On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 10:32:44 PM PDT, Punk - Stasi 2.0
   <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:

   On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 04:53:14 +0000 (UTC)
   jim bell <[1]jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
   zen >>   "Recreational Nukes for all, yay! - It's no different to the
   right of every American to buy a gun!"
   >> The issue isn't "rights".  A real, or potential, nuke-owner will
   simply not be allowed to own one,
    >   well, except, libertarianism/anarchy is PURELY a matter of rights.
   (side note : everybody is a 'potential' nuke owner?)
   Well, a "government" is an organization that ostensibly works based on
   the authority of "the public".  The US Constitution, for example, is a
   document which states what authority "The US Federal Government" has.
   That Constitution does not, nor should it, be interpreted so as to bind
   or limit the actions of non-government employees.
   The Second Amendment, I believe, amounts to a rule which prohibits ALL
   governments (including State Governments, where said states ratified
   the Bill of Rights, or 3/4s of other states did so too) from
   prohibiting ownership of "arms".  But that doesn't mean that individual
   citizens, acting as individual citizens, will be prohibited from acting
   to prohibit ANYONE (even "governments") from possessing nuclear
   weapons.   If, say, a private person anywhere on earth owned a nuke, I
   am very confident that there would be plenty of donations to force him
   to dismantle said nuke, and if he refuses, he will be dead very soon.
    >   anyway, what I think is not completely clear is who would be
   targeted in an AP system.
   Join the club!   From the moment I disclosed my AP idea, I expected and
   hoped for an extensive and serious discussion and debate as to the
   merits of AP.  Let me emphasize:   That "discussion and debate" HAS
   NEVER HAPPENED, at least to what I consider my standards are.  AP
   should have been debated by anyone who calls himself a "philosopher", a
   "sociologist", and just about anyone else who takes thought seriously.
   Even people who claim they don't "like" AP (and really, especially
   those!) should want it to be picked apart by logical thought, and
   perhaps testing.
   That has NEVER happened.  Not even close.  I give the world an
   "F-minus" grade on this one.
   >And that's because it would depend on who the users of the AP system
   are. So you can describe how the protocol would work at some technical
   level, but you can't fully predict how people would use it. It may be
   clear how libertarians would use it. but what about other people?
   In a 'micro' sense, that is correct.  But in a 'macro' sense, AP would
   be inherently biased against all centralized heirarchies of power, such
   as what we now call "governments".   In the end, there might remain
   some sort of "night watchman" organization, perhaps let by bid, to
   maintain the infrastructure, at least infrastructure that could not be
   privately owned.
    >then again, the general argument for anarchy is that people are
   mostly good, so no government is needed. And if people are not good,
   then government only makes things worse. The same premise, people being
   mostly good, could be invoked here to defend AP.
   I agree that 'most people' are probably 'good'.  But some are
   occasionally not, so something akin to today's "law enforcement" would
   likely be necessary.  The details of something like this should
   probably have been heavily debated on the Cypherpunks list in 1995.
   But it wasn't.
                     Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com