From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 01:19:30 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Assasination Politics
Message-ID: <m0tmQEr-00091jC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

At 02:03 PM 2/12/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>From:	IN%"jimbell@pacifier.com"  "jim bell" 12-FEB-1996 04:18:43.34
>
>>>How much weight is Lotus going to give the opinions of a bunch of
>>>unbalanced sociopaths when they're thinking about making deal to gak those
>>>extra 24 bits?  Not much, I'll bet. 
>
>>If "AsPol" actually WORKS, Lotus won't have to "deal" to get "those extra 24 
>>bits."
>
>>Lotus should announce that they have heard of this new idea on CP, called 
>>"Assassination Politics," and have assigned a couple dozen programmers to 
>>implement it by July 1996.  They'd back (guarantee) the prizes for the first 
>>such organization, and they'd sell the software to others.  At that point, I 
>>think the resignations from government office would skyrocket.  
>
>	It seems likely that any overt organization operating an Assasination
>Politics scheme will be outlawed... even though the most logical reading of
>current laws says that it isn't illegal (except for the gambling part). An
>anonymously constructed one seems a lot more likely - which Lotus could then
>anonymously patronize.

Even if operation of such a system is "outlawed," the government would still 
have to TRY to enforce the law, which would be mighty difficult.  Remember, 
the whole system is based on anonymity, which means it'd be hard to get 
witnesses to any overt act.  And we have 1st amendment issues to consider:  
If this system were operated from overseas, it would be difficult or 
impossible to restrict communication with the main organization, etc.

I believe that the enthusiastic support by some well-known software company 
(even if they didn't intend to actually run or assist in the running of the 
operation itself) would make the politicians shit bricks, leading to a 
cathartic national debate that we sorely need.

> I do have some ideas for making such possible, but I'm
>waiting on a defense of three points before I'll release them. These points
>are:
>
>	A. My previously mentioned problem with a limited but non-libertarian
>organization.

I don't deny that such an organization might spring up.  (Anti-abortion 
activists are the group which come most immediately to my mind, BTW.  I'm 
not in sympathy with them; quite the opposite.)  I've never claimed that 
this system is totally immune to such abuse, in the same way that the seller 
of a gun can certify that it will never be used to commit a crime.


>	B. I don't trust the average person to look ahead enough to make this
>(or other Anarcho-Capitalist) schemes work.

Fortunately, "Assassination Politics" will achieve this "crypto anarchy" 
even if only a tiny fraction of the population participate and use it.  The 
reason is that the number of decision-maker government employees is 
comparatively small and most will resign before being "terminated." (with 
extreme prejudice.)  The total cost to bring down the US government will 
probably be substantially less than $100 million.


> In other words, the average person
>has to be able to see that a non-limited organization is a danger to them,
>etcetera.

I realize that this takes a bit of thinking to recognize.  I've thought 
about this whole thing for nearly a year, now, and it is still a fascinating 
and yet a bit terrifying subject.


> Moreover, Jim Bell is ignoring the other sources of propaganda than
>government in convincing the average person that someone is doing something
>wrong (when, by my ethics at least, they aren't) - such as religion and
>various organizations like the PFDA.

Again, only a tiny fraction of the population needs to participate...


> Admittedly, as I've stated before, the
>requirement for some money would help, at least to the degree that our economy
>is meritocratic. (A growing tendency, fortunately.) If most people are on a
>subsistence wage (the result of free trade & automation with varying human
>abilities), they can't afford enough money for Assasination Politics. (Yes,
>I'm an intellectual Elitist. Deal with it.)

I've been asked what I think would be the average payoff for a medium-level 
government official "kill" would be.  Naturally, that would be 
market-driven, but it is reasonable to assume that most of the payment for a 
CURRENT contract killing is based on the risk; not merely the risk of doing 
the job and/or getting caught, but also the risk of dealing with (and 
trusting, etc) the other guy.  I suspect that the vast majority of 
convictions for contract killings occur not because the killer was caught in 
the act, but because of these relationships associated with it.

Since "Assassination Politics" promises essentially perfect anonymity to the 
donors as well as the "predictors", the majority of the "risk" associated 
with having such a job done would be far lower than currently.  I estimate, 
therefore, that you could get "action" for around $10,000.

Since "Assassination Politics" is based on a combined-donation system, even 
people on a subsistence wage could contribute; a quarter here, a dollar 
there, pretty soon it turns into real money.


>	C. While I may not like dealing with the average person very much (see
>above), I don't want to see them starving in the streets. I can see
>governmental welfare as being necessary for this, although the private form
>is definitely preferable. (And yes, I can justify this as being a 
libertarian -
>if not Libertarian Party - viewpoint. If I recall correctly, I had a debate
>with Perry on this on Libernet, in which he tried to dismiss me as "just a
>Democrat." I was posting under the name ALLENS@YANG.EARLHAM.EDU at the time).
>	-Allen

I understand your concern.  I wish there was some simple argument I could 
give which would assuage your fears.  However, I look at it this way:  The 
Federal government (and all other governments, around the world) are 
curently parasites on the rest of the population.  Now "parasite theory" is 
that the parasite has some sort of optimum "parasite level" above which he 
cannot go.   Once the cost for such parasitism is removed, there will be an 
economic boom for those "hosts" of the parasite.  Naturally, the parasite 
will be in trouble, but that's only justice.

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

iQCVAwUBMSDdJfqHVDBboB2dAQEvrAP8DBlD+6eDoUGNBHo+VjfjWHoCv17zuxaE
ZpRek0qYw1hyLH/BtDbhdF9WWX+epcxN2FHEMgC/LOlndUmyx2GsVX2usfetT7bd
CBDG99nOg7aU1ZPavmEJDsp9rd2kycdjDA2WkLWLj4FeiwT3kiT2Yieh1aVweXff
U3VB1cYCefc=
=3LY3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----