Re: Why does the state still stand:

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

On 15 May 96 at 0:45, Ed Carp wrote:

> The problem, however, is twofold - (1) the government will
> play mind games on the rest of the population to make you look like
> a terrorist, or whatever turns the populace against you,

Well, first of all, we should find how much of the population
*really* believe in what govt says.  There is a difference between
the politically correct opinion that Joe & Jane Public give to a
poll interviewer and what they really think.

Second, you suppose that Joe & Jane Public really like and approve what 
they understand from what the medias say.

And finally third, this system does not work according to the will
of a majority.  It wouldn't take too many peoples who believe that the
medias and their perceived lack of integrity is widely responsible
for the way the world goes right now, to have a substantial prize put
on the head of the medias.

Therefore, any journalist with two+ working neurons will realize
that sticking to the most objective facts available would be the best
way to build a great reputation while sticking to govt propaganda
would be a great way to attract a prize on his head. 


> and (2) the
> government tends to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.  They
> don't care what kind of collateral damage they inflict (witness Waco
> and Ruby Ridge) as long as they can make their point.

If peoples decided to put a prize on the medias or some
jounalists *before* they do on the govt, it might very well undercut
many of the counterattack any govt might have.

Among the ways a govt would have to circumvent that might be:
- create their own medias and have tight security and anonymity
- forbid the press from reporting certain events
- etc.

(Again, many counter arguments have as a basic premise that the 
populace is stupid.  I do not believe the contrary, I simply say that 
I do not know.  Future will show.)

So, to see how AP will make the system evolve, you have to assess
the communication capabilities of govt vs the individual.  This is
central to AP and the nature of actual govts.  This is *why* the
internet is *so* dangerous to any govts that seek to either retain or
increase their power, even if it actually touches only but a tiny 
portion of world population.

For the first time in the history of humanity, we have a peer to
peer communication capability and an individual-to-world broadcasting
capability that is not controllable in practice by any other entity
(such as law, high finance, etc)


The explains fully why the various govts what to find a way to 
enforce internet laws, breakable crypto schemes and non-anonymous 
protocols.


JFA
PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S
SYSTEM.  MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS
AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE
THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT
THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED.  IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE.

 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee  
 Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses

 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants.
 Physists, technologists and engineers.

 PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
 ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891