Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace

At 12:34 PM 5/20/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

>>Second, everybody like Jim Bell who is pushing the AP scheme is doing
>>so on ethical basis: that the coercion the government imposes on to
>>the individuals by regulations, and guns backed taxation justifies the
>>killings.  I have to see yet any cypherpunks who seems to agree with
>>AP that envision another use than govt control.
>
>right, and Hitler didn't have any other use for his government other
>than to bring utopia to the masses, and used all the ovens for cooking
>pizzas (after all, what else could an oven be used for?!?!?).
>
>the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing,
>not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means"
>argument used by most here), but that in addition it is 
>supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? 

Then you've obviously dramatically mis-read my ideas.  I don't claim that 
_EVERYBODY_ who will fall victim will "deserve" it by your or my opinions, 
or by generally-agreed-upon philosophy like the libertarian's 
"Non-Initiation of Force Principle" (NIOFP).   Rather, I claim that the 
justification for any given killing must (and will, or won't, depending) 
come from some external fact having nothing to do with AP.  

For example, if you believe in NIOFP, then anyone who violates it has 
initiated force, and the victim of such force (or, perhaps, anyone else?) 
can legitimately use a system like AP to fight back.  If you _don't_ believe 
in libertarian philsophy, obviously you won't necessarily agree with AP, but 
the source of your agreement is that, not something inherently wrong with AP.


>the assassination politics is quite Hitleresque at its root.
>"kill our enemies, and everything will be better. it is our enemies
>that are the root of all evil in the world. extinguish them, and
>you solve all problems automatically"

THat's a false claim.  If the "enemies" are enemies because of what they've 
actually done wrong, say violate your rights, then it should be your right to stop 
them.  The method you choose shouldn't matter.

>there is a trite saying, "two wrongs do not make a right" (trite
>because most have mastered the simple truth of it in their pre-teen
>years). a concept not grasped by some second-graders. some 
>require a lifetime of lessons to comprehend it in the end..

You seem to be assuming that if there are TWO "wrongs" here.  But I've tried 
to make it abundantly clear that justification for the self-defense comes 
from the initial "wrong."  Where, then, is the SECOND "wrong"?  What, 
exactly, makes it wrong?  If a person can't get justice any other way (not 
to be confused with merely a chance at justice) then why deny that person 
his rights?

I acknowledge that if there is no initial "wrong" (the target didn't 
actually do anything wrong) then the act of targeting him is, itself, wrong, 
but you're apparently unwilling to back up this hypothetical. 


>I'm very disappointed that others have not chased Assassination
>Politics proponents to take their trash somewhere else. of course
>the real situation is that those that started this list have
>sympathies for this kind of thinking, so no such thing will happen.

It should be obvious to anyone around here that if AP "works," it will work 
regardless of whether it meets with your approval or any other subset of 
humankind.  That makes it worthy of discussion even if you don't like it.


>to Jim Bell and Avon: please read Machiavelli. read about ancient
>assassination clubs and the history of bloody politics. if you want
>to seriously further your ideas, start a web site with ample 
>historical research. your ideas are not new whatsoever. 

Your objections are invalid.  The mere fact that SOME organized killing 
systems occurred in the past has essentially no relationship to the system I 
describe.  The prospect of perfect anonymity, allowing the system to be open 
to anyone who chooses to contribute, will make it vastly different from 
anything that came before.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

ok, I will reply to JB because it amuses me to tear his flimsy
wet-tissue-paper thinking.

>>the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing,
>>not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means"
>>argument used by most here), but that in addition it is 
>>supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? 
>
>Then you've obviously dramatically mis-read my ideas.  I don't claim that 
>_EVERYBODY_ who will fall victim will "deserve" it by your or my opinions, 

oh, so in other words, a lot of "innocent" people will be murdered
under AP. ah, another great "feature", not a "bug", right??

>For example, if you believe in NIOFP, then anyone who violates it has 
>initiated force, and the victim of such force (or, perhaps, anyone else?) 
>can legitimately use a system like AP to fight back.

what is "legitimate"? in our government, "legitimate" refers to our
judicial system. it is what determines what is "legitimate" based
on laws. in your AP anarchy scheme, the word "legitimate" has no meaning.
"legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. this ridiculous and
impractical definition was discarded centuries ago because of the
free-for-all bloody violence it inevitably leads to. be very
clear about what you are advocating: in AP, there are no laws. people
do not rely on the judicial system to solve their problems. they
take the "law" into their own hands and take out contracts on anyone
who offends them. would they feel justified in killing people who
disagree with them on cyberspace mailing lists? perhaps, who is to tell?

  If you _don't_ believe 
>in libertarian philsophy, obviously you won't necessarily agree with AP, but 
>the source of your agreement is that, not something inherently wrong with AP.

you don't have the slightest clue why I have lambasted AP despite my
very clear statements about why, because your brain has been twisted
in knots by something, perhaps watching too many old westerns.

>>the assassination politics is quite Hitleresque at its root.
>>"kill our enemies, and everything will be better. it is our enemies
>>that are the root of all evil in the world. extinguish them, and
>>you solve all problems automatically"
>
>THat's a false claim.  If the "enemies" are enemies because of what they've 
>actually done wrong, say violate your rights, then it should be your right to stop 
>them.  The method you choose shouldn't matter.

ah, like murder. I see.  well, I think you are violating my rights by
disagreeing with me. I shall arrange your consequences accordingly.

>You seem to be assuming that if there are TWO "wrongs" here.  But I've tried 
>to make it abundantly clear that justification for the self-defense comes 
>from the initial "wrong."

but who decides what is wrong? the arbitrary opinion of some single
human idiot out anywhere in the world? don't you see the tyranny
of this? it is far worse than the tyranny of a government if I were
to be killed by someone who believes that I violated his rights
by breathing air particles or whatever. via AP, you wish to give him
the mechanism to murder me without trace. 

>  Where, then, is the SECOND "wrong"?  What, 
>exactly, makes it wrong?  If a person can't get justice any other way (not 
>to be confused with merely a chance at justice) then why deny that person 
>his rights?

deny rights, legitimacy, justice, blah, blah, blah. the terms you use have no 
meaning in the system you are advocating. there are no "rights" in an anarchy,
because a government is the entity created to safeguard/protect them.
all actions are legitimate in an anarchy, because there is no civilized
system that rejects any ones in particular.

>I acknowledge that if there is no initial "wrong" (the target didn't 
>actually do anything wrong) then the act of targeting him is, itself, wrong, 
>but you're apparently unwilling to back up this hypothetical. 

what? that is exactly the hypothetical I have been focusing on. what
you fail to comprehend in your reptile-size brain is that "wrong" is
a matter of subjectivity. violation of a right is also a subjective
matter. after many centuries of experimentation mankind settled on
something called a "court system" to make civilized decisions that
transcend the irrationality of single men. if you think that a 
government is a tyranny, perhaps you are not aware of the tyranny
of the irrationality of individual men. ah, but if you thought about
it some more you might come up with some examples in your close
proximity.

>It should be obvious to anyone around here that if AP "works," it will work 
>regardless of whether it meets with your approval or any other subset of 
>humankind.  That makes it worthy of discussion even if you don't like it.

it will "work" exactly as anonymous murdering now works. AP already exists, 
that's what you don't understand.  what you seem to claim is that
by opening it up to the masses, you'd have an egaltarian murder effect
that would cleanse society. just curious, how were you raised? what
kind of childhood did you have that would cause you to think like
you do? I really pity you.

>Your objections are invalid.  The mere fact that SOME organized killing 
>systems occurred in the past has essentially no relationship to the system I 
>describe.

assassination politics already exists and have existed for centuries.
there is nothing fundamentally new about your ideas.

  The prospect of perfect anonymity, allowing the system to be open 
>to anyone who chooses to contribute, will make it vastly different from 
>anything that came before.

ah yes, exactly what we need. "enhanced anarchy". you and TCM really
should get together and collaborate. I'm sure you'd come up with
some fruitful conclusions.

==

let me give everyone an example of Jim Bell AP thinking. I will do
this some more if he persists.

A brilliant scientist named Jim Bell studied the problem for many
years and in an epiphany one day realized that 99% of murders were due to 
weapons held with people's hands. he proposed that everyone's hands
be cut off. murders would instantly drop 99%.

congress decided that rich people needed to be taxed more. so they
put a luxury tax on yachts and nice cars. they computed exactly how
much they would make based on this tax, and patted themselves on
the back. unfortunately, the effect was to cause the rich to stop
buying these products. the industries were devastated.

Jim Bell, a masterful sociologist,  proposed setting up a system 
whereby people could arrange anonymous "hits" on others who annoyed
them as a solution to all society's problems. of course it wasn't
that simple, but that's what it amounted to. the system was quite 
popular at first. it created an air of deadly fear in which everyone
was afraid to do anything, even go out of their houses to shop
for groceries. eventually, someone snuffed out Jim Bell, and everyone
went back to living normal lives. yes, the system worked exactly
as it was supposed to.