On 11/10/2016 01:17 PM, jim bell wrote:

> Governments killed an estimated 240 million people in the 20th
> century. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide , although this
> article does not cite the figure 240 million; I recall the figure
> from elsewhere.)
>
> If you consider that to have been an unacceptable number, then I
> think you need to try to explain away any system that claims that
> it has the "horsepower" to stop such slaughter.    If anything, the
> only criticisms I have heard of AP is that it would be TOO
> effective, not that it would not be powerful enough to get rid of
> the governments that kill.  (And, ultimately, ALL governments.)

>As with most elegant solutions to real world problems, the sticking
>point with AP is implementation.  It requires anonymous payment
>protocols that are themselves "bullet proof", and would have to
>weather counter-attacks by a ruling class whose financial resources
>and ability to affect major infrastructure changes are astronomically
>higher than common sense would suggest.

Yes, but consider AP Part 10, which at the time I wrote as an afterthought. The AP organization wouldn't really need to be 'secret'.  It could be quite open about what it does.  Any arguable illegality is carefully compartmentalized, done by anonymous people, self-motivated, who act to win anonymous rewards.  

 And, of course, I learned far more US Federal law while in prison.  AP could be described as an insurance market, albeit one where the named person him or herself isn't the purchaser or beneficiary of  the 'insurance policy'.  Or, it could be described as a gambling market.

Also keep in mind that the mere going through the motions of formation of an AP organization would spur a wrenching public debate:  Once people became generally aware that society is only an AP-organization away from throwing off oppressors, and eliminating all militaries, that alone might be sufficient to cause a great reformation of the society.

>  Bounties for killing the
>operators of an AP system, offered through more old fashioned means,
>would be extraordinarily high - requiring bullet proof anonymity in
>the presence of uber-motivated adversaries with global network
>surveillance capabilities.  The betting pool itself would alert
>potential targets to take proportional defensive measures, which "at
>best" would inhibit the social progress promoted by the system.

"Extraordinarily high" bounties would merely mean that more people would have to help fund them, not that they are unfundable.  And I think the reality is, once it began functioning, the world would quiet down very quickly.  Aggressors would not be able to continue to aggress.  Even seemingly well-protected people wouldn't be able to act in the way they were used to, because such people usually act through others, and those others could themselves be named as targets.

          Jim Bell