Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace

[snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>]

On Wed, 22 May 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 03:55 PM 5/21/96 -0500, snow wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 May 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> >> the assassination politics is quite Hitleresque at its root.
> >> "kill our enemies, and everything will be better. it is our enemies
> >> that are the root of all evil in the world. extinguish them, and
> >> you solve all problems automatically"
> >	
> >	It is more the MAD theory brought down to the personal level.
> 
> With all due respect, I think that comparison is a bit flawed.  MAD (mutual 

	You are right. It is flawed. 

> more,  you'd better not be a crook!

	Or turn in too powerful a crook. Law enforcement won't just go
away. There will always be those of us who feel that most crimes _don't_
deserve the Death Penalty, and that some sort of penal system will
continue to be necessary. In your system this would not be possible
because most people would be afraid to turn people in for fear of
reprisal. 

	I think that the biggest flaw in your system is the belief that
people will act rationally. Do you think that the Menendez(sp?) brothers
would have hesitated one second in having there parents offed to collect
the inheretance? 

> >Note: I don't necessarily think that AP is a good idea. I think
> >that people should do their own dirty work.
> 
> In practice, I think this would be comparatively common as well.  What 
> currently deters such "take the law into your own hands" is the fact that 
> police (being, essentially, in the business of protection) don't want you to 
> provide for yourself by protecting yourself.  They make it hard on people, 
> in the same way they did with Bernard Goetz, the guy who shot four muggers 
> on the New York city subway system.  Once AP gets rid of the police, it will 
> be much easier to protect yourself and not risk jail time, etc.

	Umm... I think that the biggest reason that the Police don't want
you taking the law into your own hands is that civilians tend to screw up
badly. They get the wrong target, they don't stop when they should etc. 
	The POLICE usually don't have a problem with an individual
protecting themselves (as long as the response fits the crime, killing a
shoplifter is a no no.) It is the court system that frowns on it.

	Is there the ability to predict a "mild beating" with your system?
or a "severe beating", or simply a killing? Having one level of punishment
is not a very good legal system. AP cannot replace it. 

 
> Superficially, a person might argue that the lack of police would also make 
> it easier for the muggers.  However, a "professional mugger" would make a 
> LOT of enemies, and it wouldn't take long before he's dead.  He'd only have 
> to be caught once.  Any victim of any mugger would be happy to donate to see 
> him gone.

	Give me the name of a mugger. 

> 
> Right.  Moreover,  I believe that governments simply cannot exist as we know 
> them under these circumstances.  Besides, they won't be necessary.

	See, you have far more faith in humanity than I do. 
	

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com