At 01:48 PM 2/12/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

I have changed the subject header (despite its destroying threading with the way my mailreader works) so that Perry et al can more easily filter this out. I have concluded that Assasination Politics, since it is a possible development of true anonymnity, etcetera, is a proper discussion topic for cypherpunks - while not cryptography in and of itself, it is a possible result of cryptography.

I'm glad some people see that. This may, in fact, turn out to be one of the most important products of modern, public-key cryptography.

From: IN%"frantz@netcom.com" 12-FEB-1996 03:24:07.29

...

Again, absolutely. Hell, I can't even devise a filter that will let me filter out Jim Bell's rants while letting me see his reasoned arguments on anonymous assassination. (I would love to have him address the Salman Rushdie issue, a man who is still alive despite a considerable announced price for his head. There appear to be limits to who can be subject to assassination for pay.)

Actually, that's an argument for non-misusage of Assasination Politics. If the person hides, there's not much one can do about it. But a hiding law enforcement agent can't be out violating people's rights.

Bingo! That's why this system will be so effective; it will DETER bad behavior on the part of the government and its agents.

(I will mention that whether a right is violated or not is essentially a matter of the perceiver - under any system, whether governmental or not. All ethical arguments assume either some degree of common ground that can be argued from, or the finding of logical inconsistency). Those who do so via the net can be taken care of via the other mechanisms discussed here. It's just that the physical part is a possible net weakness. Moreover, just because _some_ rights-violaters (not that Rushdie was one) aren't killed doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't be. A system doesn't have to be 100% efficient to be effective.

Yup; it's interesting that Franz didn't see this... Maybe he just didn't WANT to see it!

However, the Rushdie case does bring up one problem I have with Assasination Politics as currently constructed. While people are unlikely to patronize a general/non-discriminatory organization, a more particular but non-libertarian one is still possible. For instance, if the Christian Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - such as a doctor researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing gene therapy work they found offensive? The patrons would know that _they_ wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell on this subject. -Allen

Your question was actually a two-parter. I will separate it below and comment on the pieces:

For instance, if the Christian Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them from offing everyone who was a major leader against them -

"Who needs leaders"? Think about this, carefully. The current political system is based on the idea that if you don't like the way things are being done, you have to publicize your unhappiness, to organize, and for that you normally "need" leaders. With "Assassination Politics," _leaders_ will not only not be necessary, they might be the prime targets for unhappy people! But this will work both ways: "Christian Coalition" LEADERS will be targets themselves if they publicly advocate the killing of abortion doctors.

such as a doctor researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing gene therapy work they found offensive?

I wish there was some sort of "perfect, easy solution" to this dilemma, but it's possible there isn't. Ultimately, anybody who does anything that angers enough people, ENOUGH, will be a potential target. I don't think this is a major admission however; society has ALWAYS been this way. In the early 1600's in Salem, women were killed simply due to false accusations that they engaged in 'witchcraft." Governments have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for violation of what we now call victimless crimes. In the pre-1960's South, being black was a de-facto "crime": They could be arrested, tried, and convicted on a pretense. Over 60% of prison cells are filled with people who sold chemicals (drugs) to willing buyers. I think it's clear that there are ALREADY plenty of violations of rights going on; at most, you can claim that "Assassination Politics" is "imperfect" in the sense that it doesn't completely solve this problem. But since I do genuinely believe it will eliminate war, militaries, governments, taxes, and other evils, I think we'll end up with a far better society than we have today.

The patrons would know that _they_ wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell on this subject.

All is not lost, however. I contend that society would likely IMPROVE to the point where the kind of behavior you want to avoid will not commonly happen. Wishful thinking? Well, consider a point which was driven home to me a week ago at a dinner with my parents, sister and brother in law, and my two nieces, ages 4 and 9. We were eating spareribs, and my father (age 65) commented that such meat used to be considered trash meat, and "only the niggers bought it." (BTW, my father was not and is not a bigot, quite the opposite; he used this terminology to relate the general opinion during the time frame he grew up in; he used this terminology to reflect on and deride that public opinion back then.) My older niece looked mystified, and said she hadn't even HEARD the term "nigger." (and she's substantially above average in vocabulary and intelligence for age 9, BTW) While I am not going to claim that bigotry is dead in the younger generation, I think it's clear that it went out of style in the 1960's and progress has since been made in eradicating most of its more egregious effects. In short, in that issue, society has improved, if by no other method than waiting for the bigots to die off naturally and develop a new generation of more tolerant people. Call this "political correctness" if you wish (and I'm about as much an opponent of "political correctness" as you'll find) but the fact is that things are getting better with regards to race relations. Similarly, I think that once public advocacy for killing abortion doctors and others was deterred (by judicious use of Assassination Politics, for example, even if a given example of such use might be considered "wrong" because it was a violation of "free speech") pretty soon it would be hard to gather much enthusiasm for such bad acts. Few people would risk calling publicly for that; the next generation will "never" hear such a thing, etc. Is it unreasonable for me to suggest that over time, the faults you fear will tend to disappear?