Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech

[Zenaan Harkness]

"Eye for an eye" is not the only form of justice.

Restitution is another.

Depending on the crime and the individuals involved, sometimes
communication and (if it happens) empathic meeting of minds/ hearts
is sufficient - depends of course on the individuals, as sometimes
"pizza and coffee" is insufficient to be relevant.

Some (though perhaps quite rare, and again, depending on the crime)
are able to find closure and peace with no "external" restitution.
Again, it always depends on the individual(s) involved and what is
important to them in their own Souls/ lives.

Folks should listen to Juan a little more - he has repeatedly stated
certain of the (actual) libertarian fundamentals many times...



On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:47:48AM -0700, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote:
> What is justice?
> 
> If it is not visiting upon those who do wrong the same wrongs that
> they commit, what is it?
> 
> Kurt
> 
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:38 AM coderman <coderman at protonmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing that the government declares is illegal.  If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder!   Merely for self-defense.
> >
> >
> > a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all!
> >
> >
> > Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be involved in these two hypothetical situations.  I wrote my AP essay about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995.   Later, I frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose?   The fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice.
> >
> >
> > again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better to not kill anyone!
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying!
> >
> >
> > if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are needlessly dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should fix this too! ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >  Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the ability to defend themselves.  You can morally choose to be a pacifist for yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice for themselves.
> >
> >
> > i agree. i cannot force anyone. i can only highlight the fallacy of using murder to right wrongs. expedient? sure. but call it vengeance, not justice nor moral.
> >
> > best regards,
> >