Re: AP [was: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet] [NOISE]

At 05:48 PM 9/23/96 -0400, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
>
>So Jim Bell is opposed to "truly random attacks on ordinary citizens"
>Its this type ofappoligia for terrorism that disgusts me utterly.
>He is calling for murder but wants to dress it up in whatever psychotic
>justifications he can.
>He is also completely wrong. When the IRA attemoted to assasinate my cousin
>I was in no way intimidated and neither was he. He continued as a senior
>poitician for over a decade despite continued danger. I can think of no
>less effective method of bringing about change in attitudes.

And he, along with others, failed to solve the problems as well.  Is this progress?


>I am in no way intimidated by Bell either. He is a kook and I don;t think it
>he is worth further consideration.
>	Phill


For the record, if an AP-type system were to operate it would:

1.  Make it impossible for the British to continue to station troops in 
Northern Ireland, an eventuality that I suppose Phill resists.

However, it would also:

2.  Make it impossible and unnecessary for the British to have any troops 
anywhere, because it would eliminate  its government and military.  It would 
no longer be a country, merely an island with people living there.

3.  Make it unnecessary in Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics from 
the Protestants, or the Protestants from the Catholics,  because the 
trouble-makers from both (all?) sides would be quickly erased from the 
scene.  Nobody would rule anybody. Nobody COULD rule anybody.  All factions 
would either be peaceful or dead, their choice.  No political advantage could be 
gained by violence, because all politics would have ceased.

4.  Make it unnecessary and pointless for Northern Ireland to re-unify with 
Ireland, because likewise the government and military of Ireland would 
dissolve, as well as all political structure in that land as well.


In short, the only reasons that the current problems are maintained in 
Northern Ireland and Britain would be eliminated by the advent of AP.

So who is the "kook," really?




Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Jim,

	I do support the presence of troops in Northern Ireland and
do not consider that to contradict my belief that there should be a
united, autonamous Ireland. I do not believe that the "loyalists" are
in fact loyal to the British way of life, any more than the KKK are
representative of the US south.

	Troops are in Northern Ireland for a very simple and depressing
reason. People like Jim want to impose their will on others by force.
Despite prolonged attempts by each faction to assasinate the leaders of
the other they have been unsuccessful. If terrorists trained by Lybia
and Syria are unable to assasinate at will then we can be sure thaqt Jim's
band of kooks is not going to get any further.

	If the integration of both Irealand and the UK into the European
Union has not ended the situation the complete lack of government
will not either. 

	It is suprising that someone from the press has not seized upon Jims
ideas as cause for another cyber-scare. I suspect this is because people
like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me
from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to assasination
politics unless I hear a few more repudiations of Bell's ideas. If you
don't very clearly reject his murderous ideas you are going to regret it
just as the left regreted having the USSR or the RAF associated with them.


		Phill

Hallium said:
> 	Troops are in Northern Ireland for a very simple and depressing
> reason. People like Jim want to impose their will on others by force.
> Despite prolonged attempts by each faction to assasinate the leaders of
> the other they have been unsuccessful. If terrorists trained by Lybia
> and Syria are unable to assasinate at will then we can be sure thaqt Jim's
> band of kooks is not going to get any further.

     That is your problem. You can't seem to get away from the thought that
somebody is trying to rule. You assume that Mr. Bell wants to be 
President and Supreme Dictator of the World. 

     Remeber your introduction to formal logic? It is A or NOT A, not 
A or B. NOT A _can_ be B, but it can also be anything BUT A. What Mr. Bell
wants, and I agree with is that NOT A. We don't want B, C, D, or any thing 
else, other than NOT A. 

     I remember this set of lines from an anarchist "newspaper" from the 
80's:
     Q: What are you going to replace the government with after you get 
        rid of it?
     A: Do you replace a cancer when you remove it?

     We don't want to remove a leg, we want to cut out a cancer. Consider 
AP extreme chemiotherapy. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> 	Troops are in Northern Ireland for a very simple and depressing
> reason. People like Jim want to impose their will on others by force.

	The person who wishes to keep those troops in Northern Ireland
	is the head of an extremely dysfunctional family.

	The current occupant of 10 Downing street simply contributes
	to the problem --by trying to enforce 400+ years of unsuccessfull
	rule. << Logically, the British ought to figured out by now that 
	they aren't welcome now, and never were welcome in Ireland, but
	then, they aren't noted for their logic. >>

> and Syria are unable to assasinate at will then we can be sure
> that Jim's band of kooks is not going to get any further.

	#1:	Syrian and Libyan assassins have been extremely
		effective, in terminating with extreme prejudice,
		their targets.  

	#2:	the AP contractors are paid for their work.
		$10x5^6, is my guess as the starting price
		for  eliminating some of the despots that inflict
		their warped rule on others. --- The aforementioned
		dysfunctional family might make a good starting point.

> 	It is suprising that someone from the press has not seized upon Jims
> ideas as cause for another cyber-scare. I suspect this is because people

	The idea was first proposed 200 + years ago. Computer technology
	simply makes it easier to implement.

	And the press in that day had a hard time dealing with it,
	because in denouncing it, they spread the idea that maybe
	it is a good thing.   Ignored, it becomes forgotten.  Denounced,
	it becomes a cause celebre.

> like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me
> from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to assasination

	Do that op-ed piece --- but remember that AP is not a libertarian
	position. Libertarian's think that government is a good thing.
	AP thinks that government is a bad thing, and their philosophical
	differences get wider, from there.

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com



	Patience is a virtue,
		Virtue is a grace.
			Grace is a little girl,
				Who did not wash her face.

jim bell wrote:
> At 05:48 PM 9/23/96 -0400, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
> >So Jim Bell is opposed to "truly random attacks on ordinary citizens"
> >Its this type ofappoligia for terrorism that disgusts me utterly.
> >He is calling for murder but wants to dress it up in whatever
> >psychotic justifications he can.
> >He is also completely wrong. When the IRA attemoted to assasinate my 
> >cousin I was in no way intimidated and neither was he. He continued
> >as a senior poitician for over a decade despite continued danger. I
> >can think of no less effective method of bringing about change in
> >attitudes. And he, along with others, failed to solve the problems as 
> >well.  Is this progress?
> >I am in no way intimidated by Bell either. He is a kook and I don;t
> >think it he is worth further consideration.

> For the record, if an AP-type system were to operate it would:
> 1.  Make it impossible for the British to continue to station troops
> in Northern Ireland, an eventuality that I suppose Phill resists.
> However, it would also:
> 2.  Make it impossible and unnecessary for the British to have any
> troops anywhere, because it would eliminate  its government and
> military.  It would no longer be a country, merely an island with 
> people living there.
> 3.  Make it unnecessary in Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics 
> from
> the Protestants, or the Protestants from the Catholics,  because the
> trouble-makers from both (all?) sides would be quickly erased from the
> scene.  Nobody would rule anybody. Nobody COULD rule anybody.  All
> factions would either be peaceful or dead, their choice.  No political 
> advantage could be gained by violence, because all politics would have 
> ceased.
> 4.  Make it unnecessary and pointless for Northern Ireland to re-unify 
> with
> Ireland, because likewise the government and military of Ireland would
> dissolve, as well as all political structure in that land as well.
> In short, the only reasons that the current problems are maintained in
> Northern Ireland and Britain would be eliminated by the advent of AP.
> So who is the "kook," really?

Lessee if I have this right, now.  We have basically three scenarios:

1. Allow the status quo to continue (the justice system scam now run by
   Janet Reno/Louis Freeh types et al.
2. Allow the people some democracy in applying justice through AP.
3. Sometime in the future, build the Gort(?) robots, as in The Day The
   Earth Stood Still, and let them do the job.

Whatcha think?