From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:39:45 -0800 (PST)
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
Message-ID: <199702030837.AAA08320@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:18 PM 2/1/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>Forwarded message:
>
>> Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is
>> trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that:
>> 
>> 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals.
>
>But other than two points they already do. The two points being,
>
>1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree.

Maybe this will appear to you to be too-subtle a distinction, but I don't 
share the misimpression of equating what "society" (the citizenry?) accepts 
and what government-types accept.  For instance, as I understand it the 
public uniformly rejects the concept of wiretaps as a method of 
law-enforcement, yet they are done anyway.  In effect, it would be correct 
both to say:

a.   Society will never accept wiretapping.  (where "society" is defined as 
the collection of individuals)

   as well as saying...

b.   Wiretapping is a "recognized legal concept now."  (because the 
implication is that "recognized" refers to a tiny subset of society, the 
thugs who run the "justice system.")

Now, it's my own personal opinion that wiretapping is unconstitutional, but 
is done anyway for the same reason other unconstitutional things are 
regularly done by government:  Despite public disapproval, the public is 
never actually given the opportunity to make the decision.

The fact is, libel lawsuits are apparently a rather rare "tool" that we 
don't even need.  Perhaps a REAL LAWYER <tm> who is aware of the statistics 
can tell us how often they actually occur.  I argue that something that rare 
is, almost by definition, not really needed.   


>My solutions to these two issues are:
>
>1.  Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case
>    should be pursued.

Yes, I'd like to "remove a few lawyers," as well.  Not quite the way you 
would, however.


>4.  By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff
>    the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as
>    well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry.

Why not a full "loser pays" system?  And I mean NOT ONLY for civil cases, 
but also criminal cases!  Perhaps the government would be a bit less 
enthusiastic about harassing drug defendants if it was forced to pay for 
their acquittals after a FIJA loss!   

Consider, for example, that if the government had to pay after a loss, it 
would become very difficult for the government to harrass a person like Phil 
Zimmermann, unlike today where charges can be brought even if it is 
recognized they won't stick, secure in the knowledge that he'd be out a 
great deal of money in his defense.  How much sweeter would the victory be 
if all costs were compensated?  


> 
>> 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant
>>    level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more,
>>    until there's a sudden, catastrophic break.
>
>Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who
>represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are
>impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its
>various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. 

Do you always produce such opaque commentary?  <Sigh>   Perhaps you could 
re-write the above statement in ordinary English.

The reality is, the guarantees supposedly provided by the US Constitution 
are guarantees in name only.  The system is thoroughly corrupted and biased.  



>This
>axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have
>(ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are
>NOT created equal.

It's hard to know how you come to this conclusion.  If anything, what I'm 
trying to do is to permanently destroy a system which has allowed a tiny 
fraction of society to control things for the rest of us for centuries, and 
longer.  If anything, it is the system I'm trying to destroy which has taken 
the position that, in reality, people are not equal.

On the other hand, I'm NOT a proponent for "egalitarianism," or enforced 
equality, at all!  I'm confident that once the system is dismantled that 
enforces inequality on us, we can live with the result.


>> 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of
>>    corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide
>>    unnecessary.
>
>But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization.
>Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination.
>Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other.

It's interesting that I keep seeing the same misinterpretations of the AP 
system.  AP is not simply about killing people.  And no, it hasn't been 
tried before.    The occasional assassination is no more like AP than a 
random shot in the dark is like a well-aimed round.  The first may, rarely, 
do the same thing as the second, but there is no prospect of a likely 
repetition.

_SOME_ people seem to "get" this, why not you?  The _absolutely_essential_ 
element that distinguishes AP is the system that allows people's individual 
desires to be denominated in terms of money, and accumulated until an 
anonymous person satisfies that desire and collects the reward.  And, 
moreover, that this system remains in place forever.  


> There is
>nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social
>interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will
>necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived
>by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the
>opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the
>government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo
>forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world
>example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut).

I keep telling you that "AP has never been tried before."  


>
>The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by
>the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity
>and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance
>of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled.
>By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers
>to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their
>system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear
>that such activities in no way reduced corruption.

AP is NOT the same thing as mere assassination.  Period.  If anything, there 
are excellent reasons why ordinary assassination can, indeed, increase 
corruption while the AP system would reduce it.  

The most obvious difference is this:  The motivations are vastly different.  
Heretofore, assassinations have occurred based on the desires of only a tiny 
fraction of the population.  Often one person, or only a few.  In other 
words, the assassinations which DO occur are NOT the ones that "the rest of 
us" would choose.  The latter type DO NOT occur!  


>If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher
>a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society.
>Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic.

It isn't necessary that any system be "democratic."    "Democracy" assumes 
that certain questions need to be answered by VOTE, as opposed to simply 
allowing individuals to answer those questions for themselves.  We don't all 
get together and vote on what religion we'll all be forced to observe, do 
we?  No.  That's because it is accepted that certain areas are off-limits 
for even a "democratic" system to decide.  We don't have a national vote to 
decide what color to paint ALL of our houses.   We don't have a vote to 
decide what meal to eat next Thursday.  

Well, in my opinion there are few if any proper functions for a so-called 
"democratic" system.  That's because I believe that most if not all 
decisions currently made in any "democratic" system shouldn't be made at 
that level at all!


>What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and
>secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same
>time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also
>be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with
>immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes
>threats and the carrying out thereof.

You clearly don't understand it!


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com