From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:00:49 -0800 (PST)
To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <199701270100.RAA21027@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:30 AM 1/26/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:

>> The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the
>> vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as
>> someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not
>> be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant.   When a distress call goes
>> out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come
>> from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance.
>>
>> It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens
>> of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or
>> "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech".   It is "those of
>> us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those
>> who would take it away".
>
>However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should
>not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians
>in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did.

"I have a solution to that problem."

Seriously!  

Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to 
prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see 
any recognition of this fact.  

For the benefit of the masses, the AP ("Assassination Politics") solution 
to, for example, the Iraq problem would be to allow anyone and everyone in 
the world to donate money towards the death of Saddam Hussein, and any 
leadership which survives him, until that leadership satisfies the public 
that they won't be following in Hussein's footsteps.  Simple.  Economical.  
And, dare I say it, fair.

I believe that the Coalition spent $60 BILLION dollars doing the Iraq war, 
and they didn't even get rid of Saddam.  I'm sure AP would have done the 
task for under $100 million, and possibly far less. (and that money would 
have been collected by donation, not stolen in taxes.  Much of that money 
would have come from the Iraqi people themselves, BTW.)

 There would be few if any civilian casualities, no hunger or poverty caused 
among the people.  Even their soldiers would be relatively unaffected, 
except that their militaries (as well as ours) would be disbanded.

Reminds me of the punchline to that joke.

"He sent two boats and a helicopter!  What more did you want?!?"




Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com