Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 06:01 PM 6/9/96 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
>
>Bryce wrote (whilst on his high horse):
>
>> Hm.  I think the best we could hope for is along the lines of
>> "The suspect subscribed to the 'Cypherpunks' discussion group on
>> the Internet, but his violent views were rejected by the members
>> of the group."
>
>Not every member of this list rejects his views.  I for one do not
>reject them outright, but will not defend his views publically for
>fear of embarassing the corporation that I work for. 

Some day, the "embarrassment" may be among those who misunderstood an idea 
that is, by then, fully operational and was an improvement over the previous 
system.  I seem to recall some funny poster titled something like "The five 
stages of a new idea"  which starts out "It'll never work"  and ends up, "I 
knew it would work all along!"

>I do not
>reject Jim Bell's violent views for the simple reason that violence
>is often required to fight violence.  In other words, the best you
>can hope for is "... but his violent views were rejected by some
>members of the group."

I'd like to know what they mean by using the term "rejected."  A rejection 
without an alternative is irresponsible.  Assuming they agree that the 
status quo is unacceptable, and if they believe that change is possible, 
then what is their solution?

Moreover, what is the real meaning of the word "rejected" in this context?  
You can't "reject" gravity, or a hurricane, or eventual death.  


>> It is important that the reporter manages to _not_ use the word
>> "member" to indicate that Bell is a "member" of Cypherpunks.
>
>He *is* a member. And why shouldn't he be?  Are you suggesting that
>this group become moderated? (hiss).  The whole AP concept is very
>relevent to the Cypherpunks, whether the majority like it or not.

In fact, I'd argue that it's inextricably linked to good encryption.  
Defending one will ultimately defend the other.


>If your fear is that reporters will get hold of the wrong end of the
>stick, then perhaps you are correct, but the real problem is the
>*reporters*, not the attitude of the Cypherpunks.  blame them.
>propose a solution. (how about abolition of all libel laws?)

Now _that's_ an excellent idea!  Libel laws never protect the 
anti-establishment, non-mainstream portion of the public, for one.


>> This is assuming that the statement "his violent views were
>> rejected by the members of the group" is actually true!  If
>> there _is_ anyone else here who shares Bell's evil enthusiasms,
>> I strongly encourage you to begin a new list dedicated to that
>> topic.
>
>I disagree with the phrase "evil enthusiasms."  Bell is not an
>evil man.  A little crazy perhaps, but not evil.

Thanks...uh...I think...


>  If you bothered
>to listen to him, you would find that his aim is to create a
>"better" world, where people (especially politicians) are very
>much more responsible for their own actions.  He suggests that
>the number of deaths due to AP will be less that the number of
>deaths due to the current corrupt system.

True.  And it's not just the quantity of deaths that'll be lowered:  The 
"quality" of those deaths (the justification for killing the target) will go 
up, which may seem to be an odd way to refer to it.  Most of us will agree 
that if there was some way to swap the death of the victim, automatically, 
for the death of the criminal or attacker, that would be far more just 
arrangement, as well as rather rapidly deterring future killings.  

An example of the exact opposite is frequently exposed in discussing 
anti-gun-carry laws, which only disarm law-abiding citizens and leave the 
criminals armed.  Such laws, therefore, actually swap the death of the 
criminal for the death of the victim.


>think about it.  how many on this group would have another man
>killed for his views?  For his noisy stereo?  For a competive
>advantage in business?  I am confident the answer will be zero.

Moreover, the number of people wanting to kill the "unjustified" target will 
be extremely low, meaning that one odd donor would have to pay a large 
amount of money to get "action" on his donation.



>On the other hand, I would gladly throw in a few dollars to have
>certain politicians killed.  gladly.  and I will be able to sleep
>at night.

You and a few million other people.  Which is why AP will work so well 
getting rid of governments...and criminals.

>I will sleep better knowing that, although I was
>partly responsible for a mans death, I will have saved countless
>others (a bit like dropping an a-bomb on Japan).

That's exactly correct.  But also, the very existence of such a system will 
_deter_ such people, meaning that it is very likely you won't have to pay 
for anybody's death at all...except for a few that resignation won't save.


>Question for Jim - would you resort to AP to have Bryce popped off?

Nope.  Not when there are so many other deserving targets!    B^)


>Question for Bryce - would you resort to AP to have Jim popped off?

It wouldn't do any good...

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com