-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 04:51 PM 3/8/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

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. +__________^^^

Ooops! my error, I meant "can't."

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.

The one thing that disappoints me about the result of my presentation of this idea is that I haven't heard any intelligent arguments quantitatively arguing that things will be worse. Other proponents simply agree that the system would be better; most of the opponents don't take the trouble to quantify their objections.

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).

What's interesting is that you see this; yet there are a number of opponents who can't seem to realize that what THEY want (or, for that matter, what _I_ want) may be absolutely irrelevant to what is actually going to happen.

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.

These are the kind of discussions I'd most want to have. I understand, however, that anybody might hesitate a bit to appear to be actively encouraging such a system. That's why I've decided my best function is to be the initiator of the idea, and the primary educator. Somebody else will actually develop the system, probably without telling me anything.

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.

Perhaps, but most (non-net-using) people are so unaware of encryption as to make this irrelevant, I think.

...

...

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.

Well, there's not a great deal that we can do to prevent it. Five years ago, I'm sure the then-users of the Internet were fearful of all the newbies to come; even today, we may subtly fear those to come. In other words, once WE'RE on the lifeboat, we don't want anyone else to show up!

...

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.

Have you forgotten what might happen to those same televangelists? While I'd sure like to be able to design a system where only the "right" people die (by my own opinion), I'm under no illusion that this would be anything other than a dictatorship under "Jim Bell" or whoever happened to be in control. I think I've done a fairly good job of designing (anticipating?) a system that will do a lot of good, hopefully without doing a lot of bad. There may be nothing I can do about the negatives, unfortunately. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUHG/vqHVDBboB2dAQHitAP/VT/c++g81sgzDPHh2d6wcSmmHgQQg0Rz Vr3sQt2RYoEZBdLG267IxQw0aYAQvQv2KARD7A+nlbXlM7XR6xQYdjhXQ47hEel0 OBG//UI3XcA8TcdIqOuREi1T+AAWpYYyTz1YpGGR1oMZp6Mv/jjHoZ6f6i2XGY6u sjHfSLcd5Dg= =ICpg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----