knoodelhed on June 24, 2011, 12:58:15 am
...as in Theodore Kaczynski, amirite?

Sio on June 24, 2011, 10:04:59 am
"The Laguna Beach division of the Los Angeles police had been equipped
with Leycoils and the division chief warned all Teddies to get out of town. 'My
men have orders to nark first and subspeck afterward. This has got to stop!'"
                         -- "The Door Into Summer", RAH

Sounds like there will be some narking or subspecking going on real soon now.

quadibloc on June 25, 2011, 03:49:39 am
I had Googled "Theodorians", and found that there was a group in Cyrenaica (part of Libya) with that name that held that a sage could do acts of violence or other things that were normally sinful, but it would be no fault on his part to do them. They were one of several philosophical groups, apparently, that held the idea that right and wrong did not exist except as law and custom created them.

So those Theodorians certainly sound as though they were badly in error. And their errors were of the sort that could lead to terrorism.

SandySandfort on June 25, 2011, 08:53:39 am
I had Googled "Theodorians", and found that there was a group in Cyrenaica (part of Libya) with that name that held that a sage could do acts of violence or other things that were normally sinful, but it would be no fault on his part to do them. They were one of several philosophical groups, apparently, that held the idea that right and wrong did not exist except as law and custom created them.

So those Theodorians certainly sound as though they were badly in error. And their errors were of the sort that could lead to terrorism.

I wasn't away of those guys, but the shoe sort of fits.

quadibloc on June 25, 2011, 02:23:20 pm
but the shoe sort of fits.
Well, then, it's just a nice coincidence, and one of the other guesses perhaps was right. Certainly, the Unabomber's shoe fits too...

Tucci78 on June 25, 2011, 05:45:55 pm
Certainly, the Unabomber's shoe fits too...

Er, wasn't that Richard Reid?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

dough560 on June 25, 2011, 06:15:06 pm
I don't know of any terrorist organization that doesn't believe they have a moral imperative, justifying any action they take which injures, maims or kills another.

If I'm remembering my classes correctly, the membership will breakdown into the following types.  True Believer - Totally dedicated to the stated goals and will do anything to support them.  Professional - The organizers, actively moving the goals forward.  What ever is done, isn't personal, just business.  Believes in the goals but is not a true believer.  Criminal - Could care less for the goals, but supports the group for personal gain.  Psychotic - Similar to the True Believer but with the mental disconnect which sees non-believers as less than human.  Anything is justified.  If the simplest solution to a problem is to kill someone, they'll do it in the most dramatic way possible. "Generally" unstable, kept under control by the Organizers assisted by the True Believers.  General membership - believes in the goals and will carry through with their assigned missions, in-spite of reservations about the process.

These individuals will be divided into general classifications.  Command Group - Core members with Command and Control.  Technical - handles the nuts and bolts of mission support.  Support - Often combines with the Techies.  Recruits new members, provides mission support materials and intelligence.  Direct action - The shooters and looters.  

After recruitment and orientation, organized into cells with little or no general contact as a group.  The German Red Army was generally organized as hundreds of support members for each action member.

J Thomas on June 25, 2011, 09:53:24 pm
I don't know of any terrorist organization that doesn't believe they have a moral imperative, justifying any action they take which injures, maims or kills another.

If I'm remembering my classes correctly, the membership will breakdown into the following types.  True Believer - Totally dedicated to the stated goals and will do anything to support them.  Professional - The organizers, actively moving the goals forward.  What ever is done, isn't personal, just business.  Believes in the goals but is not a true believer.  Criminal - Could care less for the goals, but supports the group for personal gain.  Psychotic - Similar to the True Believer but with the mental disconnect which sees non-believers as less than human.  Anything is justified.  If the simplest solution to a problem is to kill someone, they'll do it in the most dramatic way possible. "Generally" unstable, kept under control by the Organizers assisted by the True Believers.  General membership - believes in the goals and will carry through with their assigned missions, in-spite of reservations about the process.

These individuals will be divided into general classifications.  Command Group - Core members with Command and Control.  Technical - handles the nuts and bolts of mission support.  Support - Often combines with the Techies.  Recruits new members, provides mission support materials and intelligence.  Direct action - The shooters and looters.

That sounds exactly like a political party at this point.

Quote
After recruitment and orientation, organized into cells with little or no general contact as a group.  The German Red Army was generally organized as hundreds of support members for each action member.

That doesn't as much. Political parties don't need to organize as secret cells, though they do tend to be organized as small groups with limited interaction between groups, because that's how the members prefer it. Apart from the general membership which doesn't do much and does occasionally like mass meetings.

dough560 on June 27, 2011, 12:22:34 am
A political party or movement prefers to convince you to see it their way, as they gain political power.  Terrorist groups use terror as a motivator for political change.  Said changes to put them in power.

The difference is in the degree, not necessarily the goals.

quadibloc on June 27, 2011, 09:29:43 am
I don't know of any terrorist organization that doesn't believe they have a moral imperative, justifying any action they take which injures, maims or kills another.
If the World Was Doomed and there was No Other Way, that would be a reasonable course of action. The trouble is, of course, that those kinds of terrorists are always wrong in their choice of causes. And the other kinds of terrorists have even less justification for their actions.

One problem, though, is that on the one hand, secular morality admits the possibility that the world could be doomed, in which case the ends would justify the means; and religious morality, which can teach people to always obey God, and trust Him to worry about the Big Picture... often leads to violence on its own, so it doesn't always suppress it.

So it's unclear on what existing cultural basis one could build a taboo on terrorism that could take hold. This is one of the reasons I had thought that "no initiation of force" was a fundamental moral imperative in AnCap philosophy. But I have been corrected on that: I have been told that the threat of disorganized initiation of force by the populace is part of what will keep free enterprise monopoly abuses from arising.

If you tolerate mob violence, to cavil at a government with the power to enact antitrust statutes or laws like Taft-Hartley seems... strange to me. But it is true that a governmental apparatus provides centralized levers of power, which ad hoc mob violence doesn't.

The counterargument is that unpopluar minorities tend to fare better when any necessary initiation of force is subordinated to a formal structure that has to openly justify its actions. I am emotionally disposed to be sympathetic to this counterargument, which is one of the reasons I'm dubious about AnCap - but on the frontier, where people can vote with their feet, the balance is different, as well as many other factors operating to favor less government.

J Thomas on June 27, 2011, 03:08:04 pm

So it's unclear on what existing cultural basis one could build a taboo on terrorism that could take hold. This is one of the reasons I had thought that "no initiation of force" was a fundamental moral imperative in AnCap philosophy. But I have been corrected on that: I have been told that the threat of disorganized initiation of force by the populace is part of what will keep free enterprise monopoly abuses from arising.

Remember that AnCap philosophers do not all agree about very much. Some of them can believe that initiation of force is always wrong, others that first initiation is wrong, and others still that overwhelming public opinion can influence people even beyond not initiating force.

The extreme view is that first initiation of force is the only thing that should ever be forbidden to anyone. But that isn't the only possible way to do it.

quadibloc on June 27, 2011, 06:06:37 pm
Some of them can believe that initiation of force is always wrong, others that first initiation is wrong,
At first, I wondered what distinction you were trying to make, since "initiation" implies first, but then I realized there are people here who are OK with... intentional collateral damage in retaliatory war. However, I didn't think this was AnCap. Certainly, given the opinion displayed by the comic itself of the real-life Harris, I find it hard to make room for Lord Curzon.

dough560 on June 29, 2011, 01:45:10 am
Cultural Bias?  Taboo?  Especially if the world is doomed, its Ok?  You can start with ZAP, the Golden Rule and any of their derivatives.  All of which are routinely ignored by those who believe they are above such limits. They're Bullies.  Wait long enough and someone will tell them NO and make it stick. 

J Thomas on June 29, 2011, 10:27:28 am
Cultural Bias?  Taboo?  Especially if the world is doomed, its Ok?  You can start with ZAP, the Golden Rule and any of their derivatives.  All of which are routinely ignored by those who believe they are above such limits. They're Bullies.  Wait long enough and someone will tell them NO and make it stick.  

Any survival strategy you can state will eventually fail, if you wait long enough.

And so, people sometimes say that AnCap must fail because it can't handle people doing X, where X is something they think AnCap can't handle. But even if they're right about X, it doesn't particularly matter. There's no alternative which can handle everything.

So AnCap can probably work for awhile, maybe a long while, for some particular people. That's good enough for me if it's good enough for them.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 10:29:35 am by J Thomas »

dough560 on June 30, 2011, 01:49:22 am
Nothing lasts forever.  Nothing runs smoothly during its existence.  The current US / World problems are cases in point.

Do your best to take care of you and yours.  If possible, prepare to help the innocent and fight the aggressors.  Our current situation has been described as a "Soft War".  Hopefully it won't become a shooting war.