Re: [SCARE]: "If you only knew what we know..."

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 10:39 AM 5/25/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote:

>I think an insight your analysis may benefit by is that certain
>institutions/societal norms create incetives for "corrupt politicians".
>Hayek argues against the "benevolent dictator" concept because he says no
>gentle person would ever aspire to be a dictator.  The system itself calls
>for people who are ruthless to take the reins.  A similar argument can be
>made for the various functions of a modenr democracy (like the US).  It is
>rarely that we hear of a considerate IRS auditor, or a principled
>politician.  The structures themselves call for and promote those who (in
>that an individual is more successful if they) are corrupt, power-hungry,
>unprincipled and ruthless.

Which means that attempting to clean up the system by half-measures is 
doomed to failure, wouldn't you say?


>As for Assasination Politics, I can understand such proposals in jest. 

Ironically, I originally proposed it to myself in jest.  However, I quickly 
realized that there was far more to it than a joke.  I went through most of 
the objections that were later commonly raised against it, and then 
concluded that those objections were invalid. I also noted that most people 
recognized the flaws in those objections after they were explained to them.  
It has the prospect of enormously changing society.   Too many pieces fell 
into place, like a jigsaw puzzle.  This system is NOT an accident; it is 
fundamental.  Admittedly, it is still a bit scary, because of the depth of 
its changes, but that does not make it wrong! 

> I too say things to appear controversial. 

AP was not publicized "to appear controversial."  I think it's 
"controversial" simply because it is so different from the current system, 
and those in power in that system (and their sympathizers) realize how 
serious and enormous such a change would be.

> As a serious political structure, however, it is reprehensible.  

Unfortunately, that's not a particularly specific claim.  "reprehensible"?  
I'd call the current system reprehensible.  Why should the government be 
able to put over a million people in prison, most for victimless drug 
crimes? Why should the government be able to start a war and send millions 
of people against their will, and thousands to die (as in Vietnam)?  Why 
should their be repeated mass killings (Armenia, Russia, Germany, China, 
Uganda, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc)?  If you could show that the current system 
had somehow been fixed to prevent these kinds of incident, you might have a 
point, but you cannot.

Your claim is also biased:  Everything you think about the term, 
"political," is based on the kind of systems you know and have known.  For 
you, and most of us, politics is just about defined as that system by which 
a small number of people manipulate a larger number, ostensibly guided by 
the wishes of the larger number.


>  Murder cannot be condoned (as a pacifist,
>the argument that politicians create wars and must be killed for that
>reason does not hold much water for me) 

Then you need to learn to be more consistent.  While you may, indeed, be a 
pacifist, most of the rest of us see nothing wrong with the concept of 
self-defense.  You may argue as to what's really self-defense and what 
isn't,  but the reality is that government engages in violence and the 
threat of violence regularly.  Are you, by your statements, implicitly 
tolerating violence by government that you wouldn't tolerate from 
individuals?  It is easy to fall into such a trap.


>and the proponents of such systems
>would do well to look more closely at the systemic ills rather than 
individuals.

Why?  Isn't it possible that it is not possible to reform a system because 
embedded within it is a fundamental flaw which makes real freedom 
impossible?  The current system is heirarchically structured, and results in 
situations where millions die in the place of the very few.  I'd say that's 
a serious, systemic flaw that needs fixing.

> The argument that AP is an institutional dis-incentive for
>"bad" representatives that offsets other incentives is problematic since I
>do not believe the methods are just.

I invite you to provide an alternative solution.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com