From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 08:19:17 +0800
To: Pilgrim <nfn04017@gator.naples.net>
Subject: Re: Democratic Assassination
In-Reply-To: <l03102800afc6405bc170@[204.210.206.39]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970613141144.197A-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is built upon
> the notion that those people who do and say unpopular things deserve death.

Not necessarily. No-one here would begin to suggest that AP *should* be 
used for censorship purposes, to say that AP is a censorship tool is a 
misunderstanding based on that old enemy material determinism. A gun can 
be a censorship tool, a knife can be a censorship tool, hell just about 
any blunt instrument can be a censorship tool too. I believe that those 
who censor, tax, imprison unlawfully and persecute deserve death. Of 
course some people may see this differently, I refer in particular to 
Peter Trei who has said on several occasions he objects to execution in 
nearly all circumstances (I say nearly all because I don`t know his 
position on assasination when it is the only way to remove a dictator or 
similar), I can understand his objection, and although I often talk of 
the uses of AP and executing government criminals I do see problems with 
the total irrevocability of the death penalty, it`s just that I see the 
burden of proof in cases such as polticians and police etc. as being so 
totally overwhelming as to preclude even a small doubt, let alone 
"reasonable doubt", whatever you define that as being, YMMV.

> Yet that is exactly what a system of "democratic" assassinations would do,
> enable a large group of people to intimidate and subvert a smaller group of
> people.

Of course, but once again I refer you to my example of other weapons, 
guns can be used by a large group of people to subvert a smaller group.
AP is essentially, just as are any other more direct form of anonymous 
contract killings, another weapon, its moral worth is defined by the way 
in which it is used, not by the system itself.

> So, for the sake of argument, let this system of anonymous democratic
> assassination come to pass...then what? Utopia? Maybe....

No, but maybe anarchy, maybe stable minarchist government, the whole 
system is too dynamic and too difficult to predict. AP could equally lead 
to chaos, however, the fact that the current murder rate in, for example, 
the US is high but not out of control. The reason I personally think that 
AP or anonymous contract killings will not lead to chaos is based on the 
fact that it is not currently impossible to commit the perfect crime 
without digital assasination markets. If I want to kill my next door 
neighbour I can find a way to do so and make the chance of being caught 
diminishingly small, Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
When it comes to killing say a polotician, this becomes much more 
difficult, my chances of poisoning the presidents coffee is not that good 
to say the least! AP allows the killing of public officials and can help 
to make the source of the asssasination payments untraceable (I say can 
help because although digital assasination markets can be made perfectly 
secure in terms of being untraceable, this does little good if I go out, 
drink a bottle of whisky, and tell a total stranger I am having the prime 
minister killed ;-)) Using AP (or similar systems) to kill my next door 
neighbout is inneficient and makes little sense.

> But let's say that someone comes along later, proposing a way of living
> that is radically different from the norm. Exhibiting a nasty
> characteristic that has been inherent in the human races for eons....even
> before the rise of large sprawling governments....the majority of people
> decide that they don't like this troublemaker....through the process of
> democratic assassination...this person is now dead. Forget even the shade
> of a possibility that this person may have been right...that his way of
> living ***may*** have been better than the norm. Right and wrong don't
> matter. Popularity and the "mood of the crowd" do...this person said
> somethig unpopular, and is dead because of it.
> 
> Freedom of speech?

Don`t confuse the system (which has no ethical structure to it in itself, 
it is simply a tool) with the way in which it is used. You would not say 
that a hammer is "an evil censorship tool" because I can bludgeon people 
to death with it if they say something I do not like. The scale of the 
usefulness of a system makes no difference to this.

> Let's say that a group of people suddenly become unpopular. Perhaps times
> are tough and the majority need a scapegoat. Maybe this group of people
> have been long oppressed and are finally fighting back. Through a system of
> democratized assassination....their leaders are dead....with no one willing
> to take their place (out of fear)....maybe a few other random people are
> killed just to really get these people quaking in their boots.

Read the paragraph above and substitute "the government" for "a group of 
people". This is the primary use of assasination markets, you are clearly 
however referring to the assasination of an innocuous group of people, 
say a religious order. Once again, take the paragraph above and at each 
instance of "democratized assasination" read "guns", the system is merely 
a tool, make value judgements on the people who use it incorrectly, not 
the system itself.

> Even if digital cash, anonymous remailers and strong encryption could
> enable us to set up a democratic system of assassination (which it
> couldn't)...

Expand on this please, if you believe anonymous digital assasination 
markets are not possible from a technical point of view please explain why...

> I still wouldn't want to live in a society where killing is
> democratized...I do not want to live in a society where people can
> abitrarily take a vote on whether I should live or die....

You do live in such a society, if the government decides to fuck you over 
and manages somehow to make a muder charge stick 12 randomly selected 
people can decide whether you live or die. If you say something unpopular 
you can be assasinated. 

> Just because a majority of people like an idea, does that make the idea any
> more right or any less wrong?

No, of course not, this is why democracy is an essentially flawed system. 
Indeed when I speak of minarchist state systems I see no need for 
democracy in such a system, there would be so little need for government 
that it would be sufficient to have commercial style recruitment to 
whatever remained of congress etc.

> I (and I would wager you) do not want to live in a society where it is
> dangerous...even life threatening to be unpopular, and to go against the
> flow. I know that I hold fast to ideas and beliefs which are hardly
> considered popular....the only reason I'm not socially scorned, right now,
> is because I'm very diplomatic about them....

My point exactly, you currently live in a society where holding unpopular 
views is dangerous, even life threatening. 

> 	1) He has parents, maybe even a wife and children, all of whom love him

See execution. If for example a "terrorist" blows up a building 
containing only innocent people, killing hundreds. He deserves to die, of 
course from a hedonist point of view the sorrow suffered by his wife, 
children, parents etc. would be overwhelmingly great compared with the 
combined small cold comfort felt out of revenge by the relatives of the 
initial victims, leading one to believe this would be an unjustified 
killing, I don`t hold with this.

> 	He's another human being....just like yourself...indeed, the only
> 	difference between himself and yourself is how he makes a living.

NO!, in that case we can possibly assume that TM believes in killing 
writers, or artists etc. Not so, working for the government (in an active 
capacity, as Jim said in his AP essay he would not consider the crimes of 
say a forest service grunt to be comparable with those of a police 
officer or similar) is not just a way of earning a wage, it involves 
accepting immoral laws and enforcing them, it involves persecuting people 
the government of the day happens not the like. It is not just a way of 
earning a living, see "ve vere just obeying orders"...

> And maybe...just maybe...he is just as big a victim of "The Machine" as you
> are.

This is a difficult point to even contemplate as having any basis in 
reality. Do you know any police officer (lets make that more specific 
and say DEA inspector) who is a victim? Do you know of any possibility, 
no matter how remote, that someone delegated the task of beating 
confessions out of suspects is a "victim" himself?

> Perhaps "The Machine" has manipulated you more than you realize.
> 
> Justice rarely comes out of hatred.

I agree, it is rarely productive to hate your enemy, but it is often a 
natural reaction...

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"