Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)

["John Smith" <jsmith58@hotmail.com>]

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>:

>>You stole from me.
>>*BANG*
>
>yep
>
>>You raped my sister
>>*BANG*
>
>yep
>
>As is the first two cases the "criminal" has violated my property &
>family. Such crimes are worthy of immediate death. You steal, you 
>assault
>or threaten me or my family you have committed suicide.
>
>It is a quite simple and effective philosophy: 
>
>"You fuck with me, my family, or my property you die. You leave me 
>alone
>and I leave you alone."
>
>Even someone like you can understand such a philosophy.

Well, I can't.  It's very confusing.  Are there judges in your
philosophy, or do you just decide for yourself who to shoot?

"You walked on my property."  BANG.

"Your music kept me awake all night."  BANG.

"I warned you to cut that tree down, and now it fell on my house."
BANG.


Or how about escalation:

"You raped my daughter"

"No way, she wanted it as much as I did"

"That's not what she tells me.  You die."  BANG.


"You shot my son"

"Bullshit, he had it coming after what he did to my daughter."

"Bullshit yourself."  BANG.


"You shot my pa"

"He shot my son"

"You're gonna die."  "I'm taking you with me then."  BANG.  BANG.

BANG.  BANG.  BANG.  BANG.  BANG.  BANG.  BANG.


You know, there's a reason people started using judges to help
settle disputes.  There's a reason the common law evolved with the
idea of proportionate response and restitution.  This kind of
shoot-everybody-I-think-harmed-me approach just doesn't work.
Nobody knows what someone else will consider harm worth shooting
over.  If somebody disagrees that a shooting was justified, they'll
shoot back, and feuds begin.

The current system stinks, but your idea is no better.

"John

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com