On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 07:07:21 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness
<z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:38AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:47:24 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness
><z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:30PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
> > Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > > > How about we implement a working AP system?
> > >>
> > >> As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally
> > >> flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in
> > > >the long term.
> >
> >> The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,
> >> politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.
> >>
> >> The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be
> >> turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good
> >> implementation.
>
>
> >And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned
> against honest people".
>
> Naturally, I feel I must respond to this, as well. At one point, very long
> ago (1990's) I believe I made the following point, probably on the CP list.
> The current legal (then and now) environment, at least in America, is that
> the vast majority of adults can walk into a gun-store, and legally buy a gun
> and ammunition. Then, they can walk out, possibly after a few-day 'waiting
> period' (which didn't exist in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was ratified,
> which I take as violating the principles of the Supreme Court decision Heller
> v. McDonald 2008). Hypothetically, these people could then load their
> newly-purchased guns, walk up to some random person, and shoot them dead.
> Hypothetically. In other words, there is no law-of-nature which prevents
> this kind of thing from happening.
> So, my question is: Does this hypothetical possibility somehow prove that
> America's legal environment towards ownership of guns is somehow "wrong"?
> That merely because there is no law-of-nature that would prevent that wrong
> deed, people should not be allowed to own guns, even those who had never, and
> would never, misuse them? Above, you said:
> ">And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned
> against honest people"."
> So, I could respond: "And I can conceive of no firearms system which cannot
> be turned against honest people".
> Okay, that statement that I just made is arguably true. Let's agree that you
> cannot build a gun that cannot, somehow, be misused in some way. Even if it
> can only be used as a bludgeon, and hit somebody over the head with a
> few-pounds of steel. Nevertheless, nothing can absolutely prevent such use.
> Some, certainly some of those who live and grew up outside America and its
> environment of gun laws, would take the hypothetical possibility that
> somebody could do this as being a "defect" in the system, thus justifying
> saying the laws were wrong, and further justify taking them away.
> Americans, however, at least those who believe in the Second Amendment, think
> differently: I argue that they think something like, "Even though it is
> possible that some people will misuse guns, that does not justify taking them
> away from the general public". I am among those people who believe that.
> And lest some people are inclined to argue, I will point out that tire-irons,
> hammers, baseball-bats, heavy logs, iron pipes, and many other objects are
> similarly subject to the 'defect' of being possibly used for improper
> purposes. As well as knives, axes, spears, and other devices can be
> similarly misused. Rakes, trowels, shovels, etc.
>
> Does anybody out there "get" this concept? It certainly seems very basic to
> me.
> So, I then ask: Does the POSSIBILITY that the AP system could be misused
> justify somehow banning it? Or even denouncing it?
Your exposition is of course not the full comparison, so let's unpack
that a little.
>The one who shoots someone publicly, has at least the following
checks and balances:
> 1. that the deed is done "publicly"
I disagree. While many murders are indeed done while witnessed by others,
others are not.
> 2. and done by his own hand
That's not much of a limitation.
> 3. the time factor - preparation, planning, arranging funds,
planning the deed, doing the deed
Who says it's "planned"? In other words, there are presumably many cases
where, if you stop the perp five minutes before the deed, there may be no
indication or evidence of what he intends to do,. Even he might not know.
>Your AP market removes both of these checks and balances,
You don't seem to acknowledge the checks and balances an AP market could add.
Mostly because you've proven time and again that you simply don't understand AP.
>and by doing so, by any of billions of people being able to "pitch in a few
fiats" for a murder,
Give me a specific example of a person who "billions of people" will donate to
see him dead? If, truly, "billions of people" want to see him dead, maybe
that's a good idea? Therefore, try to explain who would attract such
attention who SHOULDN'T be killed.
>and to do so anonymously, such that someone else
can conduct the murder and anonymously pick up the proceeds,
AP thereby liberates the following dynamics:
You don't quantify anything.
1. AP liberates the callous, angry and other such natures of humans.
Well, it also requires them to pay good money. What would motivate them to
kill one person, that would also not motivate them to want to kill thousands of
others. Their money is limited.
> - amongst billions, there are millions of such persons
They will, therefore, have limited funds.
> 2. AP liberates the emotive, compulsive mob, to act in unison in
the heat of the moment.
WHICH "moment"? I ask again: Be specific about who will be targeted, who you
think SHOULDN'T be targeted. You have no excuse to not be specific: There
are millions of people to choose from.
> - again, amongst billions of people, millions have experience
traumatic childhood experiences which are unresolved, and so
in the heat of the moment, they act impulsively
They could do that anyway. AP would slow them down a bit.
>3. AP liberates the mob.
You are assuming that "the mob" knows what it wants to do. You are simply
speculating,.
> - it is not one, but 1 in a 1000, out of 100s of millions of
humans, who will devour the murder of the day, whilst the
remaining 99.9% of humans decry "the mob mentality, what a
fucked up world we have, f___ you Jim Bell"
Doesn't it occur to you that once implemented (and NOT by your own nightmare
scenarios) the public will ultimately consider AP to be a great improvement on
the status quo? How do you know they wouldn't? Be specific.
>And the power of such a beast unleashed, may be extraordinarily
difficult to ever unwind, after its manifestation.
I am NOT impressed by your argumentation,.
> My comment from the last posting follows:
> Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that
> this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is
> that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may
> not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which
> leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember:
>
> "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS."
>
> >The reason is money.
>
> >Those who can print money at their whim, can game any and every
> assassination market, to have all the anarchists shot or otherwise
> assassinated.
>
>
> Any person who has enough money to buy a steel hammer can subsequently use it
> to murder somebody else. Do we ban hammers? Kitchen knives? Do we ban
> MONEY, itself, currency and cash, simply because it can be used to buy an
> object which can be misused? How about automobiles, which society has
> learned over the last few years can work as a weapon? How about banning
> gasoline, which certainly could be used to commit arson?
>
> I think I've made my point. From my standpoint, an American who actually
> believes in the Second Amendment, I view the possible abuse of a gun as
> fundamentally identical to abuse of hammers, baseball bats, axes, and kitchen
> knives: There is simply no logical reason to ban ONE of this kind of
> object, as if it was somehow logically 'different' or 'special' from a
> standpoint of 'objects which can be used as weapons'. Arguably, a gun can be
> described as a 'more-efficient' weapon, but America's Second-Amendment rights
> were not limited to 'inefficient' arms.
>
> In 1791, the America's Founding Fathers decided to take one option off the
> table: In proposing and later ratifying the Second Amendment, they decided
> that Americans should never have to grovel or beg for their right to own
> tools of their own self-defense. They knew that weapons could be misused.
> Nevertheless, they made their decision. They wanted to guarantee the
> continuation of the kind of gun-rights that existed in America in 1791, when
> the Second Amendment was ratified, regardless. They did not describe it in
> detail, because they didn't think they needed to: They KNEW what "the laws"
> allowed, and guaranteed. They knew that those laws were written down, and
> those laws would not simply evaporate. They wanted that system to continue,
> so they wrote the Second Amendment. The Second American DID NOT GRANT, but
> in fact GUARANTEED the "right to keep and bear arms".
> And AP is potentially just as much an "arm" as is guns, baseball bats, or
> knives. And I would argue that AP is LESS abusable than common cutting and
> bludgeoning weapons. Killing somebody with a hammer does not require
> anybody else's assistance, let alone their "approval". Or even knowledge
> So anybody who thinks AP shouldn't be "allowed" should have to explain why
> such common weapons should be allowed, and yet not AP. They will simply
> have no credible answer, at all.
> Jim Bell
>See above. It's an entirely different dynamic, thus a completely
unfair comparison (albeit it is a comparison one ought make for the
purposes of discussion, we may do ourselves a great disservice by not
considering the larger picture of a fundamentally new dynamic).
That sounds like gobbledygook. Sorry, but it does. Does anybody agree with
this? Does it even mean something credible?
For a similar and hypothetical "false comparison", remember the (only
half) tongue in cheek "recreational nukes" meme:
- imagine we could present the plans to build actual back yard 100
megatonne nukes, in say only two A4 pages of text and a couple
diagrams
>and now imagine that we say exactly the same comparison applies
"well, since you support the right of every Amercian to walk into a
gun store a buy a gun and shoot someone if they so choose, in broad
daylight, how can you possibly deny the right of folks to share the
plans to building 100 megatonne nuclear bombs in a weekend and $1,600
in parts from the hardware store?"
AP will prevent nukes from being kept, anywhere. Are you not aware of my
argument? Anyone who dares own a nuke will become, automatically, a finite
threat to anyone who lives in little more than a large town,. Such people
will donate money to force the nuke-owner to cause the nuke be dismantled,
publicly. If he doesn't, he will be "donated to death". Quickly. Whereever
he may happen to be.
>Those who hear such a hypothetical
"Recreational Nukes for all, yay!
It's no different to the right of every American to buy a gun!"
The issue isn't "rights". A real, or potential, nuke-owner will simply not be
allowed to own one,
>would presumably do a double take and consider "well, may be that's
neither a good idea, nor a fair comparison".
Since you clearly don't understand AP, none of your assertions can be trusted,
