-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:11 PM 2/14/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:

At 11:36 AM 2/13/96 -0800, you wrote:

...

The Rushdie incident is simply so far removed from "Assassination Politics" that it can't possibly be used to refute it; I still believe it actually demonstrates how much effort somebody has to go to, to protect a targeted person. One targeted person is easy to protect. 10,000 would be FAR harder. And the moment a few of those guys got "whacked," the rest would want to resign their jobs and hope they would be allowed to retire in peace.

Rushdie is just low on your target list. I agree that it's much harder to protect 10,000 people (say the Iranians put out a contract on Baha'is and other heretics, at $X/head...) but it's still abusable.

Does the fact that some system is "abusable" mean that it is not better than the current system? Or are you under the impression that the current system is NOT "abusable"?!? The reason I mention this is that I get the strange impression that the system I advocate is being judged by a different standard than the status quo. "Double standard," is the usual term. Is this fair? Let's consider the Rushdie situation in more detail. Why is he in danger? Because, obviously enough, some high-ranking LEADERS in the Moslem faith put a contract out on him. Okay, if they're high-ranking, and they're well known, and they're putting out contracts on people, RECIPROCATE! See how this works? If "Ayatollah X" says, "Kill Rushdie and we'll give you a couple million dollars," then "AsPol" that Ayatollah to death, a dollar at a time. Pretty soon, no "high-ranking" Moslem would DARE put out a contract on a Rushie-like character, for fear of getting killed himself. Of course, it is true that individual Moslems could ALSO use the "Assassination Politics" mechanism, but they would have to be self-motivated, because the system is designed to be anonymous. Keep in mind that "nobody" would have ever heard of the name "Rushdie" if it hadn't been for that contract.

Maybe the Anonymous Captains of Industry put out a contract on strike leaders.

People keep talking about "leaders" as if we NEEDED leaders SHEESH! Stay stuck in your old ruts if you want, but the fact is the world is changing from a "leader-centric" system to a distributed-control system, assisted by digital anonymity.

...

From a cypherpunks perspective, yes you could run an assassination lottery, though it might be hard for the assassin to collect - how do you prove that _you_ were the hit man, and not merely the nearest person to a phone after it happened? How do you prevent an anonymous escrow agency from refusing to deliver the cash? Some of the protocols may be difficult to work out.

There are a lot of interesting questions implied by the above paragraph, and I will be happy to discuss them, in the next note, tomorrow. If anything, I am surprised that there hasn't been more commentary along these lines than has occurred up to now. Frankly, if I want to discuss the POLITICAL aspects, I typically do that in NWLIBERTARIANS@TELEPORT.COMO, not Cypherpunks. The main reason I subscribed to Cypherpunks is that I wanted the TECHNICAL issues discussed, debated, and perfected. The problem, I think, is that people (like, for instance, Perry) complain about the political-implications discussion of AsPol, but he clearly doesn't want to move the discussion to a more technical "Cypherpunks"-type level, with detailed discussions of protocols, trust issues, etc. I _DO_.

Meanwhile WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE JIM BELL REWARD 13 demo-cyberbucks

Hey, I'm not easily offended! Actually, while I think this is rather funny, I am fully aware that the truth is that my idea will upset a few million apple-carts. And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm one of the first victims of this system. (I am careful to point out, however, that I believe a system such as this to always have been inevitable; Jim Bell is merely one of the first to notice the ultimate implications of this system.) As I said long ago, there are some words in "A Tale of Two Cities" which describes my feelings on the subject.

An assassination-sponsoring society is _not_ a polite society.

Question: How would you know? Since we've never had anything even remotely approaching the system I advocate, how can you say how "polite" it would be? Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSLpnPqHVDBboB2dAQESewP/X2KCgxxdWtCe/T26Pp7QadhwgkYv7bHT PFj9SYKh07WlMQKQaL6kWvwtlx/LWJGjEWvU5wBBgp4Xrslmy6KKkjtjl0TwiGnA sEKYCrjvXthSjcydt9O7zHRV+z9/khN+qw1WumCzQHSbbaW7DpaK4eQRmmOqcqD6 565Ay/AFJVY= =/dWe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----