It seems likely that any overt organization operating an Assasination Politics scheme will be outlawed... even though the most logical reading of current laws says that it isn't illegal (except for the gambling part). An anonymously constructed one seems a lot more likely - which Lotus could then anonymously patronize. Even if operation of such a system is "outlawed,"
waiting on a defense of three points before I'll release them. These points are: 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
(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
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
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
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.) I've been asked what I think would be the average payoff for a medium-level government official "kill" would be. Naturally, that would be market-driven, but it is reasonable to assume that most of the payment for a CURRENT contract killing is based on the risk; not merely the risk of doing
C. While I may not like dealing with the average person very much (see above), I don't want to see them starving in the streets. I can see governmental welfare as being necessary for this, although the private form is definitely preferable. (And yes, I can justify this as being a
if not Libertarian Party - viewpoint. If I recall correctly, I had a debate with Perry on this on Libernet, in which he tried to dismiss me as "just a Democrat." I was posting under the name ALLENS@YANG.EARLHAM.EDU at the time). - Allen 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 currently parasites on the rest of the population. Now "parasite theory" is
the government would still have to TRY to enforce the law, which would be mighty difficult. Remember, the whole system is based on anonymity, which means it'd be hard to get witnesses to any overt act. And we have 1st amendment issues to consider: If this system were operated from overseas, it would be difficult or impossible to restrict communication with the main organization, etc. I believe that the enthusiastic support by some well-known software company (even if they didn't intend to actually run or assist in the running of the operation itself) would make the politicians shit bricks, leading to a cathartic national debate that we sorely need. > I do have some ideas for making such possible, but I'm 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. >B. I don't trust the average person to look ahead enough to make this probably be substantially less than $100 million. > In other words, the average person 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 population needs to participate... > Admittedly, as I've stated before, the the job and/or getting caught, but also the risk of dealing with (and trusting, etc) the other guy. I suspect that the vast majority of convictions for contract killings occur not because the killer was caught in the act, but because of these relationships associated with it. Since "Assassination Politics" promises essentially perfect anonymity to the donors as well as the "predictors", the majority of the "risk" associated with having such a job done would be far lower than currently. I estimate, therefore, that you could get "action" for around $10,000. 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. libertarian - 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. Has the US dollar depreciated that much in 6 years parasite justine?