Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 11:05 PM 2/6/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>From:	IN%"ravage@ssz.com"  "Jim Choate"  6-FEB-1996 22:50:35.24
>
>>What is described is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination. It
>is a pre-meditated act which causes any plea of self-defence to fail.
>------------------
>	If someone has comitted serious enough violations of rights in the
>past, then I would call killing that person justified. First, it prevents any
>future violations of rights by that person. Second, it serves to discourage
>people if they know they can get killed if they do so. (I realize that
>capital punishment by governments doesn't appear to do much good, but the
>people in question- government agents, etcetera- are generally a bit different
>than the gang members who so regularly ignore prison sentences and the death
>penalty.) Third, and getting away from the self-defense argument, it is
>justice. The job of a government, if it has one, is to defend individual
>liberties. It is given privileges in order to enforce that. The abuse of such
>privileges should be met by death. (Yes, I would be in favor of changing
>current laws to remove sovereign immunity and institute a death penalty for
>governmental rights violations. Unfortunately, among the people subject to 
such
>a law are the ones making the laws.)

Thank you for such a well-written defense of my philosophy.

Clearly, the government is now out of effective control of the citizenry; it 
is hard for me to understand how anybody could fail to see this.  The system 
I describe, while it may appear to some to be extreme, is a sincere attempt 
to return control to the populace.


>------------------------
>
>>How many people have to decide that another should be killed for it to be
>ethical? In short, how many people does it take to decide it is a legitimate
>act to take your own life?
>----------------------
>	Why should "how many people" make a difference? If I violate someone's
>rights enough to justify such a course of action, then I should be dead 
even if
>everyone except the victim is cheering. Yes, I realize that Jim Bell's system
>does depend on a group of people. But so, in the end, do all such systems-
>whether they call themselves governments or anarcho-capitalist societies. If
>the Christian Coalition got too many people with guns in the latter, they'd
>rule.
>	Any further discussion would appear to belong in private email; I
>suspect that Jim Bell would appreciate a cc.
>	-Allen


Yes, please.  Frankly, Allen, it's a pleasure to see people really 
UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about!  You obviously do, better than mos
t.