From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:10:50 -0800 (PST)
To: Steve Schear <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <199702050510.VAA06865@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote:
>>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


In practice, we can't hold out much hope that donations to an AP system from 
"rich and powerful" people can be identified as such.  After all, with the 
appropriate software I could just as easily make 100, $10 donations as a 
single $1000 donation.  Assuming anonymity held, nobody but the donor knows 
from where the money came.

However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the 
overall effects.    While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly 
thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it 
would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get 
rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly."   Government agents 
come to mind, of course.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com