From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 17:38:55 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
Message-ID: <m0tlWju-000915C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:33 PM 2/10/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

>> >If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply
>> >because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and
>> >moraly or ethicaly undefensible.
>> 
>> That's a misleading statement:  You said, "simply because..."    As should 
>> be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone 
>> killed "simply because"  of the fact I "don't agree with them."  It is 
their 
>> ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what  justifies my seeking 
>> their deaths, should I choose to do so.
>> 
>
>But it is not clear at all.

I think it is, to most people who read my words.


> Exactly how do their actions violate your rights? 

How specific do you want me to be?  I think the examples I gave in my essay 
made it clear what I believe.

>Are these the rights that you believe that you possess or the ones
>that are recognized? 

"recognized"?  Usta be, "free speech" wasn't "recognized" in many 
jurisdictions.  Are you suggesting that because it wasn't "recognized" that 
it wasn't a right?

Or what, exactly, WERE you suggesting?

>Do the actions have to effect you directly and
>immediately or must you merely percieve a threat? All of these issues are
>unclear in your presentation.

Ultimately, your questions are more philosophical than is appropriate for CP. 

>And for the final one, doesn't your putting a
>contract out on them violate their rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of
>hapiness)?

The answer to that depends dramatically on that someone else's actions, now 
doesn't it?!?

> The only answer to this is 'yes',

Already contradicted above.


> meaning that to be ethical you
>must put a contract out on yourself. Because your own actions violate 
>somebodies rights. This catch-22 situation regarding deadly force is why
>anarchy does not work.

I'm afraid your "logic" is a more than a bit faulty.  This reasoning would 
deny anyone the right to self-defense.

> A perhaps less different example might be: If you
>dislike bigots then you are a bigot.

Perhaps, but bigotry isn't a crime, nor a violation of someone else's rights.

> In short, you can't help but become what you hate the most

I _don't_ hate the use of self-defense.

>. It pays not to hate or be quick to use violence
>since they are so strongly related.



>
>It is not yours, the governments, or anyone elses right to decide who lives
>and dies. You have a double standard.
>
>> 
>> >Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or
>> >another.
>> 
>> That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time.  I'm amazed 
>> that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list.  While I don't 
know 
>> precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really 
>> is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a 
>> REALLY weird definition of that.
>> 
>
>Then Lincoln had a equaly weird view: Government of the people, by the
>people, for the people.

Voting in an election does not make a citizen a "government employee."


> Perhaps this failure to recognize a basic premise of
>representative democracy explains your apparent dichotomy in the concepts of
>rights. In effect, your rights and their rights. When in fact there is no
>difference.

Perhaps your weird view of the world explains your opinions.


>I would suggest you read the Declaration of Indipendance and the Gettysburg
>Address (again) to get a better perspective on what and who is supposed to
>run this government and how. 

I am not particularly concerned with "this government."  I don't consider 
"this government" to be somehow "special" from a rights standpoint.


>> >By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to
>> >protect us against.
>> 
>> Sorry, I disagree.  Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type" 
>> total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people 
actually 
>> believe in that.
>
>Might does not make right. 

On the other hand, exercise of self-defense is not generally considered 
"wrong," either.  I merely am advocating a new type of self-defense, one 
that can be exercised anonymously.  In doing so, it can be a vastly more 
powerful weapon against government tyranny.


>Ethical cohesion does not rest on numerical
>values.

So what's your point?

> In case you have missed my comments before. I am not non-violent. I
>do not support the use of violence in any format except in direct and
>immediate self-defence. 

Aha!  So what this means is, anybody who can assemble a sufficiently large 
force (governments, usually) can use the threat of use of that force to keep 
people from resisting, without hope of ever winning.

Classic statist position.

>In which case make the beggars eyes bleed, no defeat
>and no surrender.

Have you been smoking something?

> This means that if you walk outside and see a person
>breaking in your car that in and of itself is not sufficient motive for
>deadly force unless they attack you.

Who says?  Agents of the government punish criminals every day that do 
things to OTHER citizens.  Do you find that to be wrong?  If not, your 
problem is clear:  You have a double-standard about rights. 

> I do believe (contrary to yourself I
>would guess) that if you were walking down the street and somebody suddenly
>grabbed you that would be sufficient motive to kill them in self-defence.




> In
>cases like this there simply isn't enough time to evaluate the extent of the
>threat, it is clear there is an apparent threat though. In short if your
>person is violated physicaly without your premeditated permission then deadly
>force is justified. I also believe that you are ethicaly justified in
>stopping a person from assaulting or killing a 3rd party for the simple
>reason that it could be you next. However, once that immediate threat is
>over (for example a 4th party knocks the gun out of the muggers hand and
>knocks them on the ground) then use of deadly force is not justified.

But the big problem with this position is that the government specializes in 
NON-IMMEDIATE threats.  The cop says "come with me", and if you don't comply 
he pulls a gun.  If you pull one back, he shoots at you.  If you're holed 
up, he brings in reinforcements.  Etc. Etc. Etc.

In effect, you have defined "self-defense" quite carefully in order to ALLOW 
the use of threats and violence by GOVERNMENT people, without the right of 
the citizen to fight back.  As long as those threats and that violence is 
overwhelming and "legally justified," you'll give the citizens no right to 
resist.

Sorry, but I won't play your little tyrannical games.


>> Most people seem to think that they are entitled to 
>> protect themselves from violations of rights.  The fact that these 
>> violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most 
>> irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it.  Anybody who feels entitled to 
>> use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting 
>> to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in 
>> itself, a violation of my rights.
>> 
>
>Rights as you use them are only relevant between a government and a citizen.

What exactly do you mean by that?


>I as an individual person am not forced to provide you with a forum for free
>speech or any other rights guaranteed in the constitution. Apparently you,
>as many people do, confuse the rights that are yours in regards the
>government with privileges and contractual obligations which govern
>interpersonal actions.

Apparently you are simply confused.

> The local grocery store is not mentioned in the
>Constitution. They are under no obligation to provide protection for your
>life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Your basic argument rests on a straw
>man premise, namely that rights guaranteed you by government are guaranteed
>you by any and every other possible entity. This is clearly wrong.

Apparently you are STILL simply confused.

>It is not ethical to kill another simply for being a burglar.

Justa sec.  In early 1800's England, nominally considered a "civilized 
country" many such crimes carried the death penalty on conviction.

Further, until about the 1960's, rape was a crime which was often punishable 
by death in the US.

Are you as ignorant as you sound, or have you forgotten that YOUR version of 
reality isn't the only one that has ever existed?


> How much must
>they steal before you are ethicaly justified in killing them? A $1,000
>dollar stereo? Perhaps a $.20 pencil off your desk?

Shouldn't the crime victim decide?  After all, it's HIS property, right?   
What makes you think YOU have the right to decide what crimes he should have 
to tolerate, huh?


>Does this not justify
>your employer killing you for using their machines for your own use,it is
>theft of services after all (and you are on their property).

If employers were to start doing this, they would have a VERY difficult time 
finding new employees to replace their former ones.

> If you have
>sufficient force detain them. The legal system will take them from there

Like most statists, you ascribe way too much legitimacy to "the legal system."


>(assuming of course we revamp it with the other laws we discuss so heatedly
>on here). What I propose is a simple and humane system.

So do I.  But we clearly differ.  Hmmmm.    How can this be?

> If a person commits
>a crime which leads to the death or injury another they spend the remainder
>of their life in a solitary cell with no chance of parole. In other cases
>what should occur is they must work a regular job and provide restitution
>for an extended period (ie $100/mo. to you for 30 years). Should they fail
>to abide by this or they commit another crime then off they go for 20 years
>or so, again with no chance of parole. I also strongly object to plea
>bargaining. The whole concept of sending somebody to jail for 2-3 years is
>silly and counter-productive. It leads to nothing but professional criminals,
>in effect state run training grounds for the criminaly inclined. While in
>jail they should be forced to live in work camps and not prisons as we
>currently know them (unless they fall into the above 'harm another'
>category). What should occur is that they are forced to live a relatively
>normal lifestyle. In short, they work 8 hours a day and must pay for their
>housing, food, etc. from their earning. What needs to occur is to train
>persons to make a living and gain some success at managing a day to day
>lifestyle. Our currrent system treats criminals as animals, which does
>nothing to prevent further violence on their part, it only increases any
>sense of isolation they may have.

The only reason I didn't delete the previous paragraph is that it makes 
absolutely clear that you believe in YOUR way of doing things, and that 
there cannot be any other way.  Sorry, I disagree.

>> Are you a statist?
>> 
>No, as I have said on many occassions, I am a strict Constitutionalist.

That's part of your problem.  It is probably more accurate to say that you 
are a "strict Establishmentarian."  You hide behind the Constitution as if 
it is some sort of "Gift From God."  It isn't.  

As the recent joke goes, "The Constitution may be bad government, but it's 
better than what we have now."

Because it's true.  The current government doesn't follow the Constitution.  
 Some of the people who call themselves "strict Constitutionalists" simply 
want to force a slightly modified version of tyranny on us all.

Jim Bell