On 6/23/21, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is an "opportunity cost" to NOT implementing my 'Assassination Politics' 1995 invention. http://jya.com/ap.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government Part I and II of II Walter Block Loyola University New Orleans https://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/27/rp_27_5.pdf Reason Papers 27 (Fall 2004): 113-130. https://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/28/rp_28_7.pdf Reason Papers 28 (Spring 2006): 85-109. Late one night in Washington, D.C. a mugger wearing a ski mask jumped into the path of a well-dressed man and stuck a gun in his ribs. "Give me your money!" he demanded. Indignant, the affluent man replied, "You can't do this. I'm a United States Congressman!" "In that case," replied the robber, "give me my money!"1 1. Introduction The present paper attempts to trace out the implications of the libertarian philosophy for the proper relationship between an inhabitant of a country, and its unjust government. Part I of this paper includes section 2, in which the stage is set for answering this challenging question, section 3, in which the essence of the state is discussed, section 4, in which libertarian punishment theory is introduced and the beginning of section 5, in which the concept of the libertarian Nuremberg trial is explored, and in 5a. the assumption that all citizens are guilty of the crimes of the unjust state is rejected. In Part II of this paper, we begin with section 5b. which considers the possibility that all and only minions of the unjust state are guilty for its crimes, in a continuation of our libertarian Nuremberg trial analysis, and 5c. introduces libertarian ruling class theory. Section 6 traces out the proper relations between the subjects and the unjust government, section 7 asks if it is ever legitimate to disrupt such an institution, and we conclude in section 8. 1 The present paper is an academic study of the implications of the libertarian philosophy. It makes no threats against anyone. As the title implies, there is nothing in the present paper that is inconsistent with the existence of a just government. ... 7. Disrupting Government a. Destruction b. Seizure c. Cheating d. Political assassination We have seen that in the libertarian philosophy, the death penalty is justified for those whose crimes rise to a sufficient degree of severity. Surely, there are heads of state whose evil deeds many times eclipse such a level. Thus, it would altogether be justified to end their lives by violence. How many novels have been written with a motif of, What would have happened had Hitler been assassinated, during different epochs of his career? There is no doubt that the lives of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc. were morally forfeit, that it would have been the highest form of justice to end them. Were there a case in Nazi Germany equivalent to Ruby Ridge or Waco and the Davidians, then, only those directly responsible for the murder of innocent civilians would be liable for the death penalty, not their fellow colleagues in arms.60 It is simply not the case, for example, that all U.S. servicemen posted in Vietnam were responsible for the My Lai massacre. This applies only to those who actually pulled the relevant triggers. And, of course, this also applies to those who gave the orders, or "took responsibility" for these outrages. The Nuremberg trials quite properly focused attention on the generals who gave the orders, even in preference to those closer to the ground who were more directly responsible. If there were a Nazi German or Soviet Janet Reno who "took responsibility" for an abomination of this sort, then that person, certainly, would also fall under this purview. 59 See available online at http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/eight.htm. 60 Needless to say at this point, we are limiting our focus on countries such as the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Cuba, and Nazi Germany. As the U.S. government is not on this list, the cases in that country are mentioned for illustrative purposes only. ... 8. Conclusion ... In my view, in order to answer this conundrum, we need to return to basic libertarian principles of non-aggression against non-aggressors. ...
How many tech people have been victimized by government in ways that would never have occurred had an AP-type system been functioning? Edward Snowden. Ross Ulbricht. Now John McAfee. Phil Zimmermann, author of PGP-1, was harassed for a few years. Even, dare I say, myself. The Internet has greatly changed the world in the last 25 years because people implemented ideas that hardly existed 30 years ago. Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google. Smartphones. TOR. Encrypted phones. Dark Markets. Why not AP? Why not implement the one thing that has a good chance of taking down every government on the face of the Earth? No wars, no militaries, no taxes, no governments. Are those goals any less important than any of the other advances technology has brought us?