-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

jim bell:
> From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
>
>> 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 will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments
> you have is misguided.   Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself
> a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/m
urphy/murphy17.html
> I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it
> inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how
> nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American.
> Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say,
> a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't
> think we will have the millions of small donations that AP
> requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No
> individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the
> difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would
> be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the
> donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government
> would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish
> anyone who even visited AP sites.

I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of
privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your
solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular.
This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach.

I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together
and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense
contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By
entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private
defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The
arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how
they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc).

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics
is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration
agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has
reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable.

I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g.
agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did
his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union.

The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a
robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as
opposed to direct overt warfare with the state.

> My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize
> just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average
> American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being
> wacky, in itself.  The "average American" is fairly familiar with
> the deficiencies of the world's status quo.

I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but
that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare,
neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda.

 But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th
century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of
governments.
http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-millio
n-people-over-the-last-century.html
   Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"?
I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably
couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves.  But suppose those
"average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even
simply as an estimate.  THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a
functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by
killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop
this, the "Democide".   If those "average Americans" were reminded
that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than
the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to
conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would
certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and
certainly 2.5 million government employees?
> The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's,
> that the citizens of many major governments have been under a
> nuclear terror.  Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a
> reality.  As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more
> understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything
> we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were
> told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding
> of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible:  They are in the control
> of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such
> people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut
> down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe.  As many
> government employees could be killed until that occurs.  No limit
> whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the
> "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"?  I say, to
> the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed
> of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and
> his arguments "nutty and horrible".  Why should the citizens of the
> world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by
> governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll?  Why should the
> citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear
> hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few
> governments in power?  Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens'
> "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and
> certainly not the opposite!
>
> " Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of,
> say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I
> don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP
> requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No
> individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the
> difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would
> be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the
> donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government
> would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish
> anyone who even visited AP sites."
>
> Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'.  "They
> would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it.
> I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the
> governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all
> the more reason we should disregard those governments' official
> desires.                    Jim Bell
>

There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC:

https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter

^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^

>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=KPje
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----