Philosophokiddies

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/8/16 9:32 AM, jim bell wrote:
> *From:*Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net>
>
>
>
> On 9/7/16 5:59 PM, jim bell wrote:
>> *From:*Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net> <mailto:sdw at 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-first-interview-with-jim-bell-of-assassination-politics-since-released-from-jail  
>>>
>
>
>
sdw

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 38021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160909/5b488425/attachment.txt>