Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

>What?!?  You mean that after 100 million war deaths in this century alone, 
>you're suggesting that we DON'T have "free-for-all bloody violence"?  Or are 
>you simply used to the kind of violence that exists today?  That's a common 
>trap people fall into:  They simply accept whatever current system we have, 
>as if it is somehow required or okay or...

ah yes, more "two wrongs make a right". "dammit, the government gets
to kill people all the TIME, why can't we share the same JOY in doing
so? the world would be a far better place. Assassination Politics--
it's only *fair*!!"

>
>Right!  There are no "laws" per se.  But there are people, and their 
>interests, and what they believe to be their rights.

as I was saying, I believe one of my rights is that anyone who disagrees
with me about the horror and depravity of AP should be snuffed out 
immediately.

>RIGHT!  But as importantly, they aren't the _victims_ of that "judicial 
>system" either.  Rodney King, for instance.  Donald Scott.  Randy Weaver.  
>The Branch Davidians, etc.  All these people were fundamentally victims of 
>an organization political/legal heirarchy filled with people who had 
>(defacto) greater rights/authority than ordinary citizens, and abused the 
>public with it.
>

ah, so two wrongs make a right. if a court anywhere at any time in the
US, in centuries of perhaps hundreds of thousands of decisions, makes
a decision YOU PERSONALLY DISAGREE WITH, then you are fully justified
in going out and shooting some people (or government bureacrats, that
is, who cannot really be considered human)

>I've explained that I believe that the post-AP world will be far less 
>violent than today,

hee, hee. that's like Hitler explaining why the enemies of the state
must be expurgated for any meaningful advancement in the glorious 1000 year 
reich. read "mein kampf". surely you can borrow a lot of his ideas.
obviously you already have many of them.

 partly because there will be no people in positions of 
>authority who can abuse the rest of us with impunity, or force us to go to 
>war against our will. 

ah yes. kill everyone who moves. then you will finally have peace. what
about simply resisting a government that supposedly "forces" you to
do something? well, I have to admit that just shooting government 
bureacrats is probably much more fun. I guess that is the definition of
resistance for you. it's so @#$%^^&* tedious and
time consuming to do anything else.

 It will also allow GOOD people to punish BAD people 
>without depending on the "system" to do it.

hee, hee. that's funny, because you have alway struck me as
a BAD person. and I KNOW that I am a GOOD person.

  It will also tend to prevent 
>the enforcement of "victimless crime" laws that currently result in 60-70% 
>of the prison and jail population.

uh huh. it probably leaves your dishes virtually spotless too. gosh, 
can you tell me where I can buy this wonderful stuff?

> You need to show that yes, you see the advantages, but also show that you 
>have a plausible belief that my system will be worse than the status quo.  
>Citing a specific potential problem without quantifying it is pointless.

yes, clearly I have utterly failed to demonstrate why shooting
random government bureacrats would not improve our reality but in
fact make it worse. I'll have to work on my case some more. I fully
concede to your superior debate skills that have left me choking on
dust.

>>but who decides what is wrong?
>
>Each individual, for himself.  True, he may occasionally make mistakes, but 
>I contend that the vast majority of these decisions will be entirely 
>justified.  The truly bad people, the REAL criminals, will not last long.

you've got something there. it's an easy way of looking at it all. if
a lot of people are dying like flies around me because of AP,  I only
need conclude they were the real criminals. what a relief!! it would
be quite horrible if innocent people died. that's the part I like
most about your plan. only criminals are killed. the innocent would
be left alone. now that you explain it in those terms I find it far
more appealing and perhaps even workable.

>If the danger you describe was of higher probability than the alternative, 
>the status quo, you might have a point.  But it isn't.  Further, the 
>prospect of AP getting rid of (or reforming, because they'll have no choice) 
>most of the real criminals (plus de-populating government and preventing its 
>abusiveness) results in a dramatic reduction in the violations of rights 
>that will occur.

actually, your ideas sound so outstanding and progressive
that I wish you would run for office. in fact if you don't I'm
going to put your name on the next write-in ballot. we'll get you
in a place where your ideas can have some application if it kills
somebody. hehehehhee

>Just because we currently think of "the government" as "the entity created 
>to safeguard rights" doesn't mean that this is really so, and it doesn't 
>mean that it actually achieves a net protection of our rights.  What 
>government actually does is to monopolize (as best it can) the use of force, 
>and then force the public to pay for a protection service.  And monopolies 
>result in classicly bad service, as we all know.

right. so the solution to this thing is to just kill everybody that is
participating in its perpetuation. of course you shouldn't use words
like "kill" outright. use words like "self defense" ad nauseam. such
is the true art of the propagandist. congratulations on your mastery!!

>If the probability of an improper action is dramatically reduced, without 
>being eliminated, that is an improvement, right?  Tell me, as a citizen 
>don't we deserve changing to a system that reduces violations of rights?

yeah. and I like the idea of shooting people as the only means to do so.
I guess that once I learn to read between your lines, and find what you
are really advocating, I feel much better.

>>it will "work" exactly as anonymous murdering now works. AP already exists, 
>>that's what you don't understand.
>
>No, it doesn't, certainly not quantitatively, and in practice not 
>qualitatively, either.  

yeah, assassinations of political leaders are kinda rare. like kennedy.
and then there's the bungling like with Reagan. really, we need a better
system. we need to increase the percentage. it doesn't work right now
because the efficacy is way lacking. I'm glad someone with brains such
as yourself is working on this problem. again, perhaps you should talk
to TCM who also believes that a more mafia-like reality would be the
salvation of humanity.

>Take a 5-foot wave, and notice that it doesn't overflow a 50-foot seawall.  
>Twenty of them, separately, likewise don't get past it.  But combine them in 
>one large wave, and the 100-foot wave does get by.  The fundamental 
>advantage of AP is that the desires of thousands of people can be combined 
>in order to accomplish what no individual would be able to induce on his own.

beautiful. I always love your analogies in which you talk about waves
instead of killing and murdering politicians. its so much more poetic.
your opponents are the ones that use all the crass words. well, screw 'em.