Re: e-$ and AP

["Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon@citenet.net>]

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:58:02 -0400, The Sheriff wrote:

>>[note for newbies: AP = Assasination Politics system by Jim Bell]

>>It won't happen that way.  Your analysis lacks the inverse reaction: weirdos
>>unconsciously congregating by each putting an independent buck on the head of
>>a redneck...
>>
>>As soon as you could identify a group, it could become a victim.  Study
>>clearly show that if only 1% of a population carries a concealed weapon,
>>crime
>>rate on the honest citizen go down dramatically (around 75 to 85%
>>depending on
>>the crime).  Which redneck will like to run the risk of being killed?  "Which
>>one of you sirs will volunteer?".
>
>While your point about concealed weapons is clear -- and as far as
>I'm concerned, correct -- the rest of the two previous paragraphs
>were a little fuzzy.

Well, what prevents minorities to put a price on majority's head?

>>Your analysis is not consistent with reality again.  People will not get
>>"allowed" to live, they will simply mind their own business and live without
>>making enemies.  "Live and let live or get killed", "MYOB or else" will be
>>the
>>rule.
>
>Au contraire.  I make quite a few enemies simply even when I DO
>mind my own business.  I've had the...pleasure of meeting a certain
>number of individuals who would be happy to execute me for my
>choice of religion, should they find it out.  It wouldn't matter
>if I was living under a rock when those folks found me out -- they'd
>yank me out from under it and have their way with me.

No.  They'd execute you today, but not in an AP world for if you publicize your 
situation, they'll have so much on their head that they won't be living to 
enjoy their victory.  It seems that you keep looking at only one single side of 
the equilibrium and claim that it will shift on only one side.  What's good for 
the gander is good for the goose, the same mechanics applies.  Do you think 
that people won't think about it twice before putting a price on somebody's 
head, knowing fully that this very act will certainly bring disgruntled 
relatives to put an ever bigger price on the initial jerk?

>I will certainly give you that, given the general mindset of the
>average American (simply drawing on my experience), people being
>"allowed" to live (at present, anyway) isn't likely.  At the same
>time, however, I came to my conclusion by taking today's situation
>to what I believe is the logical conclusion -- people don't simply
>let live in America.  If you're unhappy with anything or anybody,
>you either lead a protest, file a lawsuit, pass a law, ratify an
>ammendment, or some combination of these and other recourses.  It
>has gotten to the point that folks simply won't let much be any-
>more.  Even if you spilled the hot coffee on yourself, McDonald's
>winds up paying .75 million dolars, rather than you taking respon-
>sibility for your own actions.

I cannot talk about the fineness of American ethics.  We don't have this 
problem here.  We still say to our friends "See you later!" instead of "Sue you 
later..."

>The above mentioned tools are abused these days because everybody
>wants repayment/revenge for what happens to them, even if it's
>eccentially their own damn fault.  As such, if AP was publically
>available, it is my contention that it, too, will be abused in much
>the same way that the civil court system has.

The civil court system is abused because the frivolous plaintif doesn't have to 
bear the true cost of his actions.  I trust that in any cause where both 
parties are known, which is the case in most disputes, AP will stop frivolous 
action.  Remember: AP bounties are publicly posted, so, anybody with a price on 
his head will know about it.  And anybody with a price on his head is likely to 
know which frivolous SOB did it so: frivolous SOB beware.  


>And, anyhow, doesn't that just prove my point?  You piss off the
>wrong people, get into an argument, everybody assumes you're a killer
>because the other guy is dead, and suddenly you're not being "allowed"
>to live anymore.

It makes for a very civilized society...  :-)  MYOB or else...

>>Yeah, but hte way it is ran now (and my beloved Kanada too) is NOT as a
>>representative republic.  You live under Admiralty Law, in the world of
>>statutory law.  Admiralty Law imposed on the land is despotism and this is in
>>the regime you live.  Forget about Natural Law and Anglo-Saxon Common Law, I
>>don't think there are Common Law courts in NY state!
>
>Oh, hey, I'm not saying that we're still doing things the way
>our forefathers intended.

Yeah, I had a hunch about that...  :-)

>I'm just saying that our government
>was created the way it was for a reason, one of those reasons
>being that raw democracy, even where it's money doing the
>voting in alt.anonymous.ap, doesn't work the way this country
>was intended to.

I agree.  But the question, IMO, is not _if_ AP appears but _when_ it does...
Could you give me one single argument, from the moment fully anonymous e-$ 
exists, showing me that it will not emerge?


>To be perfectly honest, I simply don't think that'll work.

I don't advocate it as a working system, I only say that there is no way to 
prevent it to emerge and that it will 'work' as in 'exist and probably 
flourish', notwithstanding that it is 'good' or not.


>When
>you're anonymous, if you place money on the wrong head, where is
>the error correction?  Where is the reconing?  Where is the appeal?

I suppose that one could prove his innocence publicly.  I hypothetize that 
"ethical hitmen" will emerge, I hypothetize that non-ethical hitmen will get 
not eliminated but at least inherently limited by AP itself.  And I suppose 
that there will be the offer and demand that will work too.

>The legal system, though not perfect, is far better

Compared to what?  Compared to the way it _should_ work, I agree.  But compare 
it to the way it _did_ and _does_ work in reality, all over the world (early 
1900 Russia had a fantastic constitution modeled on the USA one...) is another 
story.  The Roman empire had it's republican principles trampled upon, and so 
did every other countries in the last 3000 years.  AFAIK, only the Swiss 
succeded in keepping their republic intact for at last 700 years.  


> than an AP
>system because, in most cases anyway, it's public, there are venues
>through which you can persue the rectification of wrongs against
>your person (even on the part of the system itself), and given the
>number of judges who will review a case in the process of appealing
>percieved in justices, the legal system as it stands today is far
>closer to being failsafe than an AP system will be any day of the
>week.

Have you checked how judges, which apply Admiralty Law all over the ex-british 
countries, really behave?  Did you ever asked yourself why they wear black, 
what is the history of their clothes, rituals and habits?

Have fun!


>That doesn't eliminate the risk of abuse.

Life is a terminal sexually transmitted condition...  Go talk with a few 
libertarians and ask them about the present riskless situation...

>And what if his position is a just one?  One that he worked hard for
>his whole life, one that supports not only himself but his family?

If his position is a just one, the initial twit that got put a prize on the 
head of a just man will probably get a much bigger on his own head up until he 
retires it...

Even if everybody that put a buck on a twit's head did not remove it after the 
twit removed his threath, who cares about earning a few bucks while there are 
more to be earned by hitting on somebody else?  Beside, after a few SOB get 
killed because they attacked honest people, don't you think that an equilibrium 
will come where there will be very little of these unjust and frivolous prizes?

>Who, I ask you, has the right to not only drive him out of his house,
>town or position, but to do it anonymously so that he never knows
>the face of the individual who ruined his life for what may turn out
>to be a frivilous reason?

Usually, effects have causes.  I don't think that people will put a contract on 
a given name flat with no explanation.  I suppose people will seek to remediate 
to the problem they caused if they are truly responsible.  An accute sense of 
Natural Law will suddenly come back to even the stupidest of scummy rats...

>At best, it's domestic terrorism.

Isn't it what the govt does anyway?  Taxes are voluntary to freemen of commoner 
status, but obligatory to taxpayers.  In the US, you become a 'taxpayer' when 
yo acquire your SS number.  You sign on the dotted line your life away.
In Kanada, it is when we sign our Federal Income Tax form.
>From then on, you enter the realm of contractual law, away from the Common Law 
that gives you rights.  Show the finger to the IRS and try to define the 
spirited talk that will ensue as anything else than domestic terrorism...

>No system is a monster, automatically or otherwise.  I'm speaking
>of the people who I can see making use of it.

Let's not nitpick.  System + Human Nature = quasi-predictable outcome...


Ciao

jfa


Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds (Montreal), Canada

> Reality Is.
  The Law of Cause and Effects operates, always.
  It is _not_ optional or alterable by wishes.

> One of the biggest crime against humanity is to
  propagate the virus-of-the-mind idea that say that
  the Human Animal is born intrinsically corrupted

PGP keys: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C