From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:29:37 +0800
To: hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet
Message-ID: <199609212321.QAA07044@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:34 PM 9/21/96 -0400, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
>
>[AP drivel deleted]
>
>Go talk to someone who is a member of an organisation like the PLO or
>Hammas and pretty near the top. If you think that they would be intimidated
>for a moment by AP you have another think comming.

It depends entirely on what you mean by "intimidated."

AP would make them pretty damn useless, because instead of the typical 
Palestiniation having to depend on a few corrupt self-chosen leaders, they 
could get their revenge on an individual basis.  Who needs PLO or Hamas 
under such circumstances?   Besides, the Israelis (as well as resentful 
Palestinians) could get rid of abusive PLO or Hamas leadership using AP.


>
>If it could the US would have assasinated Saddam by now.

No, because the leadership in the US who would either choose such a system 
(or not) well understand that people who live in glass palaces shouldn't 
start throwing rocks against the enemy leadership.


> It can't because it
>is too difficult to find out where exactly a person will be. Assasination
>attempts against Castro similarly failed. 

Assassination can easily fail if you don't give the proper people the 
motivation to accomplish the task. The key to having it work out is to 
ensure that the few people who have access to the target are sufficiently 
motivated to collect the reward. Who, exactly, was given a motivation to 
kill Castro?  A few clowns in Miami?  A few crooks in Jersey?

Give _everybody_ who meets Castro during the day a $10 million motivation to 
kill him, and he'll be dead before sunset.


>If you care to look at the history of Cambodia you will see that Lon Nol
>assumed the presidency despite the knowledge that there was practically no ch
>chance of defeating the Khumer Rouge and that he would almost certainly be 
dead
>in less than a week as a result. 
>
>Both the assumption AP rests on are utterly false. It is neither possible
>to assasinate people at will nor will it intimidate. 


Since it's never been tried before, how do you know?

>In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I*
>would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules
>of AP. 

I don't doubt that there will be many people who misunderstand AP.  You're 
obviously one of them.

I would naturally consider it permissable to engage the support of 
>others in their suppression. Since we now live in the fantasy land of AP
>I can now wipe out anyone anywhere so I eliminate all AP leaders.
>
>
>I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of
>people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone
>is going to act on it. Probably not Jim Bell, more likely a psychopath who
>lurks on the list but does not post. 

Pardon me, but what's wrong with this?    Follow the news more closely, and 
you'll hear of a group which is operating in southern Mexico, the "EPR," 
which is killing off government employees, politicians, and police.  True, 
they're not implementing the mathematical, digital-cash basis behind AP, but 
they see to be making good progress against the corruption which is Mexico.  
Increase their productivity by a factor of 10, and the Mexican government 
would be terrified.  Increase it by 100, and the Mexican government would 
fall within a few months.


>If you call for people to be murdered - and let us not forget that this is
>what AP is about you bear the responsibility when someone acts on it.

Does that make YOU responsible if, by calling for people to NOT kill their 
oppressors, they continue to suffer oppression?


>I consider AP to be very close to calling for the assasination of the 
>President of the USA. That is a federal crime and there is a law that 
>requires the investigation of any such threats. I suggest that people
>think *very* carefully before engaging in this dangerous nonsense any
>further. 
>
>	Phill
>PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder.


Then you obviously don't understand the meaning of the word, "censorship."


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com