From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:36:58 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <jf_avon@citenet.net
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
Message-ID: <199605211950.MAA11604@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:34 PM 5/20/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

>>Second, everybody like Jim Bell who is pushing the AP scheme is doing
>>so on ethical basis: that the coercion the government imposes on to
>>the individuals by regulations, and guns backed taxation justifies the
>>killings.  I have to see yet any cypherpunks who seems to agree with
>>AP that envision another use than govt control.
>
>right, and Hitler didn't have any other use for his government other
>than to bring utopia to the masses, and used all the ovens for cooking
>pizzas (after all, what else could an oven be used for?!?!?).
>
>the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing,
>not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means"
>argument used by most here), but that in addition it is 
>supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? 

Then you've obviously dramatically mis-read my ideas.  I don't claim that 
_EVERYBODY_ who will fall victim will "deserve" it by your or my opinions, 
or by generally-agreed-upon philosophy like the libertarian's 
"Non-Initiation of Force Principle" (NIOFP).   Rather, I claim that the 
justification for any given killing must (and will, or won't, depending) 
come from some external fact having nothing to do with AP.  

For example, if you believe in NIOFP, then anyone who violates it has 
initiated force, and the victim of such force (or, perhaps, anyone else?) 
can legitimately use a system like AP to fight back.  If you _don't_ believe 
in libertarian philsophy, obviously you won't necessarily agree with AP, but 
the source of your agreement is that, not something inherently wrong with AP.


>the assassination politics is quite Hitleresque at its root.
>"kill our enemies, and everything will be better. it is our enemies
>that are the root of all evil in the world. extinguish them, and
>you solve all problems automatically"

THat's a false claim.  If the "enemies" are enemies because of what they've 
actually done wrong, say violate your rights, then it should be your right to stop 
them.  The method you choose shouldn't matter.

>there is a trite saying, "two wrongs do not make a right" (trite
>because most have mastered the simple truth of it in their pre-teen
>years). a concept not grasped by some second-graders. some 
>require a lifetime of lessons to comprehend it in the end..

You seem to be assuming that if there are TWO "wrongs" here.  But I've tried 
to make it abundantly clear that justification for the self-defense comes 
from the initial "wrong."  Where, then, is the SECOND "wrong"?  What, 
exactly, makes it wrong?  If a person can't get justice any other way (not 
to be confused with merely a chance at justice) then why deny that person 
his rights?

I acknowledge that if there is no initial "wrong" (the target didn't 
actually do anything wrong) then the act of targeting him is, itself, wrong, 
but you're apparently unwilling to back up this hypothetical. 


>I'm very disappointed that others have not chased Assassination
>Politics proponents to take their trash somewhere else. of course
>the real situation is that those that started this list have
>sympathies for this kind of thinking, so no such thing will happen.

It should be obvious to anyone around here that if AP "works," it will work 
regardless of whether it meets with your approval or any other subset of 
humankind.  That makes it worthy of discussion even if you don't like it.


>to Jim Bell and Avon: please read Machiavelli. read about ancient
>assassination clubs and the history of bloody politics. if you want
>to seriously further your ideas, start a web site with ample 
>historical research. your ideas are not new whatsoever. 

Your objections are invalid.  The mere fact that SOME organized killing 
systems occurred in the past has essentially no relationship to the system I 
describe.  The prospect of perfect anonymity, allowing the system to be open 
to anyone who chooses to contribute, will make it vastly different from 
anything that came before.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com