From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:59:58 +0800
To: drosoff@arc.unm.edu>
Subject: Re: [Off-Topic]  "Curfews"
Message-ID: <199606070059.RAA09341@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:47 PM 6/6/96 +0000, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:
>On  6 Jun 96 at 11:19, jim bell wrote:
>
>
>> >>I _do_ believe, however, that the number of people unjustifiably
>> >>targeted will be rather low. <snip>  Retaliation is possible, in
>> >> that case.
>
>Sorry Jim, I did not get that at all in the past.  I assumed a 
>context where the inner workings of AP would not be well understood 
>by the population while here, you seems to indicate that everybody 
>would operate under the threat / deterrance of mutual anihilation 
>principle.

Hmmm...  sorry, I thought that was obvious.  Well, perhaps not "obvious," 
but it's one of those facts that will become second nature to people once AP 
starts up.  


>A argued that an impulsive guy might target somebody unjustifiably 
>while I overlooked that he could think twice before doing so.  But by 
>his nature, being a violent or thug at heart, he will understand this 
>"peace based on threat" maybe even better than a pacifist at heart.  
>So, my arguments might not stand.  

As can be expected, people will be looking out for themselves in an 
AP-dominated system, just as today.  I think most people will have a fairly 
good idea who's targeting them if the hit's not justified.  Almost every 
justified hit can be fairly anonymous.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com