4 ms·
The point is deeper than this -- with such a system in place, one must never even attach their real name or address to controversial ideas. This would allow th
by polarix 13y ago
The point is deeper than this -- with such a system in place, one must never even attach their real name or address to controversial ideas.
This would allow thought to proceed on pure merit, rather than social proof.
- krapp 13y agoBut such a system only has the purpose of having people killed for money. There wouldn't be any other ideas discussed, except maybe haggling over whether to use a gun or a knife or maybe anthrax if the price is right. An assassination program like this more or less defies the concept of 'ideas based on merit.'
- polarix 13y agoOh, but the effects would be wide-ranging: if an idea has enough of a likelihood of angering people past some threshold (either lots of people, or a few rich ones), then it will only be reasonable to air that idea under strong pseudonymity. Participating in this marketplace would be somewhat like voting, except it would have a tangible effect.
- krapp 13y agoIf you're talking about a marketplace of ideas and collective action, fine. I'm all for communication without oppression. But a marketplace for violence is just as bad or even worse than the implicit violence of the state in my opinion. While I believe that sometimes violence might be necessary to oppose tyranny, I don't know that I trust the 'justness' of a system which presumes anyone employed by the state should find themselves subject to that kind of threat. Eventually (inevitably) it would wind up being used as a tool for political and ethnic genocide. Or petty crime.