From: Subir Grewal <grewals@acf2.nyu.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 13:24:22 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: [SCARE]:  "If you only knew what we know..."
In-Reply-To: <199605262337.QAA18778@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.92.960526205454.18312A-100000@acf2.NYU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----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.  Your
suggestion is that open season be declared on those who work for the state
(or are the state).  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.  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.  For them, inaction might be sufficient cause to initiate an AP
campaign.  Now what happens if one group feels another group's AP campaign
is directly hurting their interests (for a smaller/larger state).  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).  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.  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".  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.

: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.

: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.  One of the fundamental principles of justice is that it be
comensurate (in some sense) to the crime, AP lacks that aspect.  "Final
solutions" are all it has, but final solutions aren't always desireable.

: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.  I think the values AP engenders are not the ones
we want.  We probably don't want to legitimize murder.  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".  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 only reason there might be "many others waiting to take his place" is
:that assassination is actually a rare event.  Make it easily accomplished,
:and who would want to take any politician's place?

Only the fanatic

: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.

: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.  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.  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.  I
don't think it's going to be very pretty.  To bring up another subject, we
make compromises.  I personally find socialists endearing and am willing
to make certain compromises to live with them amicably.  AP will draw
battle-lines that will make such associations extremely hard to maintain.
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.

hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5

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

iQB1AwUBMakHvBwDKqi8Iu65AQEmnQMArCatzEoPOHSiSSlb8yhMupx0sbx4ZwZs
pY6A78B+LQwceyTnPE9mQ/4C8Zyr+IF9MPEKJgXJ8TPkeL/P24k8+oqiUwXq0pMN
UsyS8c4RUW3d72s/ctV9tDQKumu9zc/p
=BZV+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----