At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote:

...

The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams.

I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the rich/powerful

In practice, we can't hold out much hope that donations to an AP system from "rich and powerful" people can be identified as such. After all, with the appropriate software I could just as easily make 100, $10 donations as a single $1000 donation. Assuming anonymity held, nobody but the donor knows from where the money came. However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents come to mind, of course. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com