On Tuesday, December 18, 2018, 3:12:44 PM PST, juan <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the question/answer format could be useful here to highlight the more serious 'issues' with AP and the overall workings of the system. So off the top of my head, here are two questions: > 1) wouldn't the rich and powerful use AP against honest people?
There is nothing inherent about the AP system that would prevent anyone (with even a small amount of money) from using it against anybody else. But I anticipated that AP would have organizations (possibly many of them) which would each have their own individual policies, in competition with each other. Long ago (in my AP essay) I pointed out that if _I_ ran an AP-type organization, I would (at least initially, until it had brought down all governments) have a policy to refuse any 'contracts' except for people who have violated the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). But even that policy would initially have to be further restricted, because somebody ought to decide who was 'worthy' of being targeted, and who isn't 'worthy'. There would ideally be some fact-finding that would have to be done. (analogous to today's juries in criminal trials.) I wouldn't put myself in the position of needing to decide complex questions. Without a jury system, an AP system cannot fully substitute itself for today's criminal justice system. Thus, an AP organization that _I_ run (if I ran one...) would initially only take contracts/bets against people who are, or were, government employees. The reason is that generally, it wouldn't take a jury to decide the simple question of whether that person did or had worked for government. Eventually, when governments have been destroyed, it will be useful to set up court-like proceedings, somewhat analogous to today's criminal courts, to decide questions of whether a given person violated another person and his rights. But unlike existing courts, and juries, these new courts will be VOLUNTARY. At least, "voluntary" in the sense that a defendant would probably prefer to have an opportunity to defend himself, rather than merely being "donated to death". Notice, however, that while that might be MY policy for MY hypothetical AP organization, there is essentially nothing I could do (despite having been the author of the AP essay) about somebody else running a different AP organization, with its own chosen policies. You could imagine somebody else running a different AP organization with different scruples. Imagine one that would take any contract, against anyone. Which organization would survive and prosper? I have argued that MY hypothetical organization, targeting only people who have arguably violated NAP, would be cheaper than the other. I assert that potential assassins would be willing to work for less if they knew their targets deserved that targeting. And, there would be less competition for contracts against possibly-innocent targets, and as we all know, competition tends to reduce prices. So, the system would tend to deter unjustified killing. Unjustified killing would cost more, and (I hope) many fewer people would want to pay for it. I have argued, therefore, that there would be market pressure to make the targeting of "innocent" people difficult and expensive, compared to the targeting of "guilty" people which will become easier and cheaper. " 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. " Before I had written and published the first part of my AP essay, I anticipated that once such a system started, it might actually be somewhat dangerous to be a "famous" person. (But I don't recall actually stating this in the essay; I need to go back and remind myself what I wrote!) At least, it would be far safer to be essentially unknown. And, other people since then have thought of the same possibility. Today, you can have an actor who is famous for playing villains. What happens in an AP-operating world, where people (including somewhat mentally-unstable people) think of this actor as being a 'bad guy'? One partial answer might simply be: Actors who play 'bad guys' will probably have to be paid more, to compensate them for their risk! But of course, once most or possibly all AP-organizations employ 'juries' to limit the people who are ultimately targeted, it should be difficult to find an AP organization that would accept those contracts...unless that actor truly was a 'bad guy'!!! Jim Bell
