1996-02-06 - Re: Jim Bell - Murderous Terrorist

Header Data

From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4b1b9672b829572facba34b097835e22349e84abea00ae1e7a187647bde0569f
Message ID: <m0tjeyv-00090hC@pacifier.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-06 12:37:20 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:37:20 +0800

Raw message

From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:37:20 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Jim Bell - Murderous Terrorist
Message-ID: <m0tjeyv-00090hC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


[while I am replying to this anonymous, flaming message from what MAY be a 
stable nym, I specifically request a consensus opinion on whether I should 
continue to comment in this way.  Some people say that a discussion of my 
"Assassination Politics" idea (containing, as it does, issues of good 
encryption and digital cash implemented with good encryption and blinding) 
is "on-topic" here, but on the other hand it does seem to bring out the 
flamers among us.  I would be happy to go either way:  To continue to 
respond to what is obviously a strenuous debate, or to ignore the issue 
here, in this area, and to direct the debate to another.]

At 07:06 PM 2/4/96 -0800, jdoe-0007@alpha.c2.org wrote:
>Dr. Vulis writes:
>
>AO> Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com> writes:
>
>AO> I consider Mr. Bell to be a crank and a loon.
>
>DV> You're certainly entitled to your opinion. You might be interested to 
know that
>DV> I consider Jim Bell to be highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and 
overall nice
>DV> person. I'm particularly impressed by his calm and restrained response 
to your
>DV> provocations. I've also formed a rather negative opinion of you, based 
on your
>DV> actions in this incident.
>
>Jim Bell has advocated nothing less than paid death squads 

No, I haven't.  The term "squad" implies more than one person.  In practice, 
I think those people who are motivated to collect the anonymous awards will 
be individually self-selected people, and will not come in the form of 
"squads."  If anything, the use of a "squad" defeats the entire purpose of 
the anonymity provided by my idea: Quite literally, nobody in the world 
except the killer himself needs to know who he is.

>using crypto as a
>means to hide payment to these murderous terrorists.

<sigh!>   Aside from the fact that the difference between "terrorists" and 
"freedom fighters" is primarily a matter of point of view, in effect you are 
merely objecting to people being able to defend themselves anonymously, by 
proxy as it were.

>  If you can find a conspirator
>of murder as " highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and overall nice person" 
then
>you also are in need of immediate mental health intervention.

As my essay makes clear, the whole purpose of the system is to KEEP most 
people from being "conspirators of murder" by the legal definition.  You may 
disapprove of people being able to defend themselves from government abuse, 
but I actually encourage it. 


>Should the mainstream media ever get wind of Bell's lunacy it will be one more
>nail in the crypto-coffin spurring the Feds and international anti-crypto 
efforts to
>a frenzy.

As you know well, my current opinion is that the theory is tantamount to 
being inevitable.  If anybody is worked up into a "frenzy," it'll be because 
they are afraid I might actually be correct.  Anyone who is really convinced
I am 
wrong will be quite calm, because they "know" nothing will come of my idea.

>  Bell is either a total fucking lunatic of the extreme right wing 

For the record, I was a minarchist libertarian for about 19 years, until
about a year ago when I realized that pure anarchy (with protection for
rights) could actually be made stable.  I have as little sympathy for the
"extreme right wing" as I do the "extreme left wing." 

And as I'm happy to point out, I upset both of their "apple carts" just as
effectively, so both categories have "good" reason to hate me.


>(having
>read his suck ups posts supporting General Linda Thompson)

This is an extremely odd assertion.  While I have certainly heard of Linda 
Thompson (the highly controversial Indiana lawyer) I don't recall having 
written much about her, and certainly not on the Internet and 
certainly not within the last year or so.  I don't think I've ever 
"defended" her, although I have occasionally criticized a few of her critics 
as buffoons.  Because they WERE buffoons!  (This does not automatically make 
Linda Thompson look any better, however.

In fact, the only communication I've ever seen from her on the subject of 
"Assassination Politics" was actually critical.  I responded, correcting 
some false conclusions of hers, and I never heard anything more from her.

Even so, I challenge this guy to show (or even describe the "where and when" 
of these "suck up posts."  


> or an agent provocateur for the Feds. 

This is rich!  I've proposed a system which may spell inevitable doom for 
the Feds no matter what they do, no matter what they try, and this guy tries 
to claim that I'm an "agent provocateur" for them!  In past  posts I've 
mentioned that I carefully considered the question of whether or not my 
posting would help or hinder the adoption of the "Assassination Politics" 
idea, and I came to the conclusion that the worst situation would be if the 
government could keep its ultimate weaknesses disguised for a few more 
years.  That's why I published when I did.

The first person to think of an "Assassination Politics" idea was probably
some well-paid apparatchik in the NSA, who (quite opposite of my position)
was terrified that it might come true.

> One is as bad as the other.  To quote your own
>words to Mr. Olsen; " I've also formed a rather negative opinion of you, based
>on your actions in this incident."
>
>AO> He has no interest in any sort of honest discussion.
>
>DV>  Honest or dishonest, the discussion of Jim's political views has nothing 
>DV> to do with encryption.
>
>His plans for death squads success DEPENDS on the anonymity provided by
>CRYPTO!

Some anti-gunners argue that the public shouldn't be allowed to own guns 
because they might do something wrong with them.  They are fools.  If 
anti-crypto people take the same position with respect to crypto, they are 
even WORSE fools.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Klaatu Burada Nikto
"Something is going to happen.   Something...   Wonderful!"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMRbXR/qHVDBboB2dAQFdEgQApk8IhefbWiA9+Ae6ypaHWA6216yTZvYJ
Jox1G/fpdToYeQpfQF6ARCl1dAmLjq7qSe5chJo4IF8W7sMbtSiOKMCNY8xIG6IL
cS3XTRXELyNX8YEsHy7A8bYyaKe0J2X4M1MEcmWqVjt4HiaQ4dConh0pm7zc/5wy
hXTDsvIEaQc=
=D087
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






Thread