From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:43:31 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Ass. Politics
Message-ID: <m0trFfq-000922C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

At 10:51 PM 2/25/96 -0500, David R. Conrad wrote:
>
>Salman Rushdie, in a speech I heard several years ago, said that it was
>widely doubted that Iran would or could actually come up with the three
>million dollar bounty on his head.
>This may play a large part in why he is still around.

A few people who basically seem to oppose my idea ("Assassination Politics") 
try to use the Rushdie example as being some sort of "evidence" why it 
wouldn't work.  ("If Rushdie is alive years later, with a few million on his 
head, that proves assassination doesn't work...")   

I, on the contrary, believe that it actually SUPPORTS my theory:  Clearly, 
nobody has trusted Iran's leadership enough to genuinely believe he would be 
able to collect the reward, and thus the apparently size of the reward is 
discounted in people's minds.

When I respond to these objectors, I point out that if Iran was REALLY 
serious about expecting to see Rushdie dead, they would have long ago set up 
some sort of system, analogous to AsPol, that would allow an anonymous 
assassin to kill Rushdie and collect the reward, guaranteed, without risk of 
exposure.  Clearly, that hasn't happened.  (I think we would have heard 
about it if it had.)   This doesn't make the Iranians any more "civilized," 
obviously, it just means that they are either less competent or trustworthy 
about achieving their goals (or are seen to be so), or that they really don't 
want to/can't pay anybody the money for Rushdie's death.

I don't recall every seeing anyone even attempt to contradict this 
counter-argument; they always agree that nobody really believes anyone can 
safely and reliably collect the Rushdie reward.  Needless to say, this 
raises serious doubts  about the competence of many objectors to critically 
analyze the issues in AsPol.  


It would be interesting to get Rushdie's opinion about AsPol.  
It's understandable if he had an initial feeling of revulsion about 
such a system, on the other hand he should recognize that this system would 
also allow opponents of the Iranian government to eliminate those who called 
for his death in the first place.  It is reasonable to suppose that had this 
system been functioning years ago, Iran's government would have been taken 
down long ago.

>I think all the analyses of the economic costs of protecting one person
>vs. protecting many people are rather beside the point, in light of this.

I agree.  AsPol will work even if a few people can be protected, and 
protecting many people is simply not an option.

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

iQCVAwUBMTJ0NPqHVDBboB2dAQGLmAP/dAPz0FrZNT12NjEvkXuXm5JHVbdJPwDq
JhwDBTAReTOirpNJ8mcgn8KN4hsL5rK5Qwyp+7YO3xRPMh39HPH2uBpq63/RZn2p
uu7eXmrR4HQMKhuK5XReYJtARdPdTgL/F3cmMr1TNUW7M+aJikGo4b1OEycIYNdo
Aa1o/peUXlw=
=059O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----