Further, I don't believe you have enough support for your claim that other targets would not be sought. It is one thing to say that enough people won't vote for someone picked out of the phone book, but what if the
Organization B would thrive, make no mistake. And the people who would be getting in on all the action are the rich. All the politicians who oppose
I had been working on a series of questions/problems with the Assasination Politics idea as initially presented, to be sent to Jim and to people on the NWLIBERTARIANS list, as he requested, but you've kind of preempted one of them. From: IN%"lunaslide@loop.com" 7-FEB-1996 06:57:58.30 predicted individual is a doctor who performs abortions, or an activist for gay rights (or *against* gay rights), or Bill Gates ;-). There are also the individuals who are trying to bring about change in society that is unpopular, but is still in the interest of humanity. Abraham Lincoln surely would have been killed by this system, for example. Also, big corporations would be able to cut down their political enemies such as envornment activists, fair business practice activists and competetors' high ranking officers. Even if only one person in charge of such a business were to put out a digital contract, he would have no problem suppling the money for the hit. People who have tried to make changes for humanity that went against the social norm at the time are revered today for their efforts. In this system, they would likely be assasinated. Nothing would ever change because people are always afraid of change and afraid of things they do not understand and the people who fight that ignorance will likely be killed. Your statement that Organization B, the one that collects for any target, is not well supported. They would still be doing *plenty* of business, in spite of the higher prices. ----------------- Jim has the argument against the organization that collects for any target that nobody'd want to support it because they'd be afraid of being killed themselves by an unlimited organization. However, I am afraid that there is the problem with this that another organization (let's call it C) could spring up that used different principles than libertarian ones to decide which contracts to take, but still had strict principles. Thus, someone who was not violating those principles could use that organization without fear... and its contracts would be lower in price, like Organization A's. One concrete example would be the Christian Coalition, which I am certain has at least some members who are fanatical enough to want to restart the Crusades and Inquisition with conservative Protestantism rather than conservative Catholicism. For instance, anyone doing research on abortifacient drugs or methods could be targeted. their interests would be hit immediately. Anyone trying to change the status quo would be eliminated. Why do you think we are still using combustion engines in the last decade of the 20th century? We could have had better alternatives 20 years ago, but the oil companies would loose out so they have either bought out these ideas or had killed the inventors and bought their patents and are sitting on them. A capitalist economy does not always breed competition that brings out the best and most desireable products because some advancements are bad for all the businesses involved in that market. Big business and the rich would benifit the most from the Assination Politics model. ------------------------ Umm.... as much as it seems otherwise, this is not ConspiracyPunks. Actually, the involvement of wealth instead of votes (the first can be lost, the second cannot) is an argument in _favor_ of Assasination Politics. I generally have the objection to most anarcho-capitalist systems that the average person does not have enough foresight to do the kind of banding together most of them require. This one has the advantage of increased power to the wealthy, who have enough foresight to gain their wealth (or at least keep it, in the case of inheritance). ------------------------
But what if OrgB stops taking donations for "predictions" for "Non-Initiation Of Force Principle" (NIOFP) offenders? Some other organization will crop up to take their place AND the people operating OrgB could be hit for their "ethical" action. There is simply too much opportunity offered by OrgB type organizations for people to pass up. They will not let the higher prices stop them.
If the answer to that problem is to regulate the lists of "victims", then the next question is who are these people who are regulating and what guidelines are they following? Who decides who gets to be the moderators? Could there be exceptions to the (NIOFP)-offender standard? Who would they be and why? Could the organizations be anonymous as well? How would the money be transmitted to them in that case? How can we trust or redress grivances with an organization? There are still many concerns regarding the organizations. If the organizations fail, the whole system fails. --------------------- The organizations themselves can be perfectly anonymous, especially with some improvements onto the basic system that I am considering (and researching). One idea to keep things more honest would be a "deathstamping" organization, which would be above-board and have the "legitimate" function of ecash life insurance (I'll explain further later). -Allen