From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 14:44:14 +0800
To: Joined Trill <hostmaster@trill-home.com>
Subject: Re: [SCARE]:  "If you only knew what we know..."
Message-ID: <199605270314.UAA26114@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:39 PM 5/26/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Sun, 26 May 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>:At 12:23 PM 5/26/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote:
>:Qualitatively, perhaps.  But quantitatively, no.  I think that blame for any
>:given situation or government behavior will be distributed in a reasonably
>:fair fashion, with those directly responsible for abuse becoming "dead meat"
>:while those on the periphery only marginal targets.  Your generous
>:interpretation of their guilt is certainly not binding on me.   And in any
>:case the fact that the people involved will usually be able to resign will
>:be a logical "out."
>
>Nor is your generous interpretation of the guilt of of hte peripheral
>binding on those who do not like them for whatever reason. 

True, but if I oppose and you don't, and my opposition results in their 
forced removal from office, what you believe will be irrelevant.

>Your
>suggestion is that open season be declared on those who work for the state
>(or are the state). 

They obtain their salary through theft from taxpayers.  I'd say that's 
plenty of an offense.

> Your claim is that one has to satisfy everyone
>(or the small minority that is unsatisfied might come out and kill you)
>andd the only way that will happen is when there is no state at all.

Or, at most, an exceedingly minimal one, operated by donation or extremely 
minor tax levels.


> Of
>course there are those who fervently believe in the socialist ideal and
>would probably feel justified in killing the do nothing libertarians (as
>opposed to old-style liberals, i.e. minimalists) who ostensibly form the
>state. 

But it wouldn't matter.  They wouldn't know who to target, and the people 
wanting to form a state have an inherent disadvantage against those who do 
not:  The act of forming the state identifies them.

> For them, inaction might be sufficient cause to initiate an AP
>campaign. 

How would you distinguish between just some ordinary citizen and somebody 
that ought to be targeted because of opposition to the state?  With my 
system, the latter can be silent and get the job done.

>Now what happens if one group feels another group's AP campaign
>is directly hurting their interests (for a smaller/larger state). 

Then there will be a fight, won by the group that isn't publicly recognized. 
 A group trying to form a centralized entity (and force this on others) will 
fail; those opposing it will win.


>Isn't
>there the possibility that they will begin to assign to the other's AP
>leaders the status of the state (after all their AP campaign is
>determining the nature of the state, and we can begin a reverse AP
>campaign on them to halt that). 

It doesn't work like that.  The act of formation of a state inevitably calls 
attention to oneself.  The act of opposing that formation does not.  AP is 
"biased," as it were, against centralized, organized political structure 
that arouses the ire of even a tiny fraction of the population.  A person 
who dedicates himself to ELIMINMATING the state, and does so anonymously, is 
difficult or impossible to target.


> The ideal of the minimalist state permits
>an out clause, so the socialists (or anyone who wants a paternal govt.)
>can form their own little community with their state acting as mother. 

I don't deny that a group of people can, willingly, form a subset of society 
where they agree to be bound by certain conditions that the rest of society 
does not tolerate.  However, the key word is "willingly."  If that 
mini-state ever becomes abusive of the rights of its own citizens, or 
becomes threatening of any outside individuals, its leaders will be 
targeted, either by its own citizens or those outside who feel threatened.


> If
>you envision "resigning" as a means of escaping being the target of AP,
>you must be aware that we don't forgive easily and there will be groups
>who wish to kill politicos who've "ruined our lives because of what they
>did x years ago". 

I have no problem with that.  That's just great.  Arbitrarily serious guilt 
should be followed by arbitrarily harsh punishement, even if it is years or 
decades later.  Resigning is in no way respected by the AP system per se, but it 
_may_ be considered by the average citizen to be a reason for mercy.

> If those who begin AP campaigns on "retired" govt.
>employees will be "playing unfairly" and your system has a clause to
>tackle them, I can see a group using a succession of politicos (each of
>whom gains amnesty by retiring after a bit) to accomplish what they wish
>to.

No, AP has no inherent ability to punish those who "play unfairly."  
However, the cost to purchase "predictions" (and the number of other 
citizens who share in this cost)  will probably depend substantially on the 
perceived guilt of the target, in the minds of others.  A person who 
resigns, and especially one who did little to directly anger the populace, 
other than to collect a stolen paycheck, is probably fairly safe.  An 
ex-employee of a particularly abusive government agency is, however, far 
more likely to remain  considered a legitimate target by the public.

>:I agree.  Which is why I'd much prefer a method to preferentially target a
>:relatively smaller number of people, and I've invented (discovered?) just
>:such a system.  Why not let it work?
>
>I'd prefer a system that doesn't "target" people at all.

Perhaps, but the current system does, and even after AP is instituted there 
will still be common criminals to keep down.

>:Why not kill those Iranian leaders, using AP?  And if you're afraid they'll
>:retaliate against "our" leaders, I see nothing wrong with that, either.
>:It's the leaders who maintain the dispute.
>
>Sure, and suppose the option is that there be no dispute at all.  So
>Rushdie (or you or I) becomes the sacrifical lamb, precisely because the
>"leaders" value their own lives, but ostensibly to kill the "dispute" in
>the bud. 

No, the donations will be made against those people who are actually seen by 
the people as the real problem.  In an "AP-world," there would be no 
"Islamic leaders" to call for Rushdie's death.  True, if an author like 
Rushdie said or wrote something that really angered a substantial number of 
people, they might individually be aroused enough to target him, but that is 
far less likely than ire directed by an Islamic leader today, I think.


> One of the fundamental principles of justice is that it be
>comensurate (in some sense) to the crime, AP lacks that aspect. 

I (and others) have predicted that there will indeed be "court systems" in 
place, although they will be numerous, competing, and voluntary, which will 
turn most offenses into crimes punishable by fines.  That will adjust the 
punishment to the crime, in most people's opinions.


>:Hey, I realized that long ago!  But I'm not under any illusion that this
>:system can be molded to conform to my wishes alone:  If I could, I'd become
>:a dictator and the cycle of tyranny would continue.
>
>The question is not one of becoming a dictator, but rather one of what
>values will be protected, what freedoms will people have in the
>world/state you imagine. 

No "values will be protected," except those that the individuals in society 
choose to be protected.


> I think the values AP engenders are not the ones we want. 

Who is "we"?

> We probably don't want to legitimize murder.

Don't call it "murder," then.  It's self-defense, at least by those who use 
it legitimately.

> It's difficult to
>operate in a vacuum of principles/values, we can't simply say, "well
>whatever people will want to happen will happen and why not give them that
>choice".

Ultimately, that's the way it's going to happen, UNLESS the society's 
control is waylaid by government.

>  Marx was not the first to poitn out that institutions influence
>our actions, that we are products of our times, that the choices we face
>are as much determined by our own preferences as they are by the world
>around us.  AP will create an environment where, I believe, an
>undesireable set of options will be presented to each of us.  This is
>the "outcome" argument, i.e. undesireable ends, the means themselves are
>reprehensible.

I wish I understood what you just said...


>:It isn't that it "has to" be violent.  Resignation is always an option.
>:Problem is, they don't want to give up their positions of power.
>
>You've heard about the elections where libertarian candidates ran for
>office with the objective of doing away with the office if they were
>elected.  I believe one such candidate won the election and came through
>on his promise.

Yes, that's great.  But I don't think we (the public) should have to depend 
on the good will of the elected officeholder, especially one who DIDN'T make 
such a promise.

>:That depends entirely on what your definition of instigating violence really
>:is.  I happen to believe that the act of collecting taxes, involuntarily, IS
>:the "instigation of violence" even if the victim gives up his assets without
>:a fight, if there is the prospect of eventual violence should he refuse to
>:cooperate.  Until you see this, you'll have a warped view of the propriety
>:of AP, not to mention the libertarian non-initiation of force  principle.
>:(NIOFP.)
>
>As I've said, the minimalist state is desireable in my opinion. 

But what is the minimum in "minimalist"?  I was a minarchist for a couple of 
decades, because I couldn't think of an intellectually consistent way to get 
rid of the last vestiges of government, permanently.  Now I can.


 The most
>efficient system of taxation is the truly flat tax (i.e. a fixed amount
>for each individual), since each person derives aprox. equivalent benefits
>from the minimalist state, their contributions are also equal.  Each of us
>derives some benefits from the existence of the state, some of these
>benefits are non-exclusionary.  Till these benefits are dependent on
>territory and jurisdiction taxation of those who reside within the
>jurisdiction/territory will have to be enforced. 

Sigh.  I'm afraid that kind of thinking has been obsoleted...

> You must of course, be
>aware of the medieval practice of making an offender an "outlaw", i.e. not
>under the protection of any laws.  These outlaws were then fair game for
>anyone.  When we have arrived at the point where the free-rider problem
>does not exist for things like national defense (i.e the shields won't
>exist over your property, and you'll enforce your ownership of it
>yourself) you will have the option (once again) of becoming an outlaw.

The whole concept of having to maintain "the national defense" is totally 
obsoleted by the stable anarchy formed by AP.  After AP, all defense will be 
local, because no large attacker could survive the "predictions" of the rest 
of the world.


>  I
>don't think it's going to be very pretty. 

I agree it sounds a bit scary, but that's mainly because it's so different 
from the current system.


> To bring up another subject, we
>make compromises. 

Reminds me of the old saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on 
what to have for dinner."

The problem with the concept of "compromises" is that it assumes that it is 
necessary to make those compromises.


> I personally find socialists endearing and am willing
>to make certain compromises to live with them amicably.

I don't care what they THINK, but if they try to enforce their society on me 
I'll feel no hesitancy to eliminate them.


> AP will draw
>battle-lines that will make such associations extremely hard to maintain.

No, it'll make compromises totally unnecessary.

>I'd rather not be the member of a "group" and have that membership/taint
>dictate the degree to which I can associate with a particular set of
>people.  AP, in providing "final solutions", will bring about a state of
>affairs where the actions of a particular group (which they think are
>legitimate and do not run counter to the rules of the game) will be
>unacceptable for another group and the "finality" of these actions will
>create rifts.  Violence does not beget peace.

Historically, that has been often true.  But then again, I think the rules 
have changed.  (or will soon change.)

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com