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

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

At 01.03 PM 5/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:

>If the Libyans are so bad (and they probably are) then why shouldn't the 
>public in other countries be entitled to pool their contributions and take 
>their government down?

I believe I understand the basic concepts of AP - perhaps not the far-reaching
implications, but the fundamentals. I've thought about it, and I am against this
system. What will happen when you've killed off all of the politicians/gov't
employees
who haven't quit? Do you really think this will make things better? Anarchy
simply
won't work with people. Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? I'm sure some
people
haven't. I will explain my reasoning.

In Lord of the Flies (a novel by William Golding) a group of British
schoolboys are
deposited on a desert island. They have been evacuated from England because
of a 
nuclear war. There are no adults. A responsible few try to maintain the
rules and
order of society to which they all are accustomed, but they are symbolically
"AP'ed"
out of power when the anarchists of the group break away and form their own
tribe.
To make a long story short, they revert to animal sacrifice, and human
sacrifice,
before the story closes. Very unsettling, no? The defects of society can be
traced
back to the defects in the individual. A direct quote from the author, who
is not
infallible, or even a reputable authority on the flaws and merits of
humanity, but
still, who is to say that once our notably corrupt governments are gone, the
corruption
in ourselves won't surface? Who is to say that we are any better than the
government?
They had to come from somewhere - the public, obviously. Have any of you AP
proponents
considered that perhaps our oh-so-corrupt government officials are simply
the best 
that our amoral, decaying populace has to offer? What would we gain by
rubbing them
out?

The point I make is that in elected governments (and I realize, not all are
so lucky)
the elected people are, most likely, the best of what the public has to
offer. Who
can blame them for being corrupt? Doesn't all power corrupt? I believe so. Maybe
the current form of government isn't perfect, or even great, but it is still
much
better than anything that could possibly result from anonymous terrorism,
which is
really what AP is, isn't it? Peace can only be achieved by understanding,
not through
force or fear.

>(okay, this is a rhetorical question...)

Oops. Well. It's too late now... :-)

David

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMaZ4tRguzHDTdpL5AQEW3gP+OvHHoPxJnFQUahCsjYcQaRJ2FV6eJA7F
s0BQ0jSvJCsGjMCEzT+bsNpErSNVxIafuq5AkMJQFhQHkhxUrPl/eqtBhomh5YV1
6CD5VGL0y030zmdzDBhLpJjLjKIkMzAC1DIdLmWCXZRyHDCD00KRdyRup72XZAqQ
Ka3Klr8JOBQ=
=LXi/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

On Fri, 24 May 1996, David Rosoff wrote:

<text on the general standard of humanity using Lord of the Flies
as an illustration deleted>

I think an insight your analysis may benefit by is that certain
institutions/societal norms create incetives for "corrupt politicians".
Hayek argues against the "benevolent dictator" concept because he says no
gentle person would ever aspire to be a dictator.  The system itself calls
for people who are ruthless to take the reins.  A similar argument can be
made for the various functions of a modenr democracy (like the US).  It is
rarely that we hear of a considerate IRS auditor, or a principled
politician.  The structures themselves call for and promote those who (in
that an individual is more successful if they) are corrupt, power-hungry,
unprincipled and ruthless.

As for Assasination Politics, I can understand such proposals in jest.  I
too say things to appear controversial.  As a serious political structure,
however, it is reprehensible.  Murder cannot be condoned (as a pacifist,
the argument that politicians create wars and must be killed for that
reason does not hold much water for me) and the proponents of such systems
would do well to look more closely at the systemic ills rather than
individuals.  The argument that AP is an institutional dis-incentive for
"bad" representatives that offsets other incentives is problematic since I
do not believe the methods are just.

hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5
WHERE CAN THE MATTER BE

	Oh, dear, where can the matter be
	When it's converted to energy?
	There is a slight loss of parity.
	Johnny's so long at the fair.

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

iQB1AwUBMacbxRwDKqi8Iu65AQEn3AMAwCh+WWQsUrL1cnfZElzNmqexngXs4rAo
Pz4ztTXpGPLxLMAKO5qcGNmI7yT8DP1rVH21EumZG700jQ18pH/7NWQj1RnAK3ZQ
pJInW4kZ3iEjFKhCto0TzVOYEwMkZrrK
=Wlte
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----