None

[nobody@alpha.c2.org (Anonymous)]

> In my essay, "Assassination Politics," I pointed out that it would be
> relatively easy to deter such official-type actions if enough of us simply
> said, "NO!" and denominated it in terms of dollars and cents.  After all,
> with four million Compuserve users, if they each were willing to donate a
> penny to see this latter-day Fuhrer dead, that would be $40,000.  (Pardon
> me if I don't translate this into marks and other currencies.)
> 
> In practice, of course, if such a system were in place, it is  highly
> unlikely that he would have even dared try to put pressure on Compuserve,
> and Compuserve wouldn't have dared respond cooperatively to such
> outrageous influence.

In reality, four million compuserve users would not donate a penny each.
It is likely that a few hundred people who felt strongly about
the cause (and didn't mind a little bloodshed) might be willing to put up
funds in amounts of around $20.  

Of course nobody would want to advertise under their real name that they
have a contract out on some gummint agent.  This would require the
existance of a "Murder, Inc." as an escrow agent for the money.  (There
would likely be several such agents as it it unlikely people would trust
just one.)  Each person would give the escrow agent their contribution
toward the elimination of the gummint troublemaker.

Anyone who was willing to do the hit could post an encrypted claim, in
advance, stating the time and date or method he plans to use, and where to
send payment.  Once the act was done, the hitman posts the decryption key
so that everyone can see that he did it, and he collects the money.

If after some reasonable amount of time, nobody takes out the gubmint
asswipe, then the escrow agent returns all the money.

It's quite feasable, and not especially difficult.  The hardest thing is
convincing people that the escrow agent is trustworthy, and to convince
people that they really want to pay to have someone murdered.  There is
something a little chilling about that thought...  On the other hand, the
US government seems to feel that it's okay to kill people if they can get
away with it (Ruby Ridge, Waco, that guy in California (forgot his name)
who got shot on his ranch over bogus drug charges, etc.)  So although
murder is a Bad Thing(tm), the gubmint has set a very bad precedent in
making it look "okay".  Hence it becomes "okay" for people to do the same
to them (for example the recent Oklahoma incident).  It's okay for the
government to randomly pick on innocent people to make a statement, hence
it becomes okay to derail random trains to make a statement.  (For the
record, I am absolutely not defending what those people did to that Amtrak
train in Arizona, just pointing out the psycology of it.  If you're mad at
the government then fucking kill some government people - What the hell
did the amtrak passengers do to you?)  Unfortunately it seems to be becoming
okay to pick on random people to make an unrelated point (or just boost your
ego)  The government is using this tactic too, for example pick on a few
porno collectors to demonstrate your "authority" in cyberspace.  Same thing
with picking on random gun owners to make a statement against RKBA.  So
maybe it will become popular to kill a random politician (or anyone) just
to make a statement against the government.  This is turning into a rant.
I'll shut up now.