[WAR] ... and AP

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:57:49 -0700
Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org> 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.


	That's what first comes to mind. However I then realized (and I
	profusely apology if the point was already made by Jim Bell or
	others) AP could be used to finish off cops. Getting rid of an
	ordinary cop should be a lot cheaper than getting rid of bill
	gates or your bosses at google. 

	AND, if cops start to die like they deserve, it would be
	interesting to see what happens to the rest of the system which
	obviously relies on 'enforcement' by...cops.


> 
> 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. 


	'chaos' is just a propaganda term, at least the way you are
	using it. If I support 'chaos' then you support the 'ordered'
	fascism we live in? 


> 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. 

	The double negative makes it kinda harder for me to parse your
	sentence...

	I'm not sure what incentive you are referring to and what it
	accomplishes. 


> Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF
> crashing down without needing much if any help.


	Why? Didn't you read 1984?