From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:16:13 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <199701282116.NAA02586@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:47 PM 1/27/97 -0800, jim bell wrote:
...
>You misunderstand AP, yet again.  AP doesn't really take votes, it merely 
>totals donations.  It is an essential element of the AP system that even a 
>tiny minority should be able to kill individuals who are seen as threats, as 
>long as this capability is universal.  True, the smaller the minority the 
>more uneconomical such an action would be for them, but it would be well 
>within the ability of 1% of the population to avoid a another Holocaust by 
>getting rid of those pushing for it.
>
>In the current political system, in the US for instance, 51% of the 
>population is able to screw the remaining 49%, just as long as they can 
>maintain the majority.  Or, perhaps even more accurately and ominously, a 
>tiny fraction of the population (the current leadership class) is able to 
>screw the 49%, as long as they have the un-thinking backing of the remaining 
>and relatively uninvolved 51%.
>
>AP disables this system.  AP turns government into the moral equivalent of a 
>pick-up football game:  Nobody is being forced to play, and everybody and 
>anybody can simply "get up and leave" whenever he wants to.  The moment the 
>"rules of the game" to make an individual's continued participation 
>unsatisfying, he can leave.
>
...
In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population
control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being
able to screw the remaining 90%.  At least as it is, it takes a simple majority.

As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio.

A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed.
The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier
ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through
will get 110% of the poor's bid.
The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a
collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the
tyrants murder.
The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the
wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the
tyrant will get them killed.  Even if the attempt was successful.
The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more
by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams.