From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:50:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
Message-ID: <m0tmGDL-0008ziC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:56 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At 10:18 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Alan Olsen wrote:
>...
>
>>The v-chip will be less than useful as a real filter tool for those of us
>>who have a different worldview than the censors.
>
>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.)

Since Olsen claimed to have filtered me out, I'm replying primarily for the 
benefit of the others on the list.

You mention the issue of Rushdie, as if it is some sort of refutation of my 
idea.   Quite the contrary; I think it actually supports me.

How so?, you ask?  Well, let's consider any potential assassin who might be 
interested in this "contract."  Aside from the obvious moral issues involved 
here (Rushdie has, presumably, done nothing to warrant his death), the truth 
is that such a potential assassin would see a number of problems that would 
strongly dissuade him from attempting to kill Rushdie.

1.  There is no way he could be assured that he could collect the award 
anonymously.  His name would certainly "get out," and then he would be 
subject not merely to "the law," but also anybody who wanted revenge for 
Rushdie's death.

2.   There is no way he could be assured that he would actually receive the 
award.  (How would he prove HE did it?)

3.  That's because there is no way he would enforce this "contract" should 
the offerer refuse to pay.


In other words, this situation is VASTLY different than the one that 
"Assassination Politics" would presumably be able to guarantee:

1.  The assassin would be absolutely anonymous; he would not have to trust 
ANYONE with knowledge of his guilt.

2.  The assassin would have a digital record of previous payoffs made by the 
organization in question, reassuring him that they actually will pay their 
debt.

3.  There will be no need to "enforce" such a contract; failure to pay will 
be provable in the "court of public opinion."  If the offering organization 
fails to pay, this failure will destroy its hard-earned credibility.


So you see, the Rushdie case is simply not any kind of disproof of 
"Assassination Politics":  if anything,it demonstrates WHY "murder for hire" 
in so rare and ineffective today, despite even a huge offer on a well-known
target.