From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 15:22:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Ecash API about to be released
Message-ID: <m0u0Jzf-0008xCC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:49 PM 3/22/96 -0500, t byfield wrote:
>9:34 AM 3/22/96, jim bell:
>
>> For obvious reasons, I am interested in ecash with full payee, as well as
>> payer, anonymity.  Last I heard, Digicash didn't provide this.  Any updates?
>
>        Finally setting up shop, eh?

No, just keeping the pot boiling.



> I can see your shingle already:
>
>                   ------------------------------------
>                  |                                    |
>                  |   JIM "Yeah, THOSE Daltons" BELL   |
>                  |                                    |
>                  |   Anonymous Assassination Broker   |
>                  |                                    |
>                  |            "redefining             |
>                  |           random violence          |
>                  |             since 1996"            |
>                   ------------------------------------

One reason I can say with a good degree of confidence that I've already won 
the debate is that my opponents are stuck with fielding silly "feel-good" 
one-liners such as the one you've crafted above.  Nothing I've said 
indicates that I'm in favor of "random violence":  the kind I would 
_enthusiastically_ facilitate is a highly-directed form of violence, in the 
direction of people who have historically maintained a high degree of 
implied and potential violence in this society for decades.  That's right, 
government employees.  You know, the ones who can attack you (as they did 
Rodney King), illegally search your house (as they did OJ Simpson), shoot up 
and eventually burn your residence (a la Waco) and kill innocent people in a 
standoff (Ruby Ridge.)  Oh, yes, I can't forget Donald Scott's fate, to be 
killed in a hail of police bullets fired during a search obtained with 
perjured testimony.

Not to mention the collection of well over a trillion dollars in individual 
and corporate income taxes, none of which could be collected without the 
ultimate threat of violence against those who resist.

Naturally, the closet (and not-so-closet) statists see nothing wrong with 
this kind of government-authorized violence, and therefore they would object 
to any attempt to prevent it as I am doing.

The only way you will ever be able to effectively challenge my opinions is 
if you're forced to deal with reality:  This society is already saturated 
with violence and the threat of violence, and the only way to stop it is to 
disable those who maintain that violence.  The best way is to force them to 
resign, or eliminate them if they do not.

Care to try again with a more credible argument?

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com