From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:11:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <199701290611.WAA20641@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>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.

I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no
motive other than financial gain.  I would submit that there are those that
have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the
wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks
acceptable.  These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the
rich/powerful

--Steve