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

[snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>]

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, John Smith wrote:
> "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>:
> >>You stole from me.
> >>*BANG*
> >>You raped my sister
> >>*BANG*
> >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.

	Works for me. You post no trespassing, I have no excuse. 

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

	Well, turn the shit down. 

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

	If the warning was issued, then *BANG*. 


> Or how about escalation:
> 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

	Yeah, the reason was that the Nobles looked at their peasants 
as property, and didn't want their property killing each other.  

> shoot-everybody-I-think-harmed-me approach just doesn't work.

	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. 

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


Petro, Christopher C.
snow@smoke.suba.com