Re: Subject: Re: Race Bit: C

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 02:31 PM 9/5/96 -0600, Anonymous wrote:
>>	If I understand you correctly, it is OK for a government to
>>	institute violence against the residents of the land it claims
>>	dominion over, but it is not acceptable for the inhabitants of
>>	that piece of land to respond in self defence.
>
>I will say this:
>
>No, government initiation of violence (such as in Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.) is not OK,
>and AsPol initiation of violence is not either. This can lead into a long argument about
>just _when_ violence is initiated, where opinion is more important than fact, but IMO:
>
>Randy Weaver was not initiating violence.
>David Keresh was not initiating violence.
>Pot growers and smokers are not initiating violence.

No argument here...

> But
>Mr. Bell, if he follows through on his scheme, *will* be initiating violence. His scheme,
>while it can sound tempting (especially every April 15th!) has no guarantee that it will
>_only_ be used against the Lon Horiuchis of our government,


Life generally doesn't come equipped with any guarantees.  Some people 
object to private ownership of guns, on a similar theory that "there is no 
guarantee they won't be used against innocent people."  Others (most of 
us?), particularly libertarians challenge this, pointing out that it is the 
abuse of a right which should be punished, rather than curtailing a right 
simply because a small minority abuse it.  To the extent we believe the 
latter argument, we are accepting the idea that a "guarantee" is not necessary.

AP, ultimately, is a tool that can be used well or used badly.  I advocate 
using it well.

>in fact, it may be said it
>is not guaranteed to not be used against Mr. Bell himself, as many have joked.


Check out what I wrote at the end of AP part 7:

"Terror, too, because this system may just change almost EVERYTHING how we 
think about our current society, and even more for myself personally, the 
knowledge that there may some day be a large body of wealthy people who are 
thrown off their current positions of control of the world's governments, 
and the very-real possibility that they may look for a "villain" to blame 
for their downfall.  They will find one, in me, and at that time they will 
have the money and (thanks to me, at least partially) the means to see their 
revenge.  But I would not have published this essay if I had been unwilling 
to accept the risk."


Long before I started publicizing AP, I had made my decision.


> There are two roads to take in life, convincing and coercing others. 
> I think that the former is still possible, Mr. Bell and many others disagree.

In a quote attributed to Al Capone, he said something like, "You can get 
more with a kind word and a gun, than you can with a kind word alone."  
Capone was probably talking about offense, but the principle is even more 
applicable to _defense_:  If you have a gun, you can prevent somebody else 
from coercing you, and ensure that they have to CONVINCE you!   AP is like a 
gun which can be aimed at the agents of the majority, to prevent them from 
violating the rights of the minority.

> I worry that abuse of the very young
>and weak (for now) anonymity system for the purpose of initiating, rather than exposing,
>violence will lead to more government violence than we already have.

First, AP only "initiates"  if it is used against people who have not,
 themselves, initiated force or fraud.  I contend that while this is not 
impossible, it is improbable.  If you choose a target that "everyone" else 
agrees has initiated force, you'll only have to cough up a dollar, or a 
quarter, or even a dime and you'll all get your wish.  Randomly select a 
guiltless individual and you'll be the only one paying, not to mention the 
fact that you might  have trouble finding an AP organization that'll take 
your malicious donation. This translates into:  "They'll exist, but due to 
lack of competition they'll be able to insist on taking a healthy cut of 
their own."

In addition, if you attempt to use AP against somebody who already knows 
it's probably you (say, an ex business partner you just ripped off?), its 
anonymity won't be much use.


> Perhaps I am
>wrong and there is no hope; but if so, that means another revolution. 
Revolutions are
>very romantic sounding, to those who have not been in a war.

The whole point of crypto-anarchy is that revolutions are CHANGING.   Think 
of a revolution like an earthquake:  It's the sudden release of stress built 
up over years or decades.  In an earthquake, if that release could be spread 
out from the seconds or minute it normally takes, to hours or even days (or 
better yet, continuously) the amplitude would be far smaller and you 
probably wouldn't even notice it.  Likewise, politically, the only reason 
you get revolutions is because political leadership gets entrenched and 
resists change.  Even in democracy, which is supposed to facilitate changes, 
eventually the politicians learn to play one group off another, leading to 
the same kind of social stratification problems that even dictatorships have.




Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com