual Property agree-ers, but they will be shut out from dealingwith what I expect will be the majority, let's call them "Pro-Intellectual Property"people and manufacturers.  I am fairly confident that the advantages of dealing withwhat I believe will be the majority, those that comply with Intellectual Property rules,will be sufficient to keep all but a small minority of the public willing to livevoluntarily with such rules.  Put simply, I suggest that there are some rather powerfuladvantages to having a system which rewards inventors.
                               Jim Bell
 






   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 15594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160902/c1672285/attachment.txt>