On Friday, November 15, 2019, 04:23:26 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0
   <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:

   On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 23:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
   jim bell <[1]jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
   >>  One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement
   mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged
   crime.  I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of
   AP.  [2]https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
   >> Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying)
   a car thief the first time he acts is probably low.  But eventually, he
   will get found out.  And then he can get targeted using AP.

   >   yes, that's completely insane. Where did you get the insane idea
   that 'car theft' 'should' be dealt with using 'political
   assassination'?
   "AP" is merely a label, for an idea whose most obvious application is
   as a way to entirely get rid of what is called "politics".  Evidently,
   that confuses you.  Before I even publicized it, with Part 1, I
   realized that it could be a substitution for the then-and-now-current
   so-called "criminal justice system".
   >> If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures,
   which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer,  it isn't clear
   how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to
   donate to an AP system.
    >   and now you're saying that you think it's OK to murder people for
   looking at pictures that the worst scum on the planet, americunt
   puritans and other psychos, deem 'dirty'.
   Strawman, the dishonest argumentation of first misrepresenting what
   somebody else said, and then "disproving" him.    Now, YOU justify what
   you claimed, in response to what I said.  You won't be able to.
    >   you've just shown that your system is totally and completely
   flawed.
   But you haven't explained how and why.
   >> But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP
   would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work.
   Not exactly the same thing.
       ....
   >    either people will get murdered for looking at pictures or not.
   What alternatives would you suggest?

   >> Its clear that the news media has a major problem  with their
   tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals.
    >   how is a 'pedophile' a 'sex criminal'? Are you planning to murder
   children who 'play doctor' as well?
   I'm referring to people who actually act on their inclinations.
    >   Jim : looks like you need to go back to square zero, start with
   the A of the ABC, and learn what libertarianism is. Cause you do not
   have a fucking clue.
   You need to go back and learn what LOGIC is.
                 Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com
   2. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm