[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet
At 04:33 PM 9/16/96 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>Yet another obligatory AP (Assassination Politics) reference: If a person
>>is really interested in helping out "starving children" he may be able to do
>>far more good by purchasing the death of the local tyrant(s), rather than
>>(just) buying more food.
>The problem is that assasination rarely leads to the installation of
>a government that is any better. In most cases it gets worse.
There is an enormous difference in significance between the following two
1. Tyrant A, speaking outside, gets struck by a meteorite and is instantly
killed. He is immediately replaced by his second-in-command.
2. Tyrant B is told that he has been threatened with a meteorite strike by
an opponent in an hour if he goes on with his speech, he ignores the
"unbelievable" warning, and dies on schedule, just as he was warned, struck
by a meteorite. What should his vice-thug do in THIS case?!?
Physically, the same thing happened: Big boom. But the implications are
vastly different. Incident 1 looks like a freak of nature that's unlikely
to be repeated. It leads to very few policy changes or changes in
precautions. It was a fluke. Incident 2 looks like somebody has developed
a new weapon of practically supernatural capabilities.
This difference is why I scoff at your attempts to equate political
assassination in the past with what will be accomplished in the future.
(other people have made this mistake as well; it's a common
misunderstanding.) In the past, assassinations have often led to worse
replacements, but that is because there is no likely prospect that the
assassination will be repeated, as many times as needed, until the job is
done. Partly that's because assassinations were often seen to be the work
of "lone nuts" (who don't come around all that often), or because they were
done by the very people who take over. In either case, the prospects of a
repeat are rather low.
As anyone who really understands my AP theory recognizes, getting rid of an
unwanted leader will become so easy and cheap (on a per-citizen basis) that
nobody would dare take the job who angered more than a tiny fraction of the
population. A "worse" government would simply never be formed, unless they
>In the past the US excuse for supporting bloodthirsty murderers like
>Pinochet, Saddam, Marcos and Noriega was that the alternative was
The _truth_, however, is that the alternative was worse...for the US
government. It's really very simple: Let me draw an analogy. Modern
organophosphate pesticides were initially developed by German chemists in
the 1930's. These materials are closely related to Sarin, the well-known
nerve agent that killed people in the Tokyo subway attack over a year ago.
It turns out that Sarin is a rather simple molecule. Why not use it to kill
bugs? Well, it kills bugs just fine. The problem, of course, is that it
kills farmers just as well.
Since you presumably don't want to do that, you have to go to all the
trouble to find compounds that kill bugs, but are as non-toxic as possible
to farmers. And if you look at the description of the contents of modern
organophosphate pesticides on the bottles, you see names that only a chemist
could possibly pronounce, names so long (because their molecules were so
complex) that you often have to take a breath in the middle to recite.
These compounds were found by individually synthesizing thousands, or even
tens of thousands of compounds, and testing each one. Individually.
Eventually, they found compounds which were as toxic to bugs as Sarin is to
humans, but were far less toxic to humans. They found the needle in the
Likewise, as I've discovered through AP, it will be easy to get rid of
tyrants. The exquisitely difficult task is to get rid of ONLY SOME of the
tyrants, for example Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi, etc, and leaving most
of the rest behind. _THAT'S_ the tricky part. I have the easy task:
describing a system to get rid of them all, with no exceptions. But that's
the system that nobody in the leadership of any current country wants to see.
That is why you won't see Clinton announcing that he's going to use my idea
to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and instead will waste hundreds of millions or
even billions of dollars in a failed bid to eject the thug.
Doesn't that make you feel a lot safer?