Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials in or Near Government Buildings

At 19:34 5/13/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, May 12, 1997 at 05:15:24PM -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>>Governments have murdered 170 million people since 1900.  My
>>back-of-the-envelope estimate is that the civilians of the world have only
>>murdered about 20 million people in the same period of time.  Quite a
>>disparity.
>
>Your estimate seems high to me.  But it is meaningless, in any case.

This isn't the first time you've called information that is detrimental to
your position words equivalent to "meaningless."  I suppose that's easier
than disproving the other person's claim, or proving your own.  

>First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have 
>prevented more murders than they caused.  This is unknowable, since 
>we don't have any worthwhile control cases.

Your position is laughable.  Statistics on murder rates are knowable for
many countries.  Studying the murder rate for those countries will at least
provide a range against which deaths due to government-caused wars can be
compared.  

>Second, such cases of civil breakdown aside, all humans, for now and
>for the conceivable future, live within the context of some kind of
>government.  The option of non-government simply doesn't exist. 

That's precisely what the governments and their agents want us to believe.
Minarchism is certainly possible, and at the risk of appearing to blow my
own AP-horn, it is indeed plausible that the public can take down all
governments in a reasonably straightforward fashion.  The fact that
governments will strongly dislike this option is no reason to not consider
the possibility.


> The 
>issue is how can governments be improved.


By eliminating them, of course.

>Third, murders caused by governments can't really be separated from
>murders caused by individuals.  That is, in many cases deciding
>whether a murder is a personal action or a government action is
>impossible. 

"Aye vas joost vollowink orderz!"

Sorry, we're still laughing at you.

>Fourth, it's fashionable in these circles to paint all governments
>with the same brush, but in fact, some are much better than others.  
>But it only takes one bad one to start a war.  Furthermore, human 
>motivations are complex and irrational, so wars are started for 
>essentially insane reasons.  This is a human problem, not a problem 
>of government.

No, quite the contrary.  Considered from the perspective of the cumulative
interests of society, wars are not beneficial or "profitable."  Only from
the very limited viewpoint of the military-industrial complex and government
employees does war appear to be a net benefit, and that's true only because
the interests of most of the population (on whom the effect of war is a net
negative) is ignored.  The reason war occurs is that the decision to have a
war is made not by society as a whole, but by that tiny fraction which profits.

Put the decision to have the war back into the hands of the population as a
whole, and war will decrease.  Give the public the option to make war upon
the government parasites infesting their own land, and war will end forever.

>[Parenthetically, it is absolutely amazing to me that he and
>practically everyone on this list just seems to assume McVeigh is
>guilty...do they know something I don't?]

For the purposes of most of the arguments we make, the identity of the
actual bomber is irrelevant.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 09:52:44PM -0800, Jim Bell wrote:
> At 19:34 5/13/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Your estimate seems high to me.  But it is meaningless, in any case.
> 
> This isn't the first time you've called information that is detrimental to
> your position words equivalent to "meaningless."  I suppose that's easier
> than disproving the other person's claim, or proving your own.  

Ho hum.

> >First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have 
> >prevented more murders than they caused.  This is unknowable, since 
> >we don't have any worthwhile control cases.
> 
> Your position is laughable.  Statistics on murder rates are knowable for
> many countries.  Studying the murder rate for those countries will at least
> provide a range against which deaths due to government-caused wars can be
> compared.

Only meaningful if you can compare with murder rates in a human 
society without a government...but of course, in fact the only time 
this happens is when society breaks down entirely.

And I am fascinated with the way you make the "government" into a 
bogeyman that is responsible for all the evils that beset the human 
race.  No consideration of other factors -- racial and tribal hatred, 
religious conflicts, class conflicts, etc etc.  A wonderful 
simplification. 

> >Second, such cases of civil breakdown aside, all humans, for now and
> >for the conceivable future, live within the context of some kind of
> >government.  The option of non-government simply doesn't exist. 
> 
> That's precisely what the governments and their agents want us to believe.
> Minarchism is certainly possible,

Oh boy.  A wonderful dream, minarchism, that everybody *must* secretly
want, except that some evil force is preventing them from getting to
it, and you, Jim Bell, are the savior that is going to bring it 
about.  A classic messiah complex.

[...]

> >Third, murders caused by governments can't really be separated from
> >murders caused by individuals.  That is, in many cases deciding
> >whether a murder is a personal action or a government action is
> >impossible. 
> 
> "Aye vas joost vollowink orderz!"
> 
> Sorry, we're still laughing at you.

When the LA cops beat up Rodney King, do you suppose they got any 
personal satisfaction out of it?  Or were they just cold government 
functionaries, doing their job?

> >Fourth, it's fashionable in these circles to paint all governments
> >with the same brush, but in fact, some are much better than others.  
> >But it only takes one bad one to start a war.  Furthermore, human 
> >motivations are complex and irrational, so wars are started for 
> >essentially insane reasons.  This is a human problem, not a problem 
> >of government.
> 
> No, quite the contrary.  Considered from the perspective of the cumulative
> interests of society, wars are not beneficial or "profitable."  Only from
> the very limited viewpoint of the military-industrial complex and government
> employees does war appear to be a net benefit, and that's true only because
> the interests of most of the population (on whom the effect of war is a net
> negative) is ignored.  The reason war occurs is that the decision to have a
> war is made not by society as a whole, but by that tiny fraction which profits.

So of course ideology could never start a war -- Arabs and Jews *only*
fight because of their governments, the American revolutionary war 
was *only* fought because the state governments wanted more power, 
the Tutsi's and the Hutus only fought because their governments 
forced them.  A wonderful simplification, blaming everything on 
"government". 

> Put the decision to have the war back into the hands of the population as a
> whole, and war will decrease.  Give the public the option to make war upon
> the government parasites infesting their own land, and war will end 
> forever.

A wonderful dream, truly.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

> > Your position is laughable.  Statistics on murder rates are knowable for
> > many countries.  Studying the murder rate for those countries will at least
> > provide a range against which deaths due to government-caused wars can be
> > compared.
> 
> Only meaningful if you can compare with murder rates in a human 
> society without a government...but of course, in fact the only time 
> this happens is when society breaks down entirely.

This is all away from the main point, I have a large dislike of arguments 
which rest entirely on practical grounds, anarchic societies may be more 
violent, this does not offer any reason why they should not be the 
correct type of societies from an idealogical and moral point of view.

> And I am fascinated with the way you make the "government" into a 
> bogeyman that is responsible for all the evils that beset the human 
> race.  No consideration of other factors -- racial and tribal hatred, 
> religious conflicts, class conflicts, etc etc.  A wonderful 
> simplification. 

This argument does have certain substance but it does have flaws:

Firstly, all religion which has caused conflict in the past has been one 
which wielded power in a governmental fashion. I`m no historian, but I 
cannot recall one incident where a religion which had no executive power 
caused violence against other groups of people for religious, or indeed 
any other reason.
For example, the catholic church in the middle ages had a massive amount 
of power and used it to eliminate elements of society which threatened 
it`s position, it acted effectively as a government, which is, after all, 
merely a set of people who adhere to a rough set of beliefs and commonly 
held principals, the root of government is in religion, they are two 
sides of the same coin.

Racial and tribal hatred is a more convincing argument but is still 
rooted in religion, a lot of the violent overthrowings of governments 
around the world have resulted from that government taking a racist 
position, most anti-government protests and indeed even riots in the 
western world are caused by racism or opposition to it.

Class conflicts can be similarly dismissed as another facet of 
government, where the government favours one group of citizens over 
another in terms of the way in which it governs the anger of the 
repressed or badly treated group of people is often directed towards 
those in a better position than them rather than at the government which 
caused their position to become as bad as it did. This is merely the 
jealous nature of humans overcoming their logical side.

Beyond all of this, the argument isn`t really very interesting, I`m not 
interested whether the government murders and kills or not, any 
infringement of the rights of citizens is sufficient in my mind to make 
them criminal, and necessitate their removal from power, murder is merely 
an extreme form of this.

> > >Second, such cases of civil breakdown aside, all humans, for now and
> > >for the conceivable future, live within the context of some kind of
> > >government.  The option of non-government simply doesn't exist. 
> > 
> > That's precisely what the governments and their agents want us to believe.
> > Minarchism is certainly possible,
> 
> Oh boy.  A wonderful dream, minarchism, that everybody *must* secretly
> want, except that some evil force is preventing them from getting to
> it, and you, Jim Bell, are the savior that is going to bring it 
> about.  A classic messiah complex.

I saw nothing in the comment that suggested Jim believed he would bring 
about minarchist government, minarchism is a definite possibility within 
our current society, because it is based on the concept of democracy 
which is accepted by most participants in society and furthermore it has 
been proven to work in the past, the initial stages of the US government 
when the government adhered to the principles of the constitution could 
be called minarchist, you might say that the fact that the government has 
now increased in size and power suggests minarchism did not work, I would 
argue this was merely the fact that the governments power has, until 
recently, been increasing slowly, people take little notice of small 
infringements of their rights, the government know they can safely upset 
a few thousand people at a time without problems, then go on to offend 
the next few thousand once things have cooled down somewhat, at each 
stage of course the objection is small enough to be insignificant, the 
end result is the government can increase its power virtually without bounds.

Now most of the peons accept the "need" for larger and more powerful 
government the pace of change has accelerated, the government has begun 
to use force more and more often to crush opposition to its actions.
The terror state is on its way.

> > >Third, murders caused by governments can't really be separated from
> > >murders caused by individuals.  That is, in many cases deciding
> > >whether a murder is a personal action or a government action is
> > >impossible. 
> > 
> > "Aye vas joost vollowink orderz!"
> > 
> > Sorry, we're still laughing at you.
> 
> When the LA cops beat up Rodney King, do you suppose they got any 
> personal satisfaction out of it?  Or were they just cold government 
> functionaries, doing their job?

I would say part of each, they knew however that their position as 
government thugs protected them to a certain extent from retribution, 
has they been living in a minarchist society where their actions would 
have been punished harshly they may not have acted as they did.

> > >Fourth, it's fashionable in these circles to paint all governments
> > >with the same brush, but in fact, some are much better than others.  
> > >But it only takes one bad one to start a war.  Furthermore, human 
> > >motivations are complex and irrational, so wars are started for 
> > >essentially insane reasons.  This is a human problem, not a problem 
> > >of government.
> > 
> > No, quite the contrary.  Considered from the perspective of the cumulative
> > interests of society, wars are not beneficial or "profitable."  Only from
> > the very limited viewpoint of the military-industrial complex and government
> > employees does war appear to be a net benefit, and that's true only because
> > the interests of most of the population (on whom the effect of war is a net
> > negative) is ignored.  The reason war occurs is that the decision to have a
> > war is made not by society as a whole, but by that tiny fraction which profits.
> 
> So of course ideology could never start a war -- Arabs and Jews *only*
> fight because of their governments, the American revolutionary war 
> was *only* fought because the state governments wanted more power, 
> the Tutsi's and the Hutus only fought because their governments 
> forced them.  A wonderful simplification, blaming everything on 
> "government". 

This is not really an over simplification given my argument above, 
I believe most groupings in society can be reduced to some form of 
government or another, whether it is of your accepted narrow definition 
of government or in a wider sense.

> > Put the decision to have the war back into the hands of the population as a
> > whole, and war will decrease.  Give the public the option to make war upon
> > the government parasites infesting their own land, and war will end 
> > forever.
> 
> A wonderful dream, truly.

Not a dream, a past reality, and indeed, in certain regions where 
government intervention is more extreme than it is in the USA or UK a 
present reality. The only reason for war is government, this is simple to 
see if one defines government as I have above. I do not believe this to 
be an overgeneralisation, merely a statement of fact, government is any 
form of custom or structure which forces certain courses of action on 
people. Of course there are exceptions, such as the NAP, which is a form 
of government under my analagy, which I do not believe could concievably 
be called an initiation of force because of its very limited scope.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"