From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:08:33 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
Message-ID: <m0tlQnv-00092TC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 08:13 PM 2/6/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>Forwarded message:

>> A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary"
>> idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on
>> the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_
>> announce either that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who
>> correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
>> rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or
>> appointees.  It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public,
>> and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital
>> cash.
>> 
>
>If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply
>because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and
>moraly or ethicaly undefensible.

That's a misleading statement:  You said, "simply because..."    As should 
be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone 
killed "simply because"  of the fact I "don't agree with them."  It is their 
ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what  justifies my seeking 
their deaths, should I choose to do so.


>> On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a
>> government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck
>> of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights
>> beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident
>> and Waco come to mind.)  In receiving such money and in his various
>> acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus,
>> presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under
>> libertarian principles.
>> 
>
>Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or
>another.

That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time.  I'm amazed 
that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list.  While I don't know 
precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really 
is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a 
REALLY weird definition of that.

Somehow, I think that this is where  your argument fails, and it fails 
miserably.


>By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to
>protect us against.

Sorry, I disagree.  Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type" 
total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people actually 
believe in that.  Most people seem to think that they are entitled to 
protect themselves from violations of rights.  The fact that these 
violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most 
irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it.  Anybody who feels entitled to 
use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting 
to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in 
itself, a violation of my rights.

Are you a statist?