From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: attila <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: is there no end to AP & Creative Wiretap Arguments?
Message-ID: <199610132127.OAA19213@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 03:47 AM 10/12/96 +0000, attila wrote:
>        after months of patient explanations to Jim Bell and 
>    sympathizers, going over the same points in 31 flavours,
>    the same arguments of what I would call "respectable" anarchy 
>    (well stated by Tim May) rather than the "world at war" anarchy of 
>    Jim Bell --  where are we?!?
>
>        I read Jim's first "manifesto" at least 18 months ago; and, the
>    "refined manifsto" less than a month ago.  I have yet to see an 
>    application of civilization which brings AP society up to even the 
>    level of Tombstone AZ just prior to the OK Corral.

Be careful about the Wild West analogies.  Current theory is that contrary 
to what Hollywood cooked up for our movie-viewing pleasure, it was a rather 
peaceful place most of the time.  If anything, the reason that certain 
incidents (OK Corral) were so memorable is that they were, likewise, rare.

>
>        Jim's theories all hinge on betting pools which supposedly can
>    be run like the lottery where the poor can share a ticket 
>    (egalitarian, of course), anonyminity (which as an argument is 
>    appropriate, but what for in a selfish immoral act?),  and a 
>    justice is served attitude, even if there are mistakes.

I would be far more worried about "mistakes" if I hadn't already thought 
through it, and concluded that abuse and misuse and errors would be strongly 
deterred by the very structure of the AP system.  It will most easily attack 
who coerce the most people, for example politicians, bureaucrats, and some 
government employees in general, precisely because the cost will be shared 
among hundreds or thousands.  It will also fairly easily get rid of "common 
criminals," since most people have been a victim of crime at some point in 
their lives and would be willing to pay to prevent this in the future.  
However, using AP to attack undeserving people will be difficult precisely 
because it would be rather expensive, since the cost will presumably not be 
shared.

True, it isn't any kind of centralized coercive control, but it is a 
excellent form of control, somewhat analogous to the "invisible hand" 
concept of free markets.  The problem is, it's difficult for some people to 
comprehend the kind of distributed-control that free markets represent.  


>        the whole concept of AP does not even support the concept of
>    "justice is expeditiously served!"   it is a resort to the manners
>    of dogs and monkeys sitting at the same table --a spiteful, 
>    arrogant player can move the betting pools to assassinate anyone.

There is a powerful limitation as to how much one individual can manipulate 
the system, as I've previously described...  And besides, the problem you 
describe already exists:  Gang-related murders are an example.   AP would 
eliminate the gangs, at least to the extent that they are a threat to others.


>        In other words, are we planning to use James Caan as the lead
>    runner in "Roller Ball"  --except this time we're playing with a 
>    "live" society for which we hold in common the utmost contempt?  
>
>        are we trying to return to the bread and circus mentality of 
>    Rome on its deathbed and slide to subjecation by Attila the Hun 
>    who was actually stopped from sacking Rome after the Pope so 
>    impressed him with his regal robes....  deciding  tribute from an 
>    established dictatorship was more reliable?  --and less costly?!?
>
>        has anyone seen a single social moral fiber in Jim's often 
>    passionate arguments for AP,

I'm afraid yours is a vastly distorted question.    Let's go back to the 
beginning, shall we?  I've claimed that AP will:

1.  Eliminate war and militaries.
2.  Eliminate government and taxes.
3.  Eliminate dictatorships and political tyranny.
4.  Drastically reduce crime and the costs of crime.

Add all this up, and presume that I think it's a good thing (I do) and how 
can you claim that this is not "a single social moral fiber"?

Sure, you could claim that AP won't do these things, or not all of them, or 
not very well.  I happen to believe it will.  Even if you're partly right, 
at most you have a challenge to my judgment, not my morality or sincerity.

>    or even in the "results" in a society
>    which will never breed another leader: religious, secular, or even
>    political?  

What, exactly, is wrong with a society without leaders?  Do we NEED leaders? 
 I understand that people have probably gotten so used to the concept of 
having leaders around that its hard to imagine the alternative, but you're 
going to have to do better than this to support the existence of leaders.



>        does AP permit anything except slaves and drones which can 
>    just as easily be replaced by robots?  maybe noone will miss news
>    reports (as 'canned' as they are),

This may sound odd, but what is there wasn't any news to report?  Maybe 
that's exaggerating things a bit, there will always be weather and the 
occasional accident and other events.  But watch the news for a while, and 
notice what a large fraction of it is government-related, politics-related, 
war-related, coercion-related, etc.  

>    or movies which entertain or provoke?

It's unclear why you think AP will prevent this?

>  or ice cream sundaes at the soda fountain?

likewise...

>        ...and the disappearance of grocers, and doctors, and dentists
>    bringing forth a new age of subsistence farming and hunting for 
>    the lucky few who might live to a readjusted live expectancy point
>    of 30 yrs, burning books and computer printouts for cooking and 
>    warmth.

Is this line of argumentation a throwback to the "we've got to have a 
dictator!  How else will society operate?"

>
>        why have books or knowledge when there is noone willing to
>    accept the responsibility of educating your children, the instructor
>    waiting for the parent of Dumb Suzy to avenge her failing grade? 

If it's a private, non-coerced school, why should this happen?

>        sacrificing 55,000 men and frying the brains of another
>    1.5 million solely to fatten the industrial war machine?   using
>    John Foster Dulles' "domino theory" to justify the carnage... 

BTW, in an AP society Vietnam couldn't ever happen, for at least a dozen 
reasons.

>        to bad I was still of an era which said 'you will serve if called'
>    and so stupid to take almost six years to get out.  Would you 
>    serve a country today which is rotten to the core?

No, I won't.  But I will be happy to help eliminate that rot.


>        "Assassination Politics" is nothing more than a childish game
>    which 'legalizes' killing anyone you wish.  are AP's proponents so 
>    naive they believe the bookies will not have any public person 
>    assassinated by rigging the pools for their own profit?  remember,
>    law enforcement ceased with the return of 'law of the jungle' 
>    anarchy.  

"Laws" will no longer be enforced, it's true.  However, legitimate interests 
will be defended and intiation of force will be punished.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com