From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
From: Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> To: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 PM Subject: Re: The Black List
But I approached the problem differently: I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy someone else's death. But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people might want to pay $1 each for that outcome. That amounts to a crowdsourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. And I also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything which we call wrong in today's society. Anybody who is trying to argue against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flawed status quo, even if they don't realize that. I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society. Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I'd already solved it.
Claiming that an assassination market solves the defense problem in Friedman's utilitarian and general anarchocapitalism is very bold. You have a betting pool for killing people.>You don't have any sort of collection of funds that protect a society from something like everyday crime, you've merely got a hit market. To the extent that crime presents a problem that needs to be solved, there is no reason that private organization can't exist to detect crime, and then prove it to an excellent standard. Those who commit crimecan be presented with a choice: make your victim whole, and/or accept preventive confinement, or earn a bounty on an AP-type system. Your idea is effectively crowdsourcing, which in many ways could be very useful for Friedman's hard problem. However, while remaining purely voluntary in nature, what differentiates your assassination market from:
- taxes (compulsory collection of small amounts from many) Taxes are, as you pointed out, compulsory. Donating to an AP-type system won't be compulsory. But potential criminals won't know who is donating, andwho is not donating. And it will probably not matter: Most people, out of a sense of self-protection, will donate to such crime-prevention and detection funds,because they will amount to a deterrent against all criminals. - hits (a few wealthy individuals take out a contract)
Moreover, you still are facing the 'free-rider' problem, where, "if everybody else in my community payed a dollar to kill this guy, why should I have to do so, it is only -1 dollar. I don't think 'free riders' will be much of a problem. For one thing, I think the system (AP) will be vastly more efficient than the convention crimeprotection system. (in the same way that military defense could be 100xcheaper.
I am neither trying to discredit nor insult your ideas; just curious if you could expound upon how an assassination market fits into defense in a free society.
This video might help set the context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy ' - - Intelemetry I hope that someday, in the future, technology will advance to the point where transcripts to 55-minute videos can be automatically generated. I can alreadysee that Murphy speaks rapidly, but I could easily read the transcript 10x as fast as he can speak it. By pointing to that video, you are effectively asking me to employ 55 minutes of my life on something which you say will merely "set the context". Murphy and his business partner, Robert Vroman, engaged in a public three-part debate about AP. Vroman wote two, Murphy wrote one. Bob Vroman http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ape , http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks-moderated@minder.net/msg02068.
and of Bob Murphy, www.anti-state.com/murphy/murphy17.html (although the Murphy essay might not be available, except as an archive on the Wayback Machine.) as well as by R. Sukumaran http://www.idsa.in/strategicanalysis/CryptologyDigitalAssassinationand
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 jim bell: html theTerrorismFuturesMarket_rsukumaran_0404.html.
Jim, astute and concise reply as always. If you're looking for a shorter tract on some of Murphy's work you should consult this: http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Essays-Market-Anarchy/dp/1479258377 The Mises Institute is good about making their work freely available as well.
Further, consider
https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content /anarchism/game-theory-anarchism-ii-how-information-can-smash-the-state. md
series -- anti-state.com
I think the idea of assassination politics distills to a very insightful approach to defense and crowdsourcing in general. However, from the vantage point of anarchism one crucial aspect worthy of consideration is that of self autonomy and negative liberty. You don't have "freedom to," but rather "freedom from" the state. With assassination politics there is an argument that this is retributive justice regarding compulsory theft of assets (and property, in certain instances). However, I strongly urge you to consider that the taking of a life is serious business. Consider this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3208907/The-Ashley-Madison-suici de-Texas-police-chief-takes-life-just-days-email-leaked-cheating-website - -hack.html There are lesser means that can be employed and crowdfunded which could strongly dis-incentivize working for the state (such as invasion of privacy, which is arguably retributive with respect to Rothbard's notion of justice). The problem with David Friedman is that he approaches Anarchocapitalism like a problem in physics. It will just end up a certain way because market forces will make things happen. However, one thing that he does not take into consideration (for instance, where he differs from the Independent Institute and the Mises Institute) is the notion of individual freedom and the right of neither the state nor any external actor to violate your personal autonomy (which you can extrapolate from your body/mind and unto you property). - From the Friedmanite perspective, citizenry will kill the state, the state will kill back, and the process will reach an equilibrium. While that might work in the 'market sense,' to reach that state requires pretty grotesque action to take place. That is the problem with Utilitarian Anarchocapitalism. There is no real consideration of actual human rights, it is a market driven theory on how society could potentially function in the absence of the state. Nothing more.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNedWAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+h4sL/R0Y3Q/JRqFaMZ80i4x0Y/ib /77CTpSkR1F9Fo+A3G+POs/lpXzw1fss22+qfV3xg+li5O+1ipYynG18Vz7jXTiJ lDgQmVp+V63wkhUpHwmfv+V9YIXVpLMxrOPlpjUgchwNAKPxtALcqQMHeCGBAL0r WRsrzxTbj4kWZfWWRTcCtwS4xRWE2GOxr53f/Jqp2sc5kDh3wLUhfVkSzbwf1TL2 Ah19q51aZCmVgLuI5BUKeVqVXcM9u7kNDX4C3atd2a1uN+/1YWorGcLz/pv6pvpk moUwtd2WL1t/XYxUzCSBSuUIb0p2DHOqMj51r/ywoJvG2sXk+YPaQuiMAiQHjhB8 KrPgNQLfcJYF0o24wVpSs9pg5qxGC578Ve9Y3uNbpHEgIINcDq4y+D1oEmrTHZOu xoA8Mir15C9Kk3jE6kqWz1Zeqe135BcCMYHz7OrS9a3+OH6SYrcU9TRG4lGZAwcw 9xRH5QQgX+ABZx0rM6zypWYW/ftQXHn3JKUGQLH/1A== =DNQo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----