On Sunday, November 17, 2019, 07:24:16 AM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0
   <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:

   On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 01:38:57 -0500
   grarpamp <[1]grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
   > The executor posts the interaction video
       ah yes. That's pretty anonymous...so on the technical side :
   >    1) there's no anonymous network
   There ought to be.
    >   2) putting a bounty on someone's head doesn't necessarily mean the
   target would get killed. The thinking that 'the market' will magically
   provide any 'service' is just magical thinking. Wishful thinking.
   Apparently you are pretending that you don't realize that an actual
   "killing" is necessary for AP to do its job.  The real issue is
   deterrence.  People will indeed change their behavior if to continue it
   means that they would eventually be killed.
       3) the list of problems is prolly (a lot) longer. Those two are
   just off the to of my head.
   Since you are probably wrong, maybe you ought to list them
       on the     political side :
   >    tyrannicide is fully legitimate and useful, but the idea that AP
   is an option for a liberal justice system is sheer nonsense, as
   illustrasted by Jim's 'idea' of executing thieves.
   Interestingly, one episode of Star Trek Next Generation addressed
   this.  Its legal system recognized only one punishment:  Death.  But
   the probability of actually enforcing the rules varied.  Wesley
   trespassed, and the was seen.
   >    At that point Jim invokes voluntary courts,
   No, I had that idea DECADES ago.  You just weren't paying attention.
   And you cannot understand things well enough to figure out how it would
   work.
    >while conveniently ignoring that liberals 'invented' liberal anarchy
   in the 19th century.
   Needless to say, you don't explain that statement, or its relevance.
    >Then again, that's the typical modus operandi of advocates of
   'intellectual property' - which is actually intelectual theft.
   And you go off on yet another tangent of questionable relevance.
    >   It's also quite notable that Jim has flatly  'claimed' that :
    >   "very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is
   hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work"
   Yes, and my tongue was at least partly in my cheek.  B^).
   Read David Friedman
   [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman
   and his 1973 book, The Machinery of Freedom, and specifically "The Hard
   Problem". [3]https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-t
   he-hard-problem/
   People who claim they want 'anarchy' (many so-called 'anarchists' are
   merely Communists, socialists, or other types of leftist nuts) probably
   don't realize that David Friedman stated this problem quite well.
   Nobody else found the solution.
   Independently  I was aware of that problem, but was unaware of
   Friedman's existence, his book, or the name "The Hard Problem".
    In January 1995, I solved the problem.  Using AP, a region run under
   principles of anarchy can defeat the governments and militaries of
   conventional nations.  Not only that, I quickly realized that this
   effect is inevitable:    No government can survive the onslaught of AP
   donations.  Even the citizens of conventional states can defeat their
   own government, just as effectively.
              Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:grarpamp@gmail.com
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman
   3. https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem/