From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 03:25:12 +0800
To: azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear)
Subject: Re: Kill 'em and let God sort it out, was Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...
Message-ID: <199609221651.JAA10237@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:04 PM 9/21/96 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>> jim bell wrote:
>>Naturally, you won't even consider the possibility of going outside the
>>system to solve a problem.  The rest of us notice that there are probably
>>thousands of terminally-ill people who would gladly act as a human kamikaze
>>and get rid of any judge inclined to impose such a fine, for a payment of 1%
>>of this principle amount to a family member or loved one, leaving 99%
>>available for the few other judges foolish enough to basically commit
>>suicide by taking up a futile gesture.
>>
>
>If AP came to be seen as an acceptable way for business and citizens to
>right egregious wrongs it would quickly lead to a 'law of the jungle'
>situation, which I think any sane person would reject as the cure being
>worse than the disease. 

Don't assume that means anything definitive, however.  _SOME_ sane people 
are simply WRONG!  Indeed, I'm fond of pointing out that 95% of the things 
people say are wrong about AP are, themselves, wrong. (Even by the standards 
of people who'd agree with their general conclusion.)

Suppose I could convince you that an AP-dominated world would be, in 
general, far safer, better, more just, than the status quo.  At that point, 
would you STILL say "any sane person would reject" it?  Probably not.  I 
suggest, therefore, that your statement above is based on a misunderstanding 
of AP.  Other people, people who have thought about the matter far longer 
than you, agree with me.  Moreover, after discussing AP with as many people 
as I have, it's quite predictable that a person would come to a conclusion 
based on a false belief.


 However, if governemnts (especially ours) continue
>to expand their implied authority and greatly diminishing personal
>liberties we all took for granted were inaliable human rights (in our own
>best interest, of course), a time may come when a bit of rebellion may be
>the only viable alternative for self-correction. 

Here's the big problem:  Let's suppose you think like this.  "Someday we 
_may_ have to rebel.  Not today."  Gradually, over time, the circumstances 
get worse.  However, as surprising as it may seem, we get used to the 
problems, and morever a new generation of people are born who've never seen 
freedom.  The line we draw in the sand today just appears to get further and 
further away.  We never cross it, and thus we never rebel, no matter how bad 
the circumstances get.

The most realistic position to take, I think, is to conclude that the line 
in the sand has ALREADY been crossed, long ago, and that it is high time to 
act.  The beauty of AP is that it will allow "little revolutions" to occur 
daily, until they are no longer needed.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com