Philosophokiddies

[Razer]

On 09/08/2016 09:32 AM, jim bell resonds to:
> *From:*Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net>



>> 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?

Dunno. But, as the corporate slogan goes, "People Do", anyway.

Someone once said survival insecurity is humanity's driving force.

John Lennon had it as:

"Happiness is a warm gun .. bang bang shoot shoot."

Rr

> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
>> 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?  
> 
>>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.
>              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  
>>>
> 
> 
>