From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:28:40 +0800
To: jim bell <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Assassination Politics(tm) was V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
Message-ID: <199602152215.OAA27592@netcom7.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[I've changed the Subject: to more accurately reflect the contents]

My purpose on this thread is to examine the limits of Jim Bell's idea of
Assassination Politics.  My ground rules are to assume that it is a natural
outgrowth of the technologies of anonymous cash and anonymous remailers. 
As such arguments that it is immoral are only valid to the extent that they
bare on individual's decisions to particpate in an assassination.

I believe that we have general agreement that high government figures are
not subject to sanction via assassination politics because they already
enjoy Secret Service levels of protection.

I also believe that Jim and I disagree about the significance of Salmon
Rushdie.  Jim thinks that the lack of anonymity in the Mullah's
assassination bounty is repelling possible assassins.  I disagree.  A
question worth asking is, How much does it cost the British government to
protect Mr. Rushdie by keeping his location secret and providing other
unspecified protection.  If anyone knows the answer, it could help build an
economic model of Assassination Politics.

Jim Bell said:

>Actually, I think the primary targets will be either the middle level 
>manager types, or the ones who have attracted a substantial amount of bad 
>publicity by "following orders."  Lon Horiuchi (the sniper who shot Vicki 
>Weaver) for example, would be a excellent example of a person who'd try to 
>claim, "I was just following orders."  Okay, maybe he was, but so was Adolph 
>Eichmann.  

I agree that Jim's idea of targeting certain specific individuals, such as
the sniper above might work.


>Once the tax collectors/enforcers were targeted, the rest of the government 
>wouldn't be able to operate, and would collapse.

However if you tackle the whole tax system, you get into problems of scale.
 The IRS alone (according to their web page) has over 110,000 employees,
and we havn't even mentioned the state and local employees.  I don't think
killing one or two will have a sigificant effect (that is occuring now).  I
will assume that you have to successfully kill about 10% to have enough
effect to shut off the government's money supply.

Attacks at this scale will be difficult because while people will have
perfect anonymity in cyberspace, they won't enjoy it in physical space. 
Neighbors, survalence cameras, etc.; in fact all the technology that makes
privacy so hard to achieve today will be available to catch the assassins. 
The police will also be more motivated to utilize the technology for this
class of people than they would for drug dealers, pimps and other low
lifes.  These points will tend to raise the price of assassinations.

Let us assume that we can buy assassinations for $50,000 per person.  Times
11,000 people is $550 million dollars.  That is quite a sum.  I need to see
an analysis which shows how to raise money on this scale.

Bill