From: jimbell@pacifier.com (Jim Bell)
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 22:42:02 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: My editorial in Oregonian newspaper published today.
Message-ID: <199705061458.HAA08763@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The following editorial appears in the Tuesday, May 6 issue of the
(Portland) Oregonian newspaper, on the editorial page.



Fishing Expedition Swims Against Tide

According to the maxim, if you invent a better mouse-trap the world will
beat a path to your door.  Maybe the truth is that, instead, you'll get
assaulted by angry cats who are afraid of losing their jobs.

Suppose the government discovered a method to make itself obsolete.  Or
suppose the military learned how to make us all even more secure, for a
thousandth as much defense spending.   We'd never hear about it because
they'd be out of a job, and job security, not national security, is their
highest priority.

Two years ago I had a revolutionary  idea.   I was tired of hearing the
usual stories about how much harder society's problems have gotten in the
last few decades.    It's not that the problems are harder, it's just that
large constituencies have been built which depend on these "problems"  for
their income.  

For example, when the Cold War ended,  there was no military reason we
couldn't have reduced our military budget by a factor of two or three.
"But no!,"  said the politicians, let's continue buying those expensive
Stealth bombers, submarines, tilt-wing airplanes, and other toys. We weren't
afraid of getting attacked, the spending continued because of the threat of
unemployment on the part of the defense-industry workers. 

Legalize drugs and turn a vast legal problem into a far cheaper and more
manageable health problem?  No, because with 70% or more of the prison
population there due to drug laws, you'd have to fire most of the jailers,
the prosecutors, the police, the judges, and the lawyers, all of whom have
come to depend on the involuntary "generosity" of the taxpayer.

Two years ago I realized that the whole corrupt system could be stopped.  It
would be necessary to not only halt pork-barrel politics at all levels, but
also to provide a very few necessary services for people, such as defense
and justice, although financed inexpensively and voluntarily.   You'd have
to shut down all militaries and governments, simultaneously, all around the
world, while at the same time protecting our security.  Impossible?

In the summer of 1995 I began to write an essay, half-jokingly titled
"Assassination Politics".    It occurred to me that if people could defend
themselves by anonymously donating money to anonymous people who act to
protect us, you wouldn't need militaries or governments anymore.   Nuclear
bombs would be obsolete, and in fact they will be hopelessly  dangerous to
anyone who owns them, because the rest of us will be able to donate money to
ensure their owners have no choice but to dismantle them.  Conventional
militaries will be useless,  because threats to people's security will be
dealt with far more cheaply by large numbers of tiny individual
contributions buying the part-time services of a few semi-professional
trouble-shooters.   

Murderous dictators of the past and present,  such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Khadafi, Idi Amin,  and so many others simply
couldn't operate in such a world, because they (and their replacements, if
anyone dared follow them) could be removed for the collective pocket change
of a few million angry citizens.

There'd be no conventional wars, because anyone who would make war would be
a threat not only to his enemy, but also to anyone on "his" side who would
be forced to help pay for that war, or even third parties who wouldn't want
to see aggression win, for fear they'd be the next target.  There would be
no draft, because forcing someone else to fight for you makes YOU his enemy,
as well: On the other hand, if your cause is just, he will contribute
voluntarily, just as you do, to see the bad guy stopped. 

There would be little crime, because crime will be treated as an attack, and
people will be able to donate money to find and stop the criminals.  But
unlike today, there will be no large constituency (police, jailers, judges,
prosecutors, lawyers) who have a vested interest in keeping the crime rate
high, thus terrorizing the public into supporting "anti-crime spending"
which really just lines their pockets.

I've been openly debating the idea on the Internet since then with anyone
who will listen.  My essay  surprises many and shocks more than a few, but
I am pleased that such a truly revolutionary concept has been so well
received.   Even the Columbian newspaper (www.columbian.com) has decided to
add a pointer to the essay.

The only "threat" in the essay is to the jobs of the people who have been
parasites on the rest of us for decades, as well as to the future of
tyrannies around the world.  But that's why,  on April 1, twenty Federal
agents burst in and took my computer,  told the news media I was "armed and
dangerous," and began engaging in a fishing expedition including harassing
people simply for knowing me.  (No arrest or charges so far.)  They may
claim that they were looking for something else, but what they are really,
desperately hoping to find is...job security.  If I'm right, they have none.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com