From: Pilgrim <nfn04017@gator.naples.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 01:50:59 +0800
To: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Democratic Assassination
In-Reply-To: <l03102800afc6405bc170@[204.210.206.39]>
Message-ID: <l03102800afc8769946ae@[204.210.206.39]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is built upon
>> the notion that those people who do and say unpopular things deserve death.
>
>Not necessarily. No-one here would begin to suggest that AP *should* be
>used for censorship purposes, to say that AP is a censorship tool is a
>misunderstanding based on that old enemy material determinism. A gun can
[...lots more other stuff that revolve around this point...]

This is true. Just because AP exists, doesn't immediately imply that it can
become a tool for censorship. It was, after all, intended to be used as a
tool to get rid of 'bad' people.

But the human beings are funny, in a way....and inordinately
creative....how many tools has technology given us, that human beings use
to kill each other. You can blame it on government if you wish, but human
beings have been killing each other long before large sprawling governments
existed.

We are very good at taking tools and using them for evil purposes...to kill
and maim one another.

So, as you have said, does this mean that we should eliminate all tools,
just because they should be used for evil purposes? As you have mentioned,
this is an insane notion. It can't be done, and ought not to be done. If it
were, I wouldn't be able to mow my lawn later on this afternoon :-)

So we should keep hammers, and axes, and cars, etc, regardless of the fact
that they could be used for evil purposes. So, what is so different about
AP?

Technology is a wonderous thing. It lets us do things more quickly, more
conveniently. I like my computer. It helps me to do things much faster, and
more accurately, than I could do them myself.

So there is something that greatly disturbs me when we merge the speed and
efficiency of technology with something as horrific as death. Indeed it has
already been done...(lemme digress for a little while)...I remember all of
the press conferences that were held during the Gulf War, when the United
States military was showing off its flashy high tech toys, which allowed
our fighters to blow things up from a very safe distance. We saved a lot of
"the good guy's" lives that way...our troops didn't encounter much blood at
all. But perhaps war ought not to be so clean....perhaps war should be
brutal and messy and bloody and costly...not because blood and guts and
horror and terror are good things, but because war is, in and of itself, a
horrific thing...and this technology blinds us to that fact....in an
attempt to make war "clean" with technology, we have only blinded
ourselves...and thus war becomes a little too easy for my own liking.

(...almost done digressing...)

Though I am not a rabid fan of Star Trek, I recall one episode that seems
to illustrate my point. The scene was set in some star system, with these
two worlds that had been at war for ages. However, these two planets had
become so 'evolved' that they used technology to greatly tidy up the mess
of war. The war was fought entirely in a computer simulation, and those
people who were killed were notified of that fact, upon which they walked
to the nearest disintegration chamber and were disintegrated. No blood. No
guts. No horror. Very 'civil'. Thus the war never really ended, because it
turned out to be 'not so bad,' regardless of the fact that scores of people
were still dying. The human toll was immense, though everyone involved was
completely blinded to that fact.

The episode ends with the Enterprise inadvertantly 'foiling' the system,
forcing the people of both worlds to face the horror of war square in the
face.

(...I'm done digressing now...)

I think there are great similarities between high-tech war and AP. Both are
very 'tidy' ways to kill people, at great distances from unseen locations,
without having to deal with the negative reprocussions of the act. They
both make killing a little too clean. They both make it easy for us to
dehumanize our targets, so that what we're killing is not really another
human being, but some object....some nuisance that must be destroyed.

If I kill someone with a hammer, or a gun, there is a certain level of
commitment that I have to make. I have to deal with the dehumanization. I
have to deal risk being caught. **I** have to do it.

Personally, I find it would find it hard to dehumanize someone when I put a
gun to their head and read the look of terror in their face. I would find
it hard to commit the act, knowing that there is a manifold number of ways
that I could be caught. Furthermore, I know I could not deal with the
responsibility of killing someone afterwards.

But AP is a nice neat solution to this. It makes killing very tidy, and
minimizes my own responsibility. I can use it to easily fool myself into
thinking that I'm really not resposible for killing a human
being....rather...I simply got rid of a nuisance...a source of pain....I
can think of it more akin to squashing a bug on a wall, rather than ending
someone's life.

Killing people is horrific and should remain that way..lest killing becomes
a little too easy...and once killing people becomes as easy as buying a
newspaper, who knows people will do with it. AP is way too easy for my
liking.


>> Even if digital cash, anonymous remailers and strong encryption could
>> enable us to set up a democratic system of assassination (which it
>> couldn't)...
>
>Expand on this please, if you believe anonymous digital assasination
>markets are not possible from a technical point of view please explain why...

My point was not that anonymous digital assasination was not possible...but
rather, the notion of such a mechanism being democratic is incorrect. If it
were democratic, there would be some sort of referendum...some sort of vote
being taken...and if enough people vote no, then it wouldn't take place.

This mechanism is not democratic, in the sense that, in order for a killing
to take place...one doesn't need a majority...one only needs enough
resources. If a couple of billionaires decide to knock off a young
entrepenuir (sp), they can do it very easily, and don't need to ask
anyone's permission.

In my mind, the notion of this mechanism being democratic was the only
****REMOTELY**** redeeming characteristic about this whole thing...and my
argument is that this system isn't even democratic. To make it work, one
doesn't need enough people and enough consenting opinions, simply enough
resources. While the two are sometimes related, they aren't always.

>
>> I still wouldn't want to live in a society where killing is
>> democratized...I do not want to live in a society where people can
>> abitrarily take a vote on whether I should live or die....
>
>You do live in such a society, if the government decides to fuck you over
>and manages somehow to make a muder charge stick 12 randomly selected
>people can decide whether you live or die. If you say something unpopular
>you can be assasinated.

This is a nasty truth.....so do I want this power expanded?

Scenario:
I'm very active in Christian outreach and evangelism. I move into a small
town of 20000 people and start a ministry there. I have success there, and
therefore greatly upset a fair portion of the town.

Now, the chances of a man in black from Washington DC to knock me off are
relatively small, compared to the chances of a couple of bigshots around
town arranging my murder using AP. This goes back to the point about AP
making killing a touch too easy.

If the government has the power to easily assassinate me for being
unpopular, this is a bad thing....but it doesn't lead me to conclude that
more people should have this kind of power....because I fear that rather
than this becoming a tool to fight oppression....it will simply become a
tool to kill people we don't like...politicians or janitors.

>
>> And maybe...just maybe...he is just as big a victim of "The Machine" as you
>> are.
>
>This is a difficult point to even contemplate as having any basis in
>reality. Do you know any police officer (lets make that more specific
>and say DEA inspector) who is a victim? Do you know of any possibility,
>no matter how remote, that someone delegated the task of beating
>confessions out of suspects is a "victim" himself?

It's a long story, and I can't go into it much without probably angering
many people on this listserv....but the roots of this idea begin in some
fundamental beliefs about people that I, being a committed Christian, carry
with me. If you care to get the full sermon, lemme know and I'll send you a
personal email.


>> Justice rarely comes out of hatred.
>
>I agree, it is rarely productive to hate your enemy, but it is often a
>natural reaction...

I agree, it is a natural reaction. I'm as guilty of it as the next
guy...though it's being worked out of me...SLOWLY :-D

Take Care,
Pilgrim