Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."

On 26 May 96 at 21:39, Subir Grewal wrote:


> Of course there are those who
> fervently believe in the socialist ideal 

But, my dear, even in the most libertarian or AP-ruled world, they 
would absolutely free to give away *all* of their salary for the 
causes they consider valid.  Only, thoses who don't agree with them 
would not be coerced into thoses noble causes.

> and would probably feel
> justified in killing the do nothing libertarians

This paragraph seems to indicate that the only difference between
libertarians and socialist is a mere difference of opinion and that
everybody is justified to act on their beliefs.  But the socialists
who pretend that are simply blanking out the fact that *they too*
recognize that Reality Is since they want to use force to get a
lunch out of the mouth of somebody who have one (and who happened to
produce it himself) to put it in the mouth of another who didn't
have.  Therefore, it is OK to deny reality when somebody come up
with arguements against socialism, but it is darn convenient to use
it (in the form of a loaded gun...)

> (as opposed to
> old-style liberals, i.e. minimalists) who ostensibly form the state.

BTW, they do not "ostensibly" form the state.  They simply 
*do*not*coerce* individuals into being sacrificial animals for the 
unearned benefits of others...

> For them, inaction might be sufficient cause to initiate an AP
> campaign.

Oh, you mean, "for them, anybody who pass a judgment of his own that 
contradict them should be killed"  I see...

> I'd prefer a system that doesn't "target" people at all.

I'd prefer a pink elephant with wings.  Do you think that govt does 
not target peoples?

> One of the fundamental principles of justice is that it be
> comensurate (in some sense) to the crime, AP lacks that aspect. 
> "Final solutions" are all it has, but final solutions aren't always
> desireable. 

JB seem to agree with the view that turning our most productive
individuals into sacrificial animals for the benefit of the less
productive is not exactly a kind thing to do.  I tend to agree.
To say "commensurate" means that you must quantify various things in 
their proper context.  I invite you to do so.


> The question is not one of becoming a dictator, but rather one of
> what values will be protected, what freedoms will people have in the
> world/state you imagine.  I think the values AP engenders are not
> the ones we want.  We probably don't want to legitimize murder. 

It does not legitimates murder per se.  I don't think that JB ever 
said that murder was legitimate.  He only explained that the 
technology makes it inevitable to happens and that he believes that 
the outcome will be a better society.  You will note that to the 
act of murdering, he opposed many other actions, including many that 
leads to direct loss of lives.  He claims that the positives will 
outnumber the negatives.  As to the morality, by your own standards, 
of starting a "Vietnam" war, I suppose it is highly questionnable, or 
so you seems to indicate.

> It's difficult to operate in a vacuum of principles/values, we can't
> simply say, "well whatever people will want to happen will happen
> and why not give them that choice".  

Jim Bell does not believe that AP will evolve in a moral vacuum.  On
the contrary (and most collectivists think he is wrong), I think he
believes that human beings have an intrinsic sense of justice and
that this will prevail.

> Marx was not the first to poitn
> out that institutions influence our actions, that we are products of
> our times, that the choices we face are as much determined by our
> own preferences as they are by the world around us.

Well, of course, our perception of reality is context dependent.  But 
you seems to attempt to hint that truth is relative because knowledge 
is contextual.  It looks like an attempt on reason.  


> :and who would want to take any politician's
> :place?
 
> Only the fanatic

I think that by the nature of AP, this would be ruled out.  Maybe 
there would be a fanatic president, but he would preside nothing 
because nobody would be there to enforce his fanatic views.  

> As I've said, the minimalist state is desireable in my opinion.  The
> most efficient system of taxation is the truly flat tax (i.e. a
> fixed amount for each individual), since each person derives aprox.
> equivalent benefits from the minimalist state, their contributions
> are also equal.  Each of us derives some benefits from the existence
> of the state, some of these benefits are non-exclusionary.  Till
> these benefits are dependent on territory and jurisdiction taxation
> of those who reside within the jurisdiction/territory will have to
> be enforced.

That is absolute BS.  It might have been true before, but with the
advent of the net and of computers and smart cards, it is becoming a
fallacy.  If Visa or Mastercard can operate on a voluntary basis,
the govt could also do it.  The technology makes it possible
that any individual who wish to subscribe to any of the various
insurances the govt could offer might do so.  Including contributions to
finance museums, research projects, etc.  And mandatory taxes could
be enforced in period of emergencies like wars, if ever they
happens.  

The population seems to have a very short memory: Before the great
wars, there was *no* income tax.  It is mainly with the advent of
socialism, coinciding with the nuclear era, that the taxes were hiked
to the level they are now.  Johnson blew up whatever Eisehower tried
to do.  Of course, it started before them but Eisehower tried to get
back to the old system.  I guess what defeated him what that too many
poeples longed for a free lunch...

Anyhow, we have the technology to institutes a card that would give 
access to most services like health care, unemployement insurance, 
etc.  Why don't they put it in place?

[Cypherpunkishstuff]

Hey guys, could you believe it?  I actually closed a post with some 
tiny relevance to CP!  Gee, my brain must have skipped a few cpu 
cycles!

JFA 
I am not subscribing to CP.  For me to read you, you must cc to me
directly.

 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal
 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants: physicists, technologists and engineers.

 PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
 ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
 I reserve the right to post publicly any private e-mail sent to me.
 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h
 Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac-
 cepted the above mentionned terms.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 27 May 1996, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:

[NOTE: I'm going to be going away later this week and network connectivity
will probably be intermittent for a month.  I'll have to unsubscribe to
Cypherpunks sometime soon.  Which is why I suggested we continue this
another time.]

:> Of course there are those who
:> fervently believe in the socialist ideal
:
:But, my dear, even in the most libertarian or AP-ruled world, they
:would absolutely free to give away *all* of their salary for the
:causes they consider valid.  Only, thoses who don't agree with them
:would not be coerced into thoses noble causes.

Socialists aren't really interested in "giving away money" to a particular
cause.  To put it in crude terms, they're interested in taking your money
(and that of others) to create a socialist (read collectivist) society.
To believe that socialists will be content in a liberal world because
philanthropy is not illegal is to misunderstand socialism completely.

:This paragraph seems to indicate that the only difference between
:libertarians and socialist is a mere difference of opinion and that
:everybody is justified to act on their beliefs.  But the socialists
:who pretend that are simply blanking out the fact that *they too*
:recognize that Reality Is since they want to use force to get a
:lunch out of the mouth of somebody who have one (and who happened to
:produce it himself) to put it in the mouth of another who didn't
:have.  Therefore, it is OK to deny reality when somebody come up
:with arguements against socialism, but it is darn convenient to use
:it (in the form of a loaded gun...)

Nope, the socialists don't believe they're taking "lunch out of someone's
mouth".  They believe they are creating a communitarian society where
there is no decadence, and each of us gets an approximately equal amount.
"progressive" taxation exists because socialists believe those who have
more (have taken more from society, benefited more from the infrastructure
of the state etc.) should put more into the communitarian pot.  That this
does not work in a society with any degree of freedom (and esp. a
democracy) is difficult to get through to socialists.  Most of them
believe that democracy, freedom and a socilist structure (read public
ownership of the means of production) are compatible with each other.
- From all evidence, they are sadly mistaken.

:Oh, you mean, "for them, anybody who pass a judgment of his own that
:contradict them should be killed"  I see...

Glad you noticed that.  Now tell me how AP for any other cause is
different?

:> Marx was not the first to poitn
:> out that institutions influence our actions, that we are products of
:> our times, that the choices we face are as much determined by our
:> own preferences as they are by the world around us.
:
:Well, of course, our perception of reality is context dependent.  But
:you seems to attempt to hint that truth is relative because knowledge
:is contextual.  It looks like an attempt on reason.

The statement I made has absolutely jack-shit to do with "truth".  It's
simply a comment on the insidious nature of institutions and how it may be
easy to ignore the variety of effects they may have.

:I think that by the nature of AP, this would be ruled out.  Maybe
:there would be a fanatic president, but he would preside nothing
:because nobody would be there to enforce his fanatic views.

That depends.  If enough people believe the AP tactics are threatening
they may support a rigid state that cracks down on AP groups in a
totalitarian fashion.  It may be possible to prevent this, but the only
way I can see it happening is if there is a greater level of
class-consciousness promoting a view of politicos and bureaucrats as
"them".  Till kids dream of becoming president I doubt it's about to
happen.

On income taxes, one of the most fundamental oppositions to income taxes
when they were first introduced was on privacy grounds.  It seemed to be a
gross invasion of privacy to have someone else know exactly how much you
were earning and from where.  I wish more people today looked at it in the
same manner.  Other objections include interference with the pricing
mechanism and incentives.

hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5
A fool must now and then be right by chance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Key Escrow = Conscription for the masses | 2048 bit via finger

iQB1AwUBMapbBRwDKqi8Iu65AQG6CwL/QfpVjlNq5rmo/L0Biv7iqrUtz5zHiPEe
Sje788mJDM1yj/Ri7QNMOIBuSZ7AToub3mpSI3udW23L80u7W8nwl+/gERJKk+uL
jpSdGjNGCjfIurxMPr3LxnBDDi/BQz6B
=CNuE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----