My comments inline.

               Jim Bell


On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 3:29:14 AM PST, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:


>Hi Jim Bell,
>I sent you a message some time ago when I heard about this idea, but I
didn't get a reply.


I searched, and found a number of messages about "Public Shielded Work Room", but that was all I found in 2018.  What was the date you sent the message?  Was it to the CP list, or to me directly?  You could send it to me again, at my email address.


>If you receive this e-mail, this is my misunderstanding:


>As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those
with the most money?


Well, it kinda-sorta gives life-and-death power to just about everyone, in small parts.  And superficially, it looks like people who have more money will have more such influence.  People who are fixated on the issue of "inequality" will initially find this to be either a fatal flaw or at least a major drawback.

In the pre-AP world, achieving political change requires speaking out, identifying yourself.  That potentially makes such people targets.  In the post-AP world, nobody has to speak out publicly.  And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous.  How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them?

Further, I think it can accurately be said that government is used to maintain inequality, although the means of doing so is normally hidden from public view and awareness.  Government provides favors to those who "play" the game.   Get rid of government, at least the massive bloated one America (for example) currently has, and how would anybody make money off of it?

The current U.S. military budget of over $700 billion is an excellent example of this.   Using an AP-type system, why can't the region formerly known as "America" defend itself on a figure 100x smaller than this, or maybe $7 billion dollars?  After all, if it costs,say, $10 million to kill a threatening leader, you could kill 700 such threatening leaders with $7 billion dollars.  No need to buy tanks, bombers, jet fighters, or any of that expensive military hardware.  


>Wouldn't this provide for the set of people with the most money to
bend power more and more towards themselves, eventually producing a
situation where a few select people control the many?


If AP can be said to be "biased" in any way, that "bias" is in the direction of tearing down involuntary heirarchical power structures.  It isn't clear how AP can be used to build up such power structures, instead.  Anybody who exercises power openly will tend to make others his enemies, and they would be able to use AP to counter such a person.  That doesn't exclude the possibility of exercising power secretly, but it is a reasonable question how that trick might be accomplished.  

You said,  "a few select people control the many?".   How would that come about?  Who would be "the select few"?   (We might suspect that at least initially, they would be "the rich", at least those people who are currently rich.)

But how would they "control" the large masses?   They would no longer be able to use the structures of government to maintain their positions, I think.  They wouldn't be able to identify those in "the many", at least not the relative few that those "in control" would consider their enemies.

Taxing them would be a problem.  Passing onerous and discriminatory laws shouldn't even be possible, since the governments that would do so, and enforce them, will be dismantled.   There should be a free market, ideally a truly free market,, and not the 'crony-capitalism', and 'crony-socialism' we now have in America and Europe.  Am I being too optimistic?  I won't claim to be unbiased, as I am the person who thought up the AP concept initially.  But large numbers of people have been exposed to the AP idea, and I continually do Google-searches for such appearances.   (Such as Google "jim bell" "assassination".)   Myself, I would greatly welcome further discussion.  

Yes, these issues ought to be debated.  Although, I think that relatively few people who are familiar with AP doubt that there is going to be an actual problem.  At least, I haven't seen that.  



>Personally, I support cryptocurrency, but I foremost support power to
be given to those with good _reasons_, rather than strong _financial_
resources, and systems to be put into place allowing these reasons to
be discussed without censorship.


Keep in mind that I think I discovered AP, rather than INVENTING it.  (See the question of whether mathematics was discovered or invented.   Example commentary:   https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/great-math-mystery/    


I can describe how I think AP ought to be implemented, but I've always pointed out that nothing would stop a different person or organization from starting an AP-type system that works with different rules.  So, I can't force an agenda on an AP-system.

 I believe that implementing an AP system, like I describe, will lead to a truly-free market and individual freedom.  It will do so, first, by eliminating governments as we currently know them.  I think that should eliminate the method by which many in current society maintain their positions of power, including inequality.

                           Jim Bell




On 12/11/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch>
> Furrier:
> I notice that you haven't responded to my comment.  Do you not have any
> answer?  You claim to not "agree" with me.  If that were the case, you
> should be able to explain why.
> Why don't you think AP could work?  What do you believe wouldn't work about
> it?
>                      Jim Bell
>
>    On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 11:22:37 PM PST, jim bell
> <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  [apparently the address for the CP list wasn't the one I normally use]
>  My comments inline:
>
>    On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 3:23:09 PM PST, furrier
> <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
>
>  >I watched you live both in Acapulco and Prague. I don't agree with you
> and I don't understand how can people be so naive to think that AP
> can actually work.
>
> Prior to the invention of the RSA encryption system (public-key) the vast
> majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could
> work.Prior to the invention of the TOR system, the vast majority of the
> population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to
> the invention of Bitcoin, the vast majority of the population would not have
> understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of Ethereum,
> the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a
> thing could work.
> But does the opinion of the public determine whether a given invention can
> work?  Your statement implies that the opinion of the masses is somehow
> determinative of whether a technical advance should work.
> Can you explain why you think that AP shouldn't work?  Today?  Your
> position would have sounded plausible in 1995-96.  Then, your technical
> ignorance approximated virtually everyone else's.  But a lot has happened
> since then.
>
>
>  >I am against the whole idea
>
> I am fond of pointing out that governments killed about 250 million people
> in the 20th century.  See "Democide".
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide   (although, the definition varies;
> some people don't consider people killed in war to be victims of Democide.
> I consider that position to be insanely foolish.)  Were you against that?
> If you were, how important do (or did) you think it was that this murder be
> stopped?
> If you agree that it was wrong that governments murdered 250 million people
> in the 20th century, then it is inaccurate to say you are against the WHOLE
> idea of AP.  Because most people seem to agree that if AP was implemented,
> governments would no longer be able to kill people in such vast numbers,
> ever again.  Maybe your (confused) position is that you don't want
> governments to kill people, but you cannot figure out how to stop that from
> occurring.  Well, you can't, but I can.  Am I really wrong?
>
>>, it's the same thing as
> cracking down on cryptocurrency
>
> You do not explain that connection.
>
>  >or dark markets to fight terrorism.
>
>
> You do not explain that connection.
>
>>If you want to fight terrorism
>
> That depends on the definition of "terrorism".  The U.S government doesn't
> define "terrorism" as mere random violence against innocents, but adds the
> condition that the motivation of the terrorist is to change laws or
> government, or both.  But to the extent that terrorism attacks innocents, I
> agree it is wrong.  And must be stopped.
>
>> build a society where terrorism is mute.
>
>
> How about building a tool that makes "terrorism" completely unnecessary.
> Tim McVeigh didn't have a "magic bomb" which, when detonated, killed only
> the top 30 government employees responsible for the Waco massacre, even
> though they might have been hundreds of miles away from each other.  Do you
> think that if McVeigh HAD access to such a "magic bomb", he would have
> preferred instead to destroy an entire building in Oklahoma city filled with
> innocents and relative-innocents?  I consider such a position preposterous,
> and probably you'd agree as well.  AP can be described as a "magic weapon"
> that can be used to target precisely the actual problem-causers, with little
> and probably no collateral damage.  Please explain your precise objection to
> implementing it as I advocate.
>
>>Similar, if you want to fight politicians, build a society where politics
>> are
> either mute or they don't affect our lives so much. Wake up people!
>
>
> If you can explain how to do that, speak up.
> I am reminded of a joke, where a comedian says he bought a book titled "How
> to be a successful millionaire!".  The first page of the book simply
> contained the words, "First get a million dollars".
> But how?
>
>