From: tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 01:13:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The Emotional Killer (or out of the frying pan and into the electric chair?)
Message-ID: <199602120459.XAA22195@pipe11.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I want to write on the theme posted to the list in the message below where
J. Bell wrote "It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is
what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so." 
 
First, one thing that marks the sane adult from the child and the floridly
psychotic adult is the sane adult's knowledge that "feelings" and "facts"
are two different things. 
 
It is one thing to "feel," as J. Bell or all of us might, that our rights
have been violated. 
 
It is another thing to maintain, as J. Bell uniquely appears to do, that
the "feeling" gives him the right to seek another person's death. 
 
This and other posts by J. Bell and other lib'bers lead me to believe that
their claimed interest in human freedom for everyone is little more than a
cover for a set of authoritarian expectations that they can do whatever
they want, free from any control, responsibility, or accountability. 
 
The argued centrality of J. Bell's "feelings" over other people's lives is
something that puts him in the god category. (Thankfully J. Bell is not one
of the dreaded tax collectors or "socialist statists.") 
 
Should J. Bell act on his "feelings" as he seems to think he has the right
to do, he may find that his "right" is little more than another "feeling"
not reflective of reality. 
 
He might also "feel" his rights are violated when a dreaded tax-collecting
socialist-statist called a cop detains him, another dreaded lawyer called a
prosecutor says nasty things about him in a court, a jury says "guilty,"
and another dreaded socialist-statist chowing-down-on-tax-money figure
called a judge says "death." This is also likely to produce an even greater
"feeling" that rights are violated immediately before another figure living
on tax money called an executioner pulls the switch. 
 
Death is sometimes Nature's way of telling us that our "feelings" were out
of sync with reality. 
 
But by then it is too late to do much about it. 
 
--tallpaul 
 
 
 
On Feb 10, 1996 17:41:30, 'jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>' wrote: 
 
> 
>At 08:13 PM 2/6/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: 
>> 
>>Forwarded message: 
> 
>>> A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" 
>>> idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated
on 
>>> the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_ 
>>> announce either that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who 
>>> correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of 
>>> rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or 
>>> appointees.  It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, 
>>> and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital 
>>> cash. 
>>>  
>> 
>>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. 
> 
> 
>>> On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a 
>>> government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck

>>> of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights

>>> beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident

>>> and Waco come to mind.)  In receiving such money and in his various 
>>> acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, 
>>> presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under 
>>> libertarian principles. 
>>>  
>> 
>>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. 
> 
>Somehow, I think that this is where  your argument fails, and it fails  
>miserably. 
> 
> 
>>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.  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. 
> 
>Are you a statist? 
> 
>