On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 10:51:49 PM PDT, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: > And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned > against honest people".
>Is it forgotten that... >- No one but a troll, random or intentional, will list innocent people. >- No assassin, but pure psycho or profiteer, will murder innocent people. >That leading AP implementations are likely to have message boards, research wikis, etc that will decry as no-go's any honest people listed. That there is no point to such listings. I think I have said, many times, that if HYPOTHETICALLY, I ran an AP-organization, I would (during a transition period when the government is being broken down) only accept donations against people who I, personally, was convinced had violated the Non-Initiation-of-Force-Principle. (Otherwise known as NAP, non-agression principle.) However, I ALSO state that there is no way I could prevent a DIFFERENT person from running a DIFFERENT organization with DIFFERENT policies, I believe that an organization with "looser" standards (less safeguards) would cost more to use, and would be charged more by potential assassins. And I also have pointed out that I consider working for government to be an automatic violation of the NIOFP principle, This means that no trials will be necessary, or likely possible, during the transition period. That's not to say that all 'government employees' are equally culpable, of course. Eventually, perhaps after a couple of years, once the governments are broken down and their participants are punished, I believe that most AP-organizations will form what might be called "private courts" to ensure that juries make the decisions as to guilt and innocence, and punishment. An accused violator might, and I argue, would WANT to be tried by such a court, because the alternative is the implementation of the AP-system essentially automatically. >And that in any society, whether today without AP, or tomorrow with AP, both of those cases are so rare as to be background noise. Just as "News at 11: A Gun Murder" is but noise compared to most accidental and preventable deaths. (Stop watching the news, it is programming your brain to believe, and do, fake shit.) I have long thought that's quite true. If 'you' donate to the life of a dishonest, criminal, or evil person, your donation will be combined with hundreds or thousands (or even millions) of other donors, and I believe the potential assassins will work cheaper, probably much cheaper. (Consider: If you were such an assassin, wouldn't you prefer to kill a guilty person, rather than an innocent person? You'd probably work cheaper, right?) OTOH, if you donate to take the life of a good, innocent person, very few other donors will add to your donations, and potential assassins will demand more money to 'do the job'. (In part, because they can, since they will have less competition.) I feel few such innocent targets will likely be killed, even when there were no "AP-courts" functioning. >Whereas doing the math on the trivial amount of funds a few million donors across the internet would have to contribute to an AP function to spread a little convincing love towards the top and littorals of governments... that such listings are full of point. That's the case. Such people will have to virtually automatically resign, in order to survive. Some donors might want to condition their donations to spare people who quit their job, others might not.
