From: lucifer@dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 18:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Adam Back speaks out on AP / was: Jim Bell? Never heard of him.
Message-ID: <199704080100.VAA21197@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Adam Back wrote:
> I see lots of discussion of AP.  However I see lots of people
> discussing cautiously, couching it in terms of:
> game theory, or intellectual possibility
> or dismissing it as impractical.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just imagining things, but it would seem to me that if one
> had in the past made comments on the list suggesting that AP might
> even be a _good thing_, Jim Bell's experience might make one think now
> was be a good time to disclaim that one was talking theoretically.

  Jim *who*???
 
> I've viewed several posters comments on AP ever since Jim Bell got
> involved in discussing anonymous markets in illegal services as being
> careful to stay on the side of speech.
 
> It is almost as if they are afraid to discuss openly their views on
> the subject.

  This doesn't stop them from castigating those who post 
anonymously in regard to this subject.
  (As if not wanting to face 20 armed government agents who
consider you "armed and dangerous" {i.e. shoot first and ask
questions later} somehow negates their facts and logic.)

> Democracy is one person one vote, however this is skewed in most
> democracies by numerous factors: corporate lobbying, media influence,
> and people who are easily influenced by media.
> 
> AP is one $ one vote.  Theoretically rich people could out-vote their
> rivals. 

  So the end result might well be, not the assassination of those
involved, but the lessening of their power by virtue of depleting
their funds, which leads to a more equal playing field.

> Game theoretically: AP may be a good thing for you personally if the
> reduction in power of groups targetted by AP bets was beneficial
> enough to you to cancel out the negative aspects of you yourself being
> targetted, and the negative aspects of living in the resulting
> society.

  Green Peace might serve as a good example of this.
  A sufficient number of individuals contributing small amounts
to the pool might not be able to negate the total funds available
to whaling companies, but they might be able to impact the profit
margin sufficiently that they would not be able to extinct the
species.
 
> I'm not too sure what the outcome would be.  All sorts of people might get
> targetted by all kinds of unanticipated groups of the populace.  Will the
> mafia join the fray, and offer insurance against having a contract taken out
> on yourself?  Will the government join in and take out hits on GAK
> dissenters and free speech activists?  Will corporations get rid of
> embarassing whistleblowers?  Will irritating media starlets get offed?
> 
> We have no way of knowing whether the outcome would be "a good thing" by any
> chosen metric.

  But the results would be a far cry more interesting than
reruns of Gilligan's Island.

TruthMonger (#7 - the 'sane' one)