paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:

Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP.

Who decides what "innocent" was? In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto gives him the right to murder them.

Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is that assasination pools will become a feature of the political landscape.

No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to do so. It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed attempts to prop up the scheme. No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any therefore no country would ever host it.

Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could place a bet on their imminent death...

There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine with absolutely no safeguards.

Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being killed.

This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster.

Question: Would you say the assasination of a statist who had badly violated the NAP (eg. A district attorney involved in prosecutions for drug dealing) was a crime?

Absolutely for the simple reason that mob rule, lynch law is always criminal. If there is no due process there is no justice. Under AP rules the state has a perfect right to execute Bell. Bell clearly intends the murder of government personel, therefore under AP rules the government has the "right" to protect itself with AP if it choses. If it decides on a less arbitrary sanction then under AP principles that is a concession it is not required to make. AP eliminates process and with it proof. There are no steps proposed by which an AP initiator should deterine whether his rights have indeed been infringed. Therefore an instigator is not acting upon actual infringement of rights, merely suspected infringment. The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by infringing his rights, without trial. AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory.

WRONG... The LEAs were the initiators of force and violators of the NAP, Jim Bell, were he to kill a member of the IRS, would not be commiting any crime, rather defending himself from a violation of his rights.

He would empirically be guilty of a crime. The courts would consider it murder and sentence him accordingly. You may not consider him ethically to be guitly of something wrong. I would disagree in that case. The LEAs have the right to initiate force in accordance with the directions of a court order. They are pre-emtively protecting their personal right to defend themselves and on behalf of society pre-emptively protecting it.

If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right to kill me to protect himself?

He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances.

...

However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me.

Then you are of weak character and a closet statist.

Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their lungs we can return to sanity. I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in court if asked.

If you believe that you are going to violate someone rights to the extent that they want to have you killed you clearly have some sort of problem.

People have threatened to murder me for what I have written. Salman Rushdie is in hiding for the same reason. I don't believe that people are fit judges of their own cause as Bell and you do.

Otherwise you have no more to worry about than you do now, AP simply allows people perfect (as near as possible) anonymity, You can have someone assasinated now without betting pools....

I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of innocent people. Phill