From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:42:07 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <199702060142.RAA08940@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:09 PM 2/4/97 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>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
...
>
>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.
>
The money doesn't necessarily come from taxation, the owner of a business
takes a cut of whatever money is made even if that person is unproductive.
The tyrant would be the owner of the industry.  
If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax,
with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything,
like how their money is spent.  However, even now, as pointed out in some
recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these
few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect.  Although we are in
oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals.  Not unlike what
I heard about the U.S.S.R. in vietnam. The following is according to my
source.  When the Soviet Ambassitor to the U.N. was sick, thats when the aid
to vietnam could begin, as the U.S.S.R was not there to veto it.  Now the
U.S.S.R. was forced to aid both sides, those that were in agreement with
them politically, and the U.N., of which they were a member.  End of source
data.
Even those who oppose the taxes would be forced to pay as it would be the
army that would be collecting.  Then they could take the remaining monies
that they had to target the leaders, who would use the tax revinues to
protect themselves.  If more money was needed, nore taxes would be collected.
If it were a private corporation, the wages of the workers would be reduced
on occassion to pay for the different security systems of the owner.  
Additionally, under our current system, the assassin would have his day in
court, perhaps he could escape the government, making the cost-benefit
analysis skewed in favor of crime.  Under a system as proposed, the assassin
would be forced do deal with a more powerful curse.  Insurance companies
would be reconfigured to anonymously see to the death of whatever caused the
death of thier clients.  They would make money because if the death could be
ruled accidental, they would not have to pay.  If the person died of a heart
attack, and the food taster didn't, (the food taster would probably be the
cooks son by the way), then the bond that the tyrant had with the company
would be void.  The company would cash the check.  If the tyrant wanted to
insure h[is/er] survival, (s)he would take out several of these bonds, with
different companies, each with a signature amount to give to the executors
to check their loyalty.  If the company paying 1295065 dollars didn't pay
up, the executors would tell the world.
The idea is, where a layer can be subverted, duplicate the layer so that at
least one element is bound to work.