From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:41:13 -0800 (PST)
To: Sean Roach <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <199702011941.LAA24319@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:26 PM 1/30/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote:
>At 11:15 AM 1/30/97 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>>What you're presented (included in its entirety below) is what I've come to 
>>call an "AP story problem."   I've worked through many of those myself; 
>>their main problem is that they don't carefully describe why _each_ person 
>>in the "play" you've described would be motivated to do what it's claim he 
>>does, and why he DOES NOT do other things to fix the situation he's in.  
>>Remember, I'm not merely talking about the main character, but also the ones 
>>who are (apparently?) incidental.  
>>
>>For just one example, you said:    "conventional bodyguards could be 
>>included, ones with no real pay but with the fore knowledgethat they will be 
>>buried with the tyrant."
>>
>>What motivates these people?  Are they hostages?  If they're hostages, then 
>>presumably that means they're motivated to seek the death of anyone who is 
>>holding them.  What about their relatives; don't they have any sympathy for 
>>those who are taken?  Why don't they donate to AP to see the lead guy dead?
>
>As I stated in the bottom, the children would be privaledged.

Who says?  What if the public doesn't agree?  Might it not be better to 
sacrifice a few children to keep other children alive?


>  They would
>merely be told that it is a great honor.  It could very well be.  Assuming
>that the tyrant did not die, these children would live in comparable luxery.

How much would this cost?  Who would pay?  Where would the money come from?  
Is this "solution" practical for everybody, or just the top guy?


>They would be at risk only if the tyrant was.  By keeping the children at
>hand, the parents would balk at taking action against the tyrant, not only
>their own action, but also that of others.  The children would merely be
>there to thwart the attempts of others.

Suppose that didn't work.  Who would kill the kids if the tyrant died?  Who 
would risk death himself to do this?  Etc.


Hint:  Unfortunately, you don't seem to be pursuing the implications of what 
you are hypothesizing.  This is typical.  Go back and do what I originally 
suggested:  Look at the motivations of EACH person in the "play" and decide 
why he will play along with the game.    This includes not merely the people 
you want to focus on, but also anyone else.




Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com