I'm interested in reading his actual essay. It's too late for me to get through it tonight, but he claims in the video to make the argument for it being compatible with the NAP. His initial proposition makes it apparent that anyone could be in danger with this type of system, but when you make the distinction that only people who work for government can be targets, it makes being on the wrong side of this a choice once people become aware it is functioning. The whole thing scares the living crap out of me, but it sounds like it could be technically feasible without "the little guy" being susceptible. It think that's why it's so scary. It really is a Pandora's Box. Once someone sets something like this in motion and it gains critical mass, there's no turning back.
There's also the consideration that any organization like this would have competitors who would have an interest in stopping the leaders of other dispute resolution organizations that allow the targeting of benign individuals by said systems. Also as a side note, you could charter the organization in such a way that it would be required to dissolve itself if governments were in fact eradicated, or that it would be required to at least "hang up its guns" and transform into a DRO whose function isn't to assassinate people, but to just help people resolve disputes in peaceful ways.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: