From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:33:38 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Assasination Politics
Message-ID: <01I14MB2RNWWA0UZOC@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	I have changed the subject header (despite its destroying threading
with the way my mailreader works) so that Perry et al can more easily filter
this out. I have concluded that Assasination Politics, since it is a possible
development of true anonymnity, etcetera, is a proper discussion topic for
cypherpunks - while not cryptography in and of itself, it is a possible result
of cryptography.

From:	IN%"frantz@netcom.com" 12-FEB-1996 03:24:07.29

>Again, absolutely.  Hell, I can't even devise a filter that will let me
>filter out Jim Bell's rants while letting me see his reasoned arguments on
>anonymous assassination.  (I would love to have him address the Salman
>Rushdie issue, a man who is still alive despite a considerable announced
>price for his head.  There appear to be limits to who can be subject to
>assassination for pay.)

	Actually, that's an argument for non-misusage of Assasination Politics.
If the person hides, there's not much one can do about it. But a hiding
law enforcement agent can't be out violating people's rights. (I will mention
that whether a right is violated or not is essentially a matter of the
perceiver - under any system, whether governmental or not. All ethical
arguments assume either some degree of common ground that can be argued from,
or the finding of logical inconsistency). Those who do so via the net can be
taken care of via the other mechanisms discussed here. It's just that the
physical part is a possible net weakness.
	Moreover, just because _some_ rights-violaters (not that Rushdie was
one) aren't killed doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't be. A system doesn't
have to be 100% efficient to be effective.
	However, the Rushdie case does bring up one problem I have with
Assasination Politics as currently constructed. While people are unlikely to
patronize a general/non-discriminatory organization, a more particular but
non-libertarian one is still possible. For instance, if the Christian
Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them
from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - such as a doctor
researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing
gene therapy work they found offensive? The patrons would know that _they_
wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell
on this subject.
	-Allen