ok, I will reply to JB because it amuses me to tear his flimsy wet-tissue-paper thinking.

...

the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing, not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means" argument used by most here), but that in addition it is supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!?

Then you've obviously dramatically mis-read my ideas. I don't claim that _EVERYBODY_ who will fall victim will "deserve" it by your or my opinions,

oh, so in other words, a lot of "innocent" people will be murdered under AP. ah, another great "feature", not a "bug", right??

For example, if you believe in NIOFP, then anyone who violates it has initiated force, and the victim of such force (or, perhaps, anyone else?) can legitimately use a system like AP to fight back.

what is "legitimate"? in our government, "legitimate" refers to our judicial system. it is what determines what is "legitimate" based on laws. in your AP anarchy scheme, the word "legitimate" has no meaning. "legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. this ridiculous and impractical definition was discarded centuries ago because of the free-for-all bloody violence it inevitably leads to. be very clear about what you are advocating: in AP, there are no laws. people do not rely on the judicial system to solve their problems. they take the "law" into their own hands and take out contracts on anyone who offends them. would they feel justified in killing people who disagree with them on cyberspace mailing lists? perhaps, who is to tell? If you _don't_ believe

in libertarian philsophy, obviously you won't necessarily agree with AP, but the source of your agreement is that, not something inherently wrong with AP.

you don't have the slightest clue why I have lambasted AP despite my very clear statements about why, because your brain has been twisted in knots by something, perhaps watching too many old westerns.

...

the assassination politics is quite Hitleresque at its root. "kill our enemies, and everything will be better. it is our enemies that are the root of all evil in the world. extinguish them, and you solve all problems automatically"

THat's a false claim. If the "enemies" are enemies because of what they've actually done wrong, say violate your rights, then it should be your right to stop them. The method you choose shouldn't matter.

ah, like murder. I see. well, I think you are violating my rights by disagreeing with me. I shall arrange your consequences accordingly.

You seem to be assuming that if there are TWO "wrongs" here. But I've tried to make it abundantly clear that justification for the self-defense comes from the initial "wrong."

but who decides what is wrong? the arbitrary opinion of some single human idiot out anywhere in the world? don't you see the tyranny of this? it is far worse than the tyranny of a government if I were to be killed by someone who believes that I violated his rights by breathing air particles or whatever. via AP, you wish to give him the mechanism to murder me without trace.

Where, then, is the SECOND "wrong"? What, exactly, makes it wrong? If a person can't get justice any other way (not to be confused with merely a chance at justice) then why deny that person his rights?

deny rights, legitimacy, justice, blah, blah, blah. the terms you use have no meaning in the system you are advocating. there are no "rights" in an anarchy, because a government is the entity created to safeguard/protect them. all actions are legitimate in an anarchy, because there is no civilized system that rejects any ones in particular.

I acknowledge that if there is no initial "wrong" (the target didn't actually do anything wrong) then the act of targeting him is, itself, wrong, but you're apparently unwilling to back up this hypothetical.

what? that is exactly the hypothetical I have been focusing on. what you fail to comprehend in your reptile-size brain is that "wrong" is a matter of subjectivity. violation of a right is also a subjective matter. after many centuries of experimentation mankind settled on something called a "court system" to make civilized decisions that transcend the irrationality of single men. if you think that a government is a tyranny, perhaps you are not aware of the tyranny of the irrationality of individual men. ah, but if you thought about it some more you might come up with some examples in your close proximity.

It should be obvious to anyone around here that if AP "works," it will work regardless of whether it meets with your approval or any other subset of humankind. That makes it worthy of discussion even if you don't like it.

it will "work" exactly as anonymous murdering now works. AP already exists, that's what you don't understand. what you seem to claim is that by opening it up to the masses, you'd have an egaltarian murder effect that would cleanse society. just curious, how were you raised? what kind of childhood did you have that would cause you to think like you do? I really pity you.

Your objections are invalid. The mere fact that SOME organized killing systems occurred in the past has essentially no relationship to the system I describe.

assassination politics already exists and have existed for centuries. there is nothing fundamentally new about your ideas. The prospect of perfect anonymity, allowing the system to be open

to anyone who chooses to contribute, will make it vastly different from anything that came before.

ah yes, exactly what we need. "enhanced anarchy". you and TCM really should get together and collaborate. I'm sure you'd come up with some fruitful conclusions. == let me give everyone an example of Jim Bell AP thinking. I will do this some more if he persists. A brilliant scientist named Jim Bell studied the problem for many years and in an epiphany one day realized that 99% of murders were due to weapons held with people's hands. he proposed that everyone's hands be cut off. murders would instantly drop 99%. congress decided that rich people needed to be taxed more. so they put a luxury tax on yachts and nice cars. they computed exactly how much they would make based on this tax, and patted themselves on the back. unfortunately, the effect was to cause the rich to stop buying these products. the industries were devastated. Jim Bell, a masterful sociologist, proposed setting up a system whereby people could arrange anonymous "hits" on others who annoyed them as a solution to all society's problems. of course it wasn't that simple, but that's what it amounted to. the system was quite popular at first. it created an air of deadly fear in which everyone was afraid to do anything, even go out of their houses to shop for groceries. eventually, someone snuffed out Jim Bell, and everyone went back to living normal lives. yes, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to.