Re: AP [was: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet] [NOISE]

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 12:38 PM 9/22/96 -0400, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
>
>I agree with Bill, AP sounds like a very good club for the Exon types
>to beat us with. 

But they're not doing it.  They know about it, but they're NOT using it.  
This should tell you something.    This really is no surprise to me; before 
I started publicizing AP, I tried to carefully consider whether letting the 
cat out of the bag was going to assist the government in stopping it.  My 
conclusion was that they didn't stand a chance.  If anything, they're afraid 
of publicizing the idea, because their opposition to it can look only 
self-serving.

>Jim's latest comments sounded no different to me than the mealy mouthed
>"understanding" messages that Sinn Fein publish about the IRA. Given
>the opportunity to condem any attack on the President under AP rules
>we get a non commital non-condemnation. Its the type of thing that Gerry
>Adams says after his men have just killed two kids with a bomb in a litterbin
>outside a MacDonalds.

Don't try to tar me with that brush.  I made it clear long ago that I'm 
opposed to truly random attacks on ordinary citizens.  However, I hasten to 
add that I'd very much prefer that these attacks be re-targeted against the 
people who deserve them.  However, I usually find that the people who make 
the biggest deal about disliking random citizen attacks are the ones who 
recommend replacing them with...nothing...and have no plan to solve the 
problems with any other method, violent or otherwise.  

[doctrinaire BS deleted]

>As the Marxist idealogues got frustrated by their evident lack of progress
>they turned to terrorism. The Bader Minehof gang believed that they could 
>spark the revolution by jolting society out of its complacency. Their
>strategy was remarkably like AP.

Somehow, I doubt it.  Anybody who thinks an AP-like system would be 
effective for bringing in his pet communist (or fascist, or monarchist, or 
anything other than pure-anarchic) government is an idiot.  AP is 
fundamentally anti-heirarchical in its leanings and effects.

>If the heads of large corporations were
>likely to be assasinated then noone would want to lead a large firm.

Who said companies need "leaders"?  Remember, I said AP is 
anti-heirarchical.  Any heirarchies, particularly those forced on people, 
are strongly deterred.  This includes social and religious heirarchies, BTW. 
 Even corporate heirarchies would only exist if approved-of by the vast 
majority of the shareholders, most of whom will be the workers as well.


> In
>fact as any person with counter terrorism experience will tell you the
>threat of death is remarkably ineffective as a means of intimidation. It
>creates the opposite effect, strengthening the resolve of the target. I
>discussed this point recently with someone close to Mossad who agreed.

Under a set of circumstances similar to the status quo, that is not 
surprising.  But that can change.  That WILL change.  People occupy 
positions of authority when they feel, personally, they are better off doing 
so than not.  Give the average member of the public (not merely crazed 
"terrorists") the opportunity to remove those people, and you won't be able 
to keep them around.  I mean, presumably they do their job for a salary and 
benefits, right?  How many bombs or bullets will they tolerate, rather than 
resigning and taking a safer job?


>Terrorism is becomming an increasing concern. The amount of damage an 
>individual can cause is much greater than that possible in the past.

If anything, I think the advantage of AP is that it REDUCES the amount of 
damage that any given person has to cause, per citizen, to achieve his 
anti-government political ends.  I've pointed out that it would only take a penny or two 
from each citizen, on average, to remove one of even the highest-level US 
officeholders.  Far less than that if you include resignations.  What I'm 
advocating is a system that makes it impossible for agents of the status quo 
to resist the opposition of the public, which is unlike the current system.  
Rather than have to build a bomb, or wait for somebody else to do so, the 
ordinary citizen only needs to make a modest contribution to the "revolution 
fund."   And today, an officeholder can claim to resist "terrorism" based on 
the fact that he opposes the extreme action of a handful of people.  What 
happens when they have to admit that a million people paid for that gun to 
be fired or that bomb to be planted?


>There
>are plenty of exhausted ideologies about which can be fashioned into
>a justification of murder.

Don't blame me for them.

> Jim's post shows very clearly how Libertarianism
>can be converted into a justification for terrorism. Its a very short gap
>between being opposed to government and actively fighting against it. 

What, exactly, is the MEANING of "being opposed to government"?  If you pay 
taxes to support that government (even if that support is not voluntary) 
those taxes mean that you are indeed acting to strengthen that government 
and assist its efforts.  I suggest that you can't realistically claim 
"opposition to government" (other than rhetorical) under these circumstances.


>I see libertarianism as the exhausted remnant of the mercantilism of the 
>1980s. As constructed it recognises only those rights which favour the
>privileged in society and none of those which benefit the ecconomically 
>disadvantaged. Politically it reached its peak influence almost a decade
>ago when Regan and Thatcher were at their zenith. The '94 congress will 
>probably be seen as the turning point in the political tide with the 
mainstream
>of politics moving back to the left again. There will always be people arround
>who conclude that the failure was not being close enough to the ideology.


You've already made it clear you don't consider yourself a libertarian.  Why 
go on with this stuff?

>If the libertarians are not carefull they will be inexorably linked in the 
public mind 
>with the terrorists who act in their name. 

I think the stereotypical "terrorist" doesn't really claim to "act in their 
[the public's] name."  The one recent counter-example that I've heard of, 
that of the EPR in Mexico, is a very welcome exception.  If anything, I 
think the governments of the world are truly frightened that "terrorism" as 
commonly practiced will change from the "blow up random airliner" mode, 
passing through the "blow up nearby government building" mode, to "find and 
kill a particular official" mode.  Far less collateral damage, far harder to 
whip up public opposition to in the press, etc.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com