From: "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon@citenet.net>
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:33:10 +0800
To: liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray)
Subject: Re: AP
Message-ID: <9605202031.AA06468@cti02.citenet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On 20 May 96 at 14:51, Jim Ray wrote:

> [He IS L.D., nobody else would say "anti-psuedospoofing."]
Since I hit C'punks around 6 months ago, I have no idea who this 
mythical figure is, alhought I see the name pop-up occasionnally.

Is there a Detweiller FAQ somewhere?

> Why be Jimbellish just before an election. If AP is inevitable, OK,
> but why emphasis on murder when the press hates the 'Net? The people
> will support it because jimbell comes off as a LOON, and people
> dislike loons, and vote against them.

Interesting.  Has AP ever popped-up in the conventional medias?

Then, again, I know an awfull lot of people who would applaude Bell.  
But most of them are not computer litterate.  They are from another 
generation, not brainwashed by "Don't ask what your country can 
do for you; ask what you can do for your country"...


> I'm 35, and I may actually die before I do. I hope not.

[Black humor] any AP proponents with an eye (or a buck) on you?  :)

> >You'll note that the psycho-epistemology necessary to
> >commit murder is quite close to the one necessary to coerce poeples
> >to pay taxes.
> 
> This kind of thinking might authorize a massive Cherokee
> massacre if it spread, IMO.

Please, do point out the similarities and the differences... I think 
that the context is very different.

> We must reach the "quit stealing"
> phase beore nuts can fantasize about a revenge phase which
> likely will never be.

Are you talking of an open war a la Bosnia?  

> We must either leave some wrongs in the
> past or be cursed with them forever.

This is what I was talking about taking things out of context.  Since 
you agree on that, the Cherokee thing is ruled out.  But govt action 
are a matter of the present and future.  Some peoples see it as 
legitimate self-defense.

Among the peoples who do not object to be coerced to pay taxex for 
services are two groups the one that:
a) figure out that they get more than they pay
	and
b) want to pay, even if they realize they get less than they pay for.

the a) group is much bigger than b).  At least by an order of 
magnitude.

Now, in a world where the govt would not use coercion on economical 
and fiscal matters, b) would keep giving.  But what a) would do? 
What they've already done since a hundred years: push for legislation 
that favor them.


> Bottom line for me: "Two wrongs don't make a right." 

Please state the basic premise that make you declare what is "wrong"
in the context of AP.  I am not bugging you simply to do so.  For
example, do you think that, for ethical reasons, you are not only
justified but actually *obligated* to use physical violence in
certain contexts?  I guess not.  But many peoples think they have
to...

I think that you simply try to evade the necessity of defining for 
yourself what exactly is what the govt is doing.

Personnally, I did not reach any conclusions yet.

> We must, as
> Libertarians, face the fact that taxation we object to is not seen
> by many people as coercive.

General opinion is not what define truth nor reality.  If I refuse
to pay my taxes, they'll use physical violence to get what they
want.  You might object that I enjoyed the benefits of the spending
of taxes, but I am yet to see any contract that I entered with
"society".


> Even then, I prefer the judicial process to the oligarchy
> this scheme would entail

This scheme is *not* an oligarchy.  Pay a visit to any good dictionary 
near you.  Words have precise meaning and it is *much* better to 
stick to it...

Actually, since it is ruled by money, it might be a "buckarchy", but 
again, everybody can spare a few bucks, so it might be a democracy 
too if you insist on twisting the meaning of words.

> and I think I'd be an easy target for
> wealthy statists, who could also use the system.

At first look, of course.  But operationnally, you have to consider the 
mind of the statist to figure out the likeliness of their using the 
system? I do not deny that it is very likely that a few statists will 
use the system.  But most won't because they don't like to slain 
their milk cows.

Remember, we are idea-processing machines.

> If Bell could post
> fewer times, he'd be more convincing. He is in many killfiles. JMR

Many peoples cannot stand to see any opinions that differs from 
theirs.  But why care at all be read by such peoples?

 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal
 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants;  physists, technologists and engineers.

 PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
 ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h
 Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac-
 cepted the above mentionned terms.