Re: Assasination Politics

["E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>]

From:	IN%"jimbell@pacifier.com"  "jim bell" 13-FEB-1996 14:53:40.39
>From: Me 
>>	A. My previously mentioned problem with a limited but non-libertarian
>>organization.

>I don't deny that such an organization might spring up.  (Anti-abortion 
>activists are the group which come most immediately to my mind, BTW.  I'm 
>not in sympathy with them; quite the opposite.)  I've never claimed that 
>this system is totally immune to such abuse, in the same way that the seller 
>of a gun can certify that it will never be used to commit a crime.

	I understand and agree with the gun argument. However, it's still a
matter of whether Assasination Politics will overall be better or worse than
the current system. If better, then I'll support it if it becomes necessary (I
still hope for peaceful (or at least relatively peaceful) change - hopefully,
it has not become necessary for the Declaration of Independence's justification
of revolution to be reused). If worse, I won't. I won't try to stop you from
doing so, however (currently, there's no way that I could, for instance).
	Incidentally, by "support" I am meaning making suggestions for
technical improvements. Admittedly, the degree to which I can do so is limited
by my lack of technical knowledge, but I believe I have thought of some
workable refinements.
	As well as the obvious problem of unethical assasinations, there is
also that of a negative reputation being given to various cypherpunk-liked
ideas (anonymous remailers, fully anonymous digital cash, etcetera) if someone
notices this.

>>	B. I don't trust the average person to look ahead enough to make this
>>(or other Anarcho-Capitalist) schemes work.

>Fortunately, "Assassination Politics" will achieve this "crypto anarchy" 
>even if only a tiny fraction of the population participate and use it.  The 
>reason is that the number of decision-maker government employees is 
>comparatively small and most will resign before being "terminated." (with 
>extreme prejudice.)  The total cost to bring down the US government will 
>probably be substantially less than $100 million.

>> In other words, the average person
>>has to be able to see that a non-limited organization is a danger to them,
>>etcetera.

>I realize that this takes a bit of thinking to recognize.  I've thought 
>about this whole thing for nearly a year, now, and it is still a fascinating 
>and yet a bit terrifying subject.

>> Moreover, Jim Bell is ignoring the other sources of propaganda than
>>government in convincing the average person that someone is doing something
>>wrong (when, by my ethics at least, they aren't) - such as religion and
>>various organizations like the PFDA.

>Again, only a tiny fraction of the population needs to participate...

	However, if more of the population participates, they may do stupid
things like using an organization that might strike at them - just as they
currently support a government that can crack down on them. The minority of
intelligent people - the tiny fraction needed for this to potentially work -
isn't a factor for this part. In other words, I'm more worried about too _many_
people - the wrong people - participating rather than too few.

>> Admittedly, as I've stated before, the
>>requirement for some money would help, at least to the degree that our
>>economy is meritocratic. (A growing tendency, fortunately.) If most people
>>are on a subsistence wage (the result of free trade & automation with
>>varying human abilities), they can't afford enough money for Assasination
>>Politics. (Yes, I'm an intellectual Elitist. Deal with it.)

>Since "Assassination Politics" is based on a combined-donation system, even 
>people on a subsistence wage could contribute; a quarter here, a dollar 
>there, pretty soon it turns into real money.

	That is an argument against it. Do you want the people who give to
televangelists being able to more directly have people killed than in the
current system (when at least you've got votes by others to take care of the
problem)? Unfortunately, the same system of ethics that would make one's
targets the right ones also excludes the targets (non-governmental figures)
that can create the problems under this system - like the PFDA leaders.

>I understand your concern.  I wish there was some simple argument I could 
>give which would assuage your fears.  However, I look at it this way:  The 
>Federal government (and all other governments, around the world) are 
>curently parasites on the rest of the population.  Now "parasite theory" is 
>that the parasite has some sort of optimum "parasite level" above which he 
>cannot go.   Once the cost for such parasitism is removed, there will be an 
>economic boom for those "hosts" of the parasite.  Naturally, the parasite 
>will be in trouble, but that's only justice.

	Yes, there would be an economic boom under Anarcho-Capitalism - but
for whom? All the population, or just the intellectual Elite? Now, so long as
the masses (the non-Elite) have at least enough to survive - a subsistence wage
- I wouldn't call this a problem. (Liberals should see Mickey Kaus' _The End of
Equality_ for some liberal arguments to this effect). It's when you go below
that that it's an ethical problem, at least under my ethical system.
(Incidentally, a similar argument can be made about some other issues, such as
campaign finance reform. Equality before the law means equality before the
judiciary, not equality before the legislature or the executive. Otherwise, how
could one have media that weren't government-controlled?) 
	-Allen