From: IN%"jimbell@pacifier.com" "jim bell" 9-MAR-1996 13:28:53.37

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.

_Quantitatively_? How could such arguments be quantitative? The only quantitative arguments that seem to be applicable appear to be over whether or not it could work, not whether or not it would result in an ethically better situation (assuming close to congruent ethical principles, such as agreement on civil liberties).

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.

Whether it will work is a seperate question from whether, if it will work, the consequences are preferable. I'm discussing the first question on a linked thread. Admittedly, one topic that should be brought up in this (and in case of others having skipped this message, one that I'll bring up in that thread) is whether the possible weaknesses of the system (the number of persons in the government, et al) may result in its having an ethical result, if possibly not the one for which you had the original idea. I suspect most people aren't going to want to eliminate every IRS agent from the face of the earth, given currently present moral standards. Some other branches of the govenrment may be a different possiblity. (As well as cases outside of the government such as O.J. Simpson).

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

It's still a worry; if moves were made to put it into practice, it could be used by a government to take various means to crack down on the use of encryption, et al. How much they could suceed in doing so is another question, and one that is frequently debated on this list.

Have you forgotten what might happen to those same televangelists?

Yes, they might be targeted also. Essentially, this comes down to an ends-justify-the-means problem, and one on which I'd come down on the "no" side of the question - I wouldn't want the televangelists killed just because they called for the assasination of someone who shouldn't be assasinated, even though this would turn out the best result in the end. (I am willing to see Iran's government killed, on the other hand, since I _know_ they're participants in a system which kills or tries to kill innocent people (i.e., Rushdie). That sort of proof wouldn't be present under Assasination Politics for 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.

I once sent back to someone who was asking "What would you do to improve the world" a response of "put me in charge, if you're going to ask that general a question." I will leave the reader to conclude whether I was kidding. I understand the basic problem of "will it be better than the current system or not" as not being "which is perfect." -Allen