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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Aug 28, 1997 at 06:17:09PM -0500, snow wrote:
[...]
> 
> 	There is also a clear difference between shooting a guy carrying 
> your stereo out of the house, and a guy who probably carried a stereo out 
> of the house. 

Anyone can construct scenarios where the distinction is as fuzzy as
you please -- eg -- your best friend is getting you a new stereo for
your birthday, and is arranging a surprise. 

Ambiguous situations are a ubiquitous feature of reality.  You may 
think in black in white, but the world is not only many shades of 
gray -- it's a parade of color.

The fundamental problem is that people are different, and have
different moral values.  Some people think that murder is wrong under
any circumstances.  Others think it is all right to kill in
"self-defense" (whatever that means).  Some people think it is
perfectly moral to kill in defense of property.  Some people think it
is all right to kill if they are insulted.  Some think it is ok to
kill an unfaithful spouse.  Some people think it is all right to kill
in a burst of righteous or temporary insane anger.  Some people excuse
a murder when when the killer is drunk.  Each of these are honest,
real beliefs on the part of a significant fraction of humanity. 

> > The current system stinks, but your idea is no better.
> 
> 	Well, the current system stinks, but enough people are buffalo'd into
> thinking that it works, so it is doubtful that it will get better.

People are not "buffalo'd" -- they are happy with a system that gives 
them a good life.  Therefore, it has to get worse before it gets 
better.  

> If on the 
> otherhand the system ceased to exist, maybe it could be improved.

Ah yes -- libertopia.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html