From: Subir Grewal <grewals@acf2.NYU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 16:37:59 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: [SCARE]:  "If you only knew what we know..."
In-Reply-To: <199605270314.UAA26114@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.92.960526235213.28517F-100000@acf2.NYU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 26 May 1996, jim bell wrote:

: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.

Real world anonymity is difficult to buy, and actions such as murder (or
what you'd like to call "self-defense") take place in the real world.

: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.

I'd expect a realization of AP to promote a great backlash from a variety
of quarters.  Such methods, besides being unethical, are probably going to
be used as fodder to infringe the liberties of others.  In other words, a
witch-hunt will result, AP advocates marginalized (if they are
discovered).  My original reservations, on the grounds of unjust means
still stand, maybe we can return to this discussion sometime later.

: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.

"Religious" fanatics have great appeal, I don't think even AP will make
them "go away", the odds are they'll become martyrs.  And we know where
that takes us.

: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.

I wasn't talking about the legal system in an AP world, but the idea that
AP is justice in some sense.  Incidentally, a purely civil law court is
what I'd like as well, and competing courts and arbitration systems sound
good to me.

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

:>  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.

The answer (in some sense) to your second statement is contained in the
little section I wrote earlier.  It's an institutional argument.

hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5
WHERE CAN THE MATTER BE

	Oh, dear, where can the matter be
	When it's converted to energy?
	There is a slight loss of parity.
	Johnny's so long at the fair.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Key Escrow = Conscription for the masses | 2048 bit via finger

iQB1AwUBMakuLBwDKqi8Iu65AQHxzAMAteGkGW3Y2eIzpli5UuoaTUK/4hlQbZkN
eutzCIgsBN2jUtBau0zz4Vjr0p+edTyXXhiBUv3VXjKPkNh4nPZcmG6kv37BLjlg
+EhVAl55v8/+b2pqnQ0kx5a+9vr58c7H
=VKHB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----