From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 04:50:03 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: Assasination Politics
Message-ID: <m0tvSvE-0008zMC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

At 04:51 PM 3/8/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>From:	IN%"jimbell@pacifier.com"  "jim bell" 13-FEB-1996 14:53:40.39
>>From: Me 
>>>	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.
+__________^^^     

Ooops! my error, I meant "can't."

>	I understand and agree with the gun argument. However, it's still a
>matter of whether Assasination Politics will overall be better or worse than
>the current system. 

The one thing that disappoints me about the result of my presentation of 
this idea is that I haven't heard any intelligent arguments quantitatively 
arguing that things will be worse.  Other proponents simply agree that the 
system would be better; most of the opponents don't take the trouble to 
quantify their objections.  

>If better, then I'll support it if it becomes necessary (I
>still hope for peaceful (or at least relatively peaceful) change - hopefully,
>it has not become necessary for the Declaration of Independence's 
justification
>of revolution to be reused). If worse, I won't. I won't try to stop you from
>doing so, however (currently, there's no way that I could, for instance).

What's interesting is that you see this; yet there are a number of opponents 
who can't seem to realize that what THEY want (or, for that matter, what _I_ 
want) may be absolutely irrelevant to what is actually going to happen.  

>	Incidentally, by "support" I am meaning making suggestions for
>technical improvements. Admittedly, the degree to which I can do so is limited
>by my lack of technical knowledge, but I believe I have thought of some
>workable refinements.

These are the kind of discussions I'd most want to have.  I understand, 
however, that anybody might hesitate a bit to appear to be actively 
encouraging such a system.  That's why I've decided my best function is to 
be the initiator of the idea, and the primary educator.  Somebody else will 
actually develop the system, probably without telling me anything.


>	As well as the obvious problem of unethical assasinations, there is
>also that of a negative reputation being given to various cypherpunk-liked
>ideas (anonymous remailers, fully anonymous digital cash, etcetera) if someone
>notices this.

Perhaps, but most (non-net-using) people are so unaware of encryption as to 
make this irrelevant, I think.


>>> 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...
>
>	However, if more of the population participates, they may do stupid
>things like using an organization that might strike at them - just as they
>currently support a government that can crack down on them. The minority of
>intelligent people - the tiny fraction needed for this to potentially work -
>isn't a factor for this part. In other words, I'm more worried about too _many_
>people - the wrong people - participating rather than too few.

Well, there's not a great deal that we can do to prevent it.  Five years 
ago, I'm sure the then-users of the Internet were fearful of all the newbies 
to come; even today, we may subtly fear those to come.   In other words, 
once WE'RE on the lifeboat, we don't want anyone else to show up!


>>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.
>
>	That is an argument against it. Do you want the people who give to
>televangelists being able to more directly have people killed than in the
>current system (when at least you've got votes by others to take care of the
>problem)? Unfortunately, the same system of ethics that would make one's
>targets the right ones also excludes the targets (non-governmental figures)
>that can create the problems under this system - like the PFDA leaders.

Have you forgotten what might happen to those same televangelists?

While I'd sure like to be able to design a system where only the "right" 
people die (by my own opinion), I'm under no illusion that this would be 
anything other than a dictatorship under "Jim Bell" or whoever happened to 
be in control.  I think I've done a fairly good job of designing 
(anticipating?) a system that will do a lot of good, hopefully without doing 
a lot of bad.

There may be nothing I can do about the negatives, unfortunately.  

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

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

iQCVAwUBMUHG/vqHVDBboB2dAQHitAP/VT/c++g81sgzDPHh2d6wcSmmHgQQg0Rz
Vr3sQt2RYoEZBdLG267IxQw0aYAQvQv2KARD7A+nlbXlM7XR6xQYdjhXQ47hEel0
OBG//UI3XcA8TcdIqOuREi1T+AAWpYYyTz1YpGGR1oMZp6Mv/jjHoZ6f6i2XGY6u
sjHfSLcd5Dg=
=ICpg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----