On Saturday, December 22, 2018, 10:19:30 AM PST, John Newman <[email protected]> wrote: On Dec 18, 2018, at 7:41 PM, jim bell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> " 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 >LOL! That your thinking has only gone this deep on this particular >issue,“actors playing bad guys might be killed by the AP mob, so they will get >todemand a higher salary to pay their security retinue”, doesn’t show a whole >lotof deep thinking or intellectual curiosity, Jim :P. I find your stories of >ICwork much more interesting. What makes you think that "[my] thinking has only gone this deep on this particular issue"? This is simply the example I am using, here, to point out how an angry crowd might react, even if (and especially if) their position was unreasonable. I'm not trying to write a treatise on the whole of AP, here. >The way AP is designed, these “juries” (comprised of who?) are not >arequirement, and there could always be multiple AP markets, some with or >withoutthese “juries”. Or some with wholly state-controlled “juries”. >What if state-actors were to put a hit on you? And anyone else who has >publiclyavowed for or otherwise is known to support AP? That might serve as a >slightchilling concept on the whole thing. In order for there to be "state actors", there would have to remain a "state" to act. I consider it virtually axiomatic that the first, best targets of an AP-type system would be government, and later (after governments have fallen) ex-government people with whom everyone else might to want to engage in score-settling. Admittedly, WHILE governments are falling, or after they've fallen and ex-government employees are pissed at them getting attacked, those entities may want to retaliate against prominent 'enemies'. As I said in AP Part 7, near the end: "Awe, that a system could be produced by a handful of people that would rid the world of the scourge of war, nuclear weapons, governments, and taxes. Astonishment, at my realization that once started, it would cover the entire globe inexorably, erasing dictatorships both fascistic and communistic, monarchies, and even so-called "democracies," which as a general rule today are really just the facade of government by the special interests. Joy, that it would eliminate all war, and force the dismantling not only of all nuclear weapons, but also all militaries, making them not merely redundant but also considered universally dangerous, leaving their "owners" no choice but to dismantle them, and in fact no reason to KEEP them! 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." >Or maybe you’d be considered a martyr, as opposed to the victim of his >ownmurderous system, and the people would finally rise up and, as you say, >thegovernment would fall :P. " See above. Before I'd written even Part 1 of AP, I already anticipated this, and made my choice. But, things didn't look as bleak for me as you might expect. One reason is that I hoped that the early AP-organizations would, at first, limit their targets to government employees and ex-government employees, and later, they would employ juries (once governments had fallen, and the "criminal justice system" needed to be replaced) to decide who had actually violated the NAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle So, I expected (and expect) to be spared.× Not that it would be impossible to have a less-ethical AP organization appear, and accept 'predictions' on just about anyone, including myself. But I think the cost would be much higher. As I said, I made my choice. Jim Bell
