[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Subject: Re: Race Bit: C
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...
>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
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.
>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.