No Subject

[owner-cypherpunks@toad.com]

At 01:48 PM 2/12/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>	I have changed the subject header (despite its destroying threading
>with the way my mailreader works) so that Perry et al can more easily filter
>this out. I have concluded that Assasination Politics, since it is a possible
>development of true anonymnity, etcetera, is a proper discussion topic for
>cypherpunks - while not cryptography in and of itself, it is a possible result
>of cryptography.

I'm glad some people see that.  This may, in fact, turn out to be one of the 
most important products of modern, public-key cryptography.


>From:	IN%"frantz@netcom.com" 12-FEB-1996 03:24:07.29
>
>>Again, absolutely.  Hell, I can't even devise a filter that will let me
>>filter out Jim Bell's rants while letting me see his reasoned arguments on
>>anonymous assassination.  (I would love to have him address the Salman
>>Rushdie issue, a man who is still alive despite a considerable announced
>>price for his head.  There appear to be limits to who can be subject to
>>assassination for pay.)
>
>	Actually, that's an argument for non-misusage of Assasination Politics.
>If the person hides, there's not much one can do about it. But a hiding
>law enforcement agent can't be out violating people's rights. 

Bingo!   That's why this system will be so effective; it will DETER bad 
behavior on the part of the government and its agents.


>(I will mention
>that whether a right is violated or not is essentially a matter of the
>perceiver - under any system, whether governmental or not. All ethical
>arguments assume either some degree of common ground that can be argued from,
>or the finding of logical inconsistency). Those who do so via the net can be
>taken care of via the other mechanisms discussed here. It's just that the
>physical part is a possible net weakness.
>	Moreover, just because _some_ rights-violaters (not that Rushdie was
>one) aren't killed doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't be. A system doesn't
>have to be 100% efficient to be effective.

Yup; it's interesting that Franz didn't see this... Maybe he just didn't
WANT to see it!


>	However, the Rushdie case does bring up one problem I have with
>Assasination Politics as currently constructed. While people are unlikely to
>patronize a general/non-discriminatory organization, a more particular but
>non-libertarian one is still possible. For instance, if the Christian
>Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them
>from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - such as a doctor
>researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing
>gene therapy work they found offensive? The patrons would know that _they_
>wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell
>on this subject.
>	-Allen

Your question was actually a two-parter.  I will separate it below and 
comment on the pieces:


>For instance, if the Christian
>Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them
>from offing everyone who was a major leader against them -

"Who needs leaders"?  Think about this, carefully.  The current political 
system is based on the idea that if you don't like the way things are being 
done, you have to publicize your unhappiness, to organize, and for that  you 
normally "need" leaders.  With "Assassination Politics," _leaders_ will not 
only not be necessary, they might be the prime targets for unhappy people!  
But this will work both ways:  "Christian Coalition" LEADERS will be targets 
themselves if they publicly advocate the killing of abortion doctors.


> such as a doctor
>researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing
>gene therapy work they found offensive? 

I wish there was some sort of "perfect, easy solution" to this dilemma, but 
it's possible there isn't.  Ultimately, anybody who does anything that 
angers enough people, ENOUGH, will be a potential target.  I don't think 
this is a major admission however; society has ALWAYS been this way.  In the 
early 1600's in Salem, women were killed simply due to false accusations 
that they engaged in 'witchcraft."  Governments have prosecuted (and 
persecuted) people for violation of what we now call victimless crimes.  In 
the pre-1960's South, being black was a de-facto "crime":  They could be 
arrested, tried, and convicted on a pretense.  Over 60% of prison cells are 
filled with people who sold chemicals (drugs) to willing buyers.

I think it's clear that there are ALREADY plenty of violations of rights 
going on; at most, you can claim that "Assassination Politics" is 
"imperfect" in the sense that it doesn't completely solve this problem.  But 
since I do genuinely believe it will eliminate war, militaries, governments, 
taxes, and other evils, I think we'll end up with a far better society than 
we have today.

>The patrons would know that _they_
>wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell
>on this subject.

All is not lost, however.  I contend that society would likely IMPROVE to 
the point where the kind of behavior you want to avoid will not commonly 
happen.  Wishful thinking?  Well, consider a point which was driven home to 
me a week ago at a dinner with my parents, sister and brother in law, and my 
two nieces, ages 4 and 9.  We were eating spareribs, and my father (age 65) 
commented that such meat used to be considered trash meat, and "only the 
niggers bought it."  (BTW, my father was not and is not a bigot, quite the 
opposite; he used this terminology to relate the general opinion during the 
time frame he grew up in; he used this terminology to reflect on and deride 
that public opinion back then.) 

My older niece looked mystified, and said she hadn't even HEARD the term 
"nigger." (and she's substantially above average in vocabulary and 
intelligence for age 9, BTW)   While I am not going to claim that bigotry is 
dead in the younger generation, I think it's clear that it went out of style 
in the 1960's and progress has since been made in eradicating most of its 
more egregious effects. In short, in that issue, society has improved, if by 
no other method than waiting for the bigots to die off naturally and develop 
a new generation of more tolerant people.  Call this "political correctness" 
if you wish (and I'm about as much an opponent of "political correctness" as 
you'll find) but the fact is that things are getting better with regards to 
race relations.

Similarly, I think that once public advocacy for killing abortion doctors 
and others was deterred (by judicious use of Assassination Politics, for 
example, even if a given example of such use might be considered "wrong" 
because it was a violation of "free speech") 
pretty soon it would be hard to gather much enthusiasm for such bad acts.  
Few people would risk calling publicly for that; the next generation will 
"never" hear such a thing, etc. 

Is it unreasonable for me to suggest that over time, the faults you fear 
will tend to disappear?