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

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 09:48 PM 5/25/96 -0400, Subir Grewal wrote:

>The exception I took to your proposal was that it seemed like a
>half-measure to me.  From what I understand of it the porposal is that
>elected officials who "do wrong" (or violate a particular code of conduct)
>should be killed.  I would suggest that this is problematic because it
>does nothing to solve the ills of the system, simply clears those players
>whom a particular set of people do not believe are playing fairly/well.

And any successors that take their place, as well.  Remember, even a tiny 
fraction of the population can eject (by forced resignation or worse) an 
officeholder.  The only ones who survive (literally or figuratively) are the 
ones who don't irritate even a tiny fraction of the public.  Those will be 
the ones who don't do anything, and are not paid by stolen taxes.

>I'm not sure I'd accept the claim that millions of offenders (I too find
>drug laws stifling, illogical and counter to the liberal ideal) are put in
>jail, deprived of their freedom by a particular set of people.  Drug laws
>are a reflection of the opinions held by many people in this country (and
>others), of course we wonder sometimes whether people have really thought
>about it or whether the "just say no" jingle was too irresistable, and the
>concept of "a war on drugs" another tool to define outsiders against whom
>to band against and maintain a cohesive identity.

To a great degree, the "public perception" of drugs and drug laws has been a 
_product_ of the news media, in particular the TV networks and the 
newspapers, as influenced by the government.  Study the matter and you'll 
find this is true.  There is no reason to believe that the community will be 
as anti-drug as the conventional wisdom says they are.

> And the manner in which
>Americans (and indeed other peoples) have been whipped into fervour by
>the rhetoric that accompanies a war is truly frightening. 

This "whipping" is quite intentional.  It keeps cops, prosecutors, and 
judges employed.  Not to mention politicians.


> But I reall
>don't think killing a few Presidents or Joint Chiefs of Staff or Prime
>Ministers will solve this (or anything).

Please understand:  While the term "assassination" is usually used to refer 
to killings of high-level people, I'm using a broader definition to refer to 
ANY target, including middle and lower-level people.  My solution is far 
more thorough than you've implied.  Anyone who exercises force for the state 
is subject to "recall."  Even people who just take a government paycheck are 
at least nominally at risk.


>  It seems as if you were trying
>to say that AP is acceptable because similar methods are employed by the
>state all the time.  I will not defend the coercive actions of the state,
>but I do not believe they give one the right to coerce others, especially
>if they are removed from the actual act.

How "removed" do they have to be to be innocent, in your opinion?

>: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.
>
>But self-defense is not conductive either.  To bring a rather fascinating
>example into this, in the 70s a group of students occupied a variety of
>buildings at NYU in protest against the Cambodian war.  They set a bomb
>in our computing center that was defused just before it blew.  But if it
>had detonated it would have destroyed a rather large computer (used for
>pure mathematical problems that the Dept. of Defense wished to
>incorporate into its Nuclear program)

Nuclear bomb design.  Done with funds stolen from taxpayers.  Done to 
protect the leadership of this country, not the public.

> and a number of people standing
>outside the building.  The rationale used was that this was
>"self-defense", the people of the world were banding together to protect
>each other from the actions of the state. 

In practice, it probably WAS "self-defense."  However, it may not have been 
a particularly selective example of self-defense.  The system I describe is, 
in fact, vastly more effective than this at getting rid of the bad guys, and 
far more selective than a planted bomb.


> While I sympathize with the
>feelings that led the activists to take such measures, I have no respect
>for their methods or the reasoning they employed to extend the argument
>for self-defense into a situation that had nothing to do with
>self-defense.

That's why I think my system will be far better.

>No, I do not wish to condone the coercive actions of the state (and
>certainly not any violent ones), and certainly we all take exception to
>one or another act of the government machine.  Incidentally, I do not
>believe the state has the right to take life in the quest for justice
>(aka the death penalty).  A war against a foreign threat can be justified
>on grounds of self-defense.

Notice, however, that the US government fails to use a cleaner method to 
defeat its opponents (killing the leaders) and in  its place puts the lives 
of thousands of solders at risk.  Isn't this illogical, unless you realize 
that if WE can do that to those foreign leaders, THEY can do the same to OUR 
leaders?  Isn't this more than a bit self-serving on the part of our leaders?

And isn't it immoral for George Bush, for instance, to choose a solution 
that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of comparatively innocent 
Iraqis, both during and after the Gulf war, rather than bumping off Saddam 
Hussein?  Think about it.  Exactly why does he do the former, rather than 
the latter?


>: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.
>
>- From what I've gathered of AP, it attempts no radical reformation of "the
>system", simply adds another set of costs for individuals within the govt.
>to take into account. 

"Another set of costs"?  Yikes!  Read the essay, governments as we know them 
can't possibly survive post-AP.

>I don't think you're proposing a "true democracy"
>or absolute anarchy (without all the conotations of disorder, simply
>no-government), but rather a vigilante clause, I may have misunderstood
>you though. 

It may be looked at as an example of vigilante action, but it will be 
ANONYMOUS vigilantes.

> A minimalist state is generally considered desireable as it
>provides a framework within which individuals can engage in mutually
>beneficial interactions with each other. 

That's conventional wisdom.  Historically, anarchy is considered unstable.  
Freud though so, but he was wrong.  Read part 9.

> Our present structures do not
>"work" very well (though they have their redeeming factors when compared
>to other alternatives) and I'd say we need a greater degree of respect for
>personal liberty and individualism than is manifest in our institutions
>today, but these changes take place on a level very different from that of
>govt.  the state is almost powerless when it comes to these metamorphoses
>in opinion. 

Well, I disagree.  Until recently, public opinion was almost entirely
manufactured.  It was a joint project of the government and the news media.

> They take place through tradition and the spread of ideas not
>through legislation.  The alternative I would suggest is an appreciation
>for the minimalist state (with the observation that there are some things
>the state does do very well, and which are desireable) and the liberty of
>the individual.  Similarly a respect for life is in order, too often we
>think we're absolutely right and believe we should use "any means
>necessary" (no reflection on the misunderstood philosophy of Malcolm X)

Is there any significant likelihood that the people in power today will 
relinquish power absent a system such as AP?  I'm not optimistic about that.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com