On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 12:19:26 -0600
John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2018, at 7:41 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >  "  2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. "
> >
> >
> > Before I had written and published the first part of my AP essay, I anticipated that once such a system started, it might actually be somewhat dangerous to be a "famous" person.  (But I don't recall actually stating this in the essay; I need to go back and remind myself what I wrote!)    At least, it would be far safer to be essentially unknown.    And, other people since then have thought of the same possibility.  Today, you can have an actor who is famous for playing villains.  What  happens in an AP-operating world, where people (including somewhat mentally-unstable people) think of this actor as being a 'bad guy'?
> >
> > One partial answer might simply be:  Actors who play 'bad guys' will probably have to be paid more, to compensate them for their risk!  But of course, once
>
>
> LOL! That your thinking has only gone this deep on this particular issue,
> “actors playing bad guys might be killed by the AP mob, so they will get to
> demand a higher salary to pay their security retinue”, doesn’t show a whole lot
> of deep thinking or intellectual curiosity, Jim :P.  I find your stories of IC
> work much more interesting.
>
> The way AP is designed, these “juries” (comprised of who?) are not a
> requirement, and there could always be multiple AP markets, some with or without
> these “juries”. Or some with wholly state-controlled “juries”.


>    It seems that Jim didn't fully answer the question and instead sidestepped it. If something like ethereum turns out to actually be decentralized and uncensorable then we should expect an AP system in which anybody can be targeted, not just criminals. 

I think that's what I have said on that subject.  

 >   As a side note, the idea of providers of security competing on the market was first proposed in 1849 (or earlier, so that's at least 120 years ago) by libertarians like Spooner and Molinari. Libertarians want to replace the criminal organization known as government with VOLUNTARY services for protecting life liberty and property. So under a libertarian system nobody is forced to pay protection and protection agencies are bound by libertarian law.

   

Jim the added :

> Not that it would be impossible to have a less-ethical AP organization appear, and accept 'predictions' on just about anyone, including myself.  But I think the cost would be much higher.   


    I see no reason why the cost should always be higher. I asked what would happen if racists decided to target people they didn't like. I don't think your answer made much sense. Your example about an actor being targeted for the roles he plays seems rather absurd. Your solution for the targeted actor is almost as absurd but more importantly the solution doesn't apply to ordinary people who are targeted for no good reason. 

I've already explained this.  "Always higher"?  I cannot claim that.  But usually higher.  


 >   So maybe Jim you should try again? =) 

I think I've addressed this already.  I've explained that I believe there should be 'competing' AP-type organizations, some of which have rules which prohibit what most people would label "unjustified" killing.  Others, perhaps a much smaller number of organizations, would have somewhat less (fewer??) scruples. 

 (Are 'scruples' quantized?  An attempt to do a Google-search for 'scruples quantized' has no clear results.  Although strangely, a search for 'scruples Planck' leads to a 'Scruple Conversion Chart', see:   https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight/scruple.html?u=scruple&v=1     )

The latter could be, and I think would be, more expensive.  That, and what I believe will be a much-smaller number of people who would contribute to a given "hit", would make it much more difficult (i.e. expensive) 

Put simply, if you wanted to help kill a well-known politician, your $1 contribution would be combined with perhaps millions of others.   OTOH, if you want to kill a hostile relative, far fewer people would contribute to that outcome.  



>
> What if state-actors were to put a hit on you?  And anyone else who has publicly
> avowed for or otherwise is known to support AP?  That might serve as a slight
> chilling concept on the whole thing.

As I said within the last day, for there to be "state-actors", you'd have to have a "state".  And, some of those must be aware you.  That's quite true for me, not nearly so much for most other people.  

>    what if jew-kristians were to put hits on drug dealers, 'pornographers', atheists and the like.  The possibilities for abuse are endless...

I think I've said in the past that there is nothing that makes impossible a person simply buying a gun and ammunition, walking out the store, and shooting the first person he sees.    Is this POSSIBLE?  Sure.   Is it LIKELY?   No.    To be sure, there will still be activities that are likely to inflame some portion of the public.   At least, this is the way things happen today.    

                    Jim Bell