Assassination Politics
Oh how so few are brave enough to even utter, or further speak on, such a cypherpunk subject, what pussies, the whole lot of them, lol. Previously it was noted that many may elect not to ever partake in any analysis, coding, deployment of an AP system as they might presumably think that as being against their NAP worldview. Yet others have noted aspects, rational as they may or may not be, of "the means to an end", being an efficient, acceptable, one time lapse in such supposed principles, or otherwise being reasonable, and even perhaps necessary, to attainment of any degree of positive outcome in their lifetime, indeed if ever. What valid revolution that hath no solid spark? Still others debate any need to proof AP concept at the highest level first, if ever at all, versus merely proving that any lower level as an effective "threat" "just works", should any "targets" therein abd after be foolish enough to not elect to stand down at that moment, thus raising the necessity of any next level coming into effect. Now... we see more of the technological componenets needed to build such a system are coming online in their first generation rollouts... - The Internet - Strong cryptography, ZKP, TLS, etc - Overlay networks, WiFi, GnuRadio, etc - Blockchain tech, contracts, privacy coins... Eth, Zcash, XMR, mixes - Bidding, markets, and wagering systems... OpenBazaar, Augur - Distributed Oracles in crypto networks... Chainlink Distributed Oracles... this last bit is perhaps quite key. It addresses some ways to obtain and push (or pull as the case may be with forthcoming development of anonymous virtual compute and fetching programs, "viruses" ie autonomously executing and surviving as instances inside larger overlay compute networks), generating a consensus view of the outside envrionment (weather, news, insurance premiums and payout, sports scores, etc) down into the blockchain contracts for execution based upon resolution and assessment of that external data. https://decrypt.co/resources/what-is-chainlink The "Chainlink" "coin" may be one such first generation of an Oracle network now online. Where users may push obversations of their real physical world down into the virtual chain for a consensus to be formed over. Even top worldwide real world ol school "news" organizations would eventually seek to be profitably compensated by the consensus for providing their objective "vote" or "view" on what happened in form of newsfeed release then summed as part of consensus of verifiers. This function, separate and unknowable from the consumers of such data and providers of same, with natural uses being AP, among many others. Today anyone can deploy a centralized AP, and payout and release coin funds based on what they alone see or deem as the true news. But in the future there will be a crypto consensus of truth taken over all the news from all around the globe. This may prove to be a quite hard to corrupt thing, on the order of the "difficulty" of say Bitcoin-BTC today. Point being, in the last few years, perhaps with Chainlink as a first example of an Oracle, technology is progressing to where it is now almost possible to create a nearly autonomous AP system. The AI bot is the last bit, where Ethereum and others are supposedly trying to create some pre-first-gen bot compute platforms for that, payment of gas of course provided by the AP bidders, a fee as with any mutual fund. The Future being unknowable and often very far away, and the post-freedom non-diversity of the "globalist political homogeneity" situation worldwide thought by many to be and becoming *extremely* dire, it would not be surprising to find some risk taking entrepreneurs seriously launching a more centralized version of AP using the admittedly poor first gen components already available to them today. After all, as some say, any effective AP, by its very nature of having already proven some minimal degree of function (say mailing of feces to journos for example documentary purposes), will surely encourage and convince all rational "targets" to stand down well before any physical harm befalls them, lest such degree of function indeed eventually be applied to an unfortunate end. And is such benign encouragement beforehand not indeed an embodiment and cherishment of NAP at its maximum, best, and rational limits? Many might say yes. You decide.
Quote some unrelated talk from "Campus Reform" around the "justified greater good", "means to an end" debate re NAP and AP... " "What's so great about assassinating a rando fascist? And in the absence of a sound affirmative justification, it should be easy to envision the drawbacks." "The problem with violence is that it usually, though not always, is a bad idea. That I agree with," Loomis said in another comment, "Yes, sometimes violence is necessary, say to avoid greater physical harm, i.e. self-defense, or to defeat a literal army of fascists who are trying to kill people. But, ideologically, I think the idea that violence is good if it's against our political enemies is a core part of fascism, and so the ideological opposition to that idea should be its opposite - that violence as a general rule is bad, unless the specific context of that situation requires a violent response." " Which may beg questions among AP analysts, debaters, proponents, detractors, etc... What exactly is the current situation? What is the level of harmless moral or otherwise voluntary freedom you can have without ultimately being killed for resisting State's coercion? What may be the situation's future trend and result upon peoples? What from history may help predict various future trend paths should they be left unchecked via any substantially influential and even independantly equalizing manner? What may be the right path for a free... or more importantly, to free... humanity... and how do you get there, assuredly, in a lifetime relavant timeframe? When everything else has already been tried and failed.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-scheuer-hunted-bin-laden-for-cia-now-h... https://gawker.com/georgetown-adjunct-professor-doubles-down-on-call-to-as-1... https://www.non-intervention2.com/ Note the recent mercenary expedition to Venezuela, etc. And other standing methods such as "reward, dead or alive or leading to". AP surely by now not an unknown concept and of some heady interest among global political apparatus, such players likely being among first to explore and roll its development further towards production. Players already game of droning, antisat, cyber, virus, and kinetic bombardment as (potentially anonymous) plays, some being already used. Given the risk of political blowback if such typical contracts, rewards, and games exposed... will they risk deploying an autonomous anonymous true AP running outside respective players control. And will the masses then use any deployment to target such big players for fun and freedom. Related... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Assured_Destruction
https://mobile.twitter.com/stiffsdotcom https://stiffs.com/ Domain continuously registered since 1997-08-06, site claims 1994. AP, PAM FutureMaps, Sanjuro, etc appear as subjects on list once in a while. Many potential technical components for a fully autonomous gaming system are slowly appearing. Indistinguishability Obfuscation / Homomorphic Encryption could play roles in autonomous code operating within a network. For example, if InOb allows for code to be invisible, then the code might not need to be running multiple uncensorable copies of itself that then need consensused together like nonstop computing / space computers do... plausible deniability allows any node to safely provide cycles to the code. A survivable distributed compute platform could be useful for many realworld applications, wherein what is surviving are the application code itself that are injected into them and run thereafter without attendance, not subject to censor or downtime so long as the network remains up, generating or receiving their own income to pay their own cost of compute run cycles in the network. Imagine an unkillable poker or chess bot, send a few coin and a message to its address API, it wakes up plays a few hands, moves some pieces, reports the weather, etc. Then hibernates on the net / chain till the next trigger. Multiple independant instances of a game are just another injection and address away. Hardest part of games such as sports betting is need to draw consensus over inputs as to what the weather was yesterday... perhaps easier than creating a [learning] AI that can reliably scrape it from the real world on autopilot, which it might need to do weekly for years on end given the accumulators involved in longer larger bets. Consensus based on input from oracles to crypto blockchain prediction systems has been noted. Pluggable portable updateable modularity of separate yet interacting code components can reduce the need to halt code or login for system maintenance. Yet that is not ideal... a simple digital library core where users only add and deposit/refund book orders should be capable of operating fully autonomously. Today gambling runs only on single centralized websites, and is subject to various regulations, and to takedown even by traffic analysis and other attacks to find such sites... they work for a while but seem to die eventually. Tomorrow's more advanced compute, blockchain, cryptocurrency, overlay, RF, satcom, and distributed mesh networks may offer more possibilities for gaming enthusiasts. Even if it's only a nice game of chess with a bot.
The point of AP is to save Jim B. We do also need crypto markets that do more than just let us actually prepare for our deaths. On Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:44 AM grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/stiffsdotcom https://stiffs.com/ Domain continuously registered since 1997-08-06, site claims 1994.
AP, PAM FutureMaps, Sanjuro, etc appear as subjects on list once in a while.
Many potential technical components for a fully autonomous gaming system are slowly appearing.
Indistinguishability Obfuscation / Homomorphic Encryption could play roles in autonomous code operating within a network.
For example, if InOb allows for code to be invisible, then the code might not need to be running multiple uncensorable copies of itself that then need consensused together like nonstop computing / space computers do... plausible deniability allows any node to safely provide cycles to the code.
A survivable distributed compute platform could be useful for many realworld applications, wherein what is surviving are the application code itself that are injected into them and run thereafter without attendance, not subject to censor or downtime so long as the network remains up, generating or receiving their own income to pay their own cost of compute run cycles in the network.
Imagine an unkillable poker or chess bot, send a few coin and a message to its address API, it wakes up plays a few hands, moves some pieces, reports the weather, etc. Then hibernates on the net / chain till the next trigger. Multiple independant instances of a game are just another injection and address away.
Hardest part of games such as sports betting is need to draw consensus over inputs as to what the weather was yesterday... perhaps easier than creating a [learning] AI that can reliably scrape it from the real world on autopilot, which it might need to do weekly for years on end given the accumulators involved in longer larger bets. Consensus based on input from oracles to crypto blockchain prediction systems has been noted.
Pluggable portable updateable modularity of separate yet interacting code components can reduce the need to halt code or login for system maintenance. Yet that is not ideal... a simple digital library core where users only add and deposit/refund book orders should be capable of operating fully autonomously.
Today gambling runs only on single centralized websites, and is subject to various regulations, and to takedown even by traffic analysis and other attacks to find such sites... they work for a while but seem to die eventually.
Tomorrow's more advanced compute, blockchain, cryptocurrency, overlay, RF, satcom, and distributed mesh networks may offer more possibilities for gaming enthusiasts. Even if it's only a nice game of chess with a bot.
On 11/13/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
The point of AP is to save Jim B. We do also need crypto markets that do more than just let us actually prepare for our deaths.
Life is nothing more than process of preparing for death, those embracing such reality are free to have more fun. Now quit top posting and block quoting.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:36:30PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
On 11/13/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
The point of AP is to save Jim B. We do also need crypto markets that do more than just let us actually prepare for our deaths.
Life is nothing more than process of preparing for death, those embracing such reality are free to have more fun.
Now quit top posting and block quoting.
Ack, block quoting 7KiB for a 2 line (top posted!) reply is getting rather shitty ... very lazy.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:06 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:36:30PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
<snip>
Now quit top posting and block quoting.
Ack, block quoting 7KiB for a 2 line (top posted!) reply is getting rather shitty ... very lazy.
The reminder helps me feel empowered to hack a little =) What client / network setup do you use?
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Karl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:06 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:36:30PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
<snip>
Now quit top posting and block quoting.
Ack, block quoting 7KiB for a 2 line (top posted!) reply is getting rather shitty ... very lazy.
The reminder helps me feel empowered to hack a little =) What client / network setup do you use?
mutt neomutt balks at mbox >2GiB, so I went back to mutt
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:01 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Karl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:06 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:36:30PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
<snip>
Now quit top posting and block quoting.
Ack, block quoting 7KiB for a 2 line (top posted!) reply is getting rather shitty ... very lazy.
The reminder helps me feel empowered to hack a little =) What client / network setup do you use?
mutt
neomutt balks at mbox >2GiB, so I went back to mutt
mutt sounds great. I love the command line. Wonder why that 32bit signed integer issue with neomutt. I tried to start neomutt a couple times but couldn't seem to find how to actually set it up ... I just got mutt set up on termux on my phone! I hope it already has vi bindings ... it'll be a bit for me to switch to it ...
There was talk that Augur had some sort of moderation that refuse to award certain controversial outcomes, or refuse to list certain controversial wagers. What is the status of that? If a platform is corrupt, even guessing the score of the next ball game can become a pointless play.
On 11/28/20, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
That platform looks very cool. Just the kind of thing Jim Bell was looking for. Betting for anything you want. I wonder how they calculate the odds? marxos
On 3/21/21, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
https://augur.net/ calculate the odds?
Again, and before such details, you would have to research augur's current design and operation status regarding these quotes from the internet... " 2 years ago Last I heard, Augur actually had a mechanism in place to prevent this. The outcome of a bet could either be true, false, or "immoral bet so nullified." That was back when they were still using Schelling points, so I don't know whether it's changed. Yes, indeed I have heard about the "immorality clause" in the nature of the bets. It will depend on what REP holders consider immoral, and believe most other REP holders will consider immoral. My guess is that assassination markets will pass that bar. "
Coinbase Delists Augur (REP) https://www.reddit.com/r/Augur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Prize_Foundation A political delisting attack may have just been activated against Augur and Distributed General Prediction Markets... check news to confirm any potential cancellation trend among such market projects. Further development of these innovative DGPM markets is known to enable beneficial and useful models for helping free societies to post, choose among, validate, crowdfund, and fulfill predictions towards efficiently accomplishing shared goals, such as building and maintaining "the roads", fusion power, curing cancer, etc, thereby eliminating the inefficient, slow, skimming, corrupt, and unnecessary middlemen of Govts and Banks from the process and ensuring that quality proposals are competitively bid claimed and performed according to the crowdfunded specification before payment. Distributed General Prediction Markets (DGPM's) will become the best "X Prize" mechanisms of the future, and for a free humanity. DARPA Grand Challenge Elevator:2010 Global Security Challenge H-Prize Hutter Prize Inducement prize contest L Prize Methuselah prize Orteig Prize
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 00:25:38 -0500 "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/28/20, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
That platform looks very cool. Just the kind of thing Jim Bell was looking for. Betting for anything you want. I wonder how they calculate the odds?
useless garbage for gamblers. The idea that gambling 'markets' 'predict' anything is idiotic garbage. The idea that gambling 'markets' are a workaround to make killing of politicians 'legal' is the sort of insane garbage that only a technofascist nutcase like bell can believe. Or else, it's the sort of garbage that US govt agent bell peddles, as instructed by his bosses.
Decentralized protocols, oracles, for judging events, JaaS (Justice As A Service) https://kleros.io/ ChainLink
Anarchist Vigilantes: An Idea for Real Justice (Part 1/2) (LUA Podcast #57) https://libertyunderattack.com/anarchist-vigilantes-idea-real-justice-part-1... https://libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/lua-10.22-show-ima... https://libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/LUA171022final.m... https://media.blubrry.com/liberty_under_attack_radio/s/www.libertyunderattac... https://ad-store.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/LUA/Documents/LUA171022final.mp... https://www.bitchute.com/video/rKuIS-dRbj4/ On this episode of Liberty Under Attack Radio, Im joined once again by our creative consultant, Kyle Rearden. In this part 1 of a 2-part series, we discuss vigilantism; more specifically: The history of vigilantism in America The role comic books have played in its popularity How to fund a committee of vigilance or an individual vigilante How vigilantism could shift public perception of anarchist to a positive light What training is necessary for vigilantes And much, much more. Next week, we will tie it all together with a discussion on assassination politics and avenging angels, a concept promoted by Rayo in the 1960s. Kyle and I believe weve put together a plausible, rough outline for how real justice could be achieved and how to further efforts towards a (utopian) free society. Anarchist Vigilantes: Assassination Politics, and Avenging Angels (Part 2/2) (LUA Podcast #58) https://libertyunderattack.com/anarchist-vigilantes-assassination-politics-a... https://libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/lua-10.29-show-ima... https://libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/LUA171029FINAL.m... https://media.blubrry.com/liberty_under_attack_radio/p/www.libertyunderattac... https://ad-store.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/LUA/Documents/LUA171029FINAL.mp... https://www.bitchute.com/video/dsmIXa3Kno0/ On this episode of Liberty Under Attack Radio, Kyle Rearden joins me to conclude this two-part series on anarchist vigilantes, assassination politics, and avenging angels. Last week, we went in depth into how anarchist vigilantes could be used to defend person and property, drive public perception of anarchism in a positive direction, and how it could be used as a way to eventually abolish the State. This week, we tie all three of these things together and attempt to answer these questions: How could an assassination market work? How could the security of the participants be ensured? Could assassination markets be used as a tool to abolish the State? Slow the parasitism of an existing State? And more What are avenging angels? Could this use of Pavlovian psychology on the State actually work? How does an avenging angel fund differ from a legal defense fund? And more
Thank you. On Thursday, July 29, 2021, 04:58:05 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: Anarchist Vigilantes: An Idea for Real Justice (Part 1/2) (LUA Podcast #57) https://libertyunderattack.com/anarchist-vigilantes-idea-real-justice-part-1... https://libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/lua-10.22-show-ima... https://libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/LUA171022final.m... https://media.blubrry.com/liberty_under_attack_radio/s/www.libertyunderattac... https://ad-store.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/LUA/Documents/LUA171022final.mp... https://www.bitchute.com/video/rKuIS-dRbj4/ On this episode of Liberty Under Attack Radio, Im joined once again by our creative consultant, Kyle Rearden. In this part 1 of a 2-part series, we discuss vigilantism; more specifically: The history of vigilantism in America The role comic books have played in its popularity How to fund a committee of vigilance or an individual vigilante How vigilantism could shift public perception of anarchist to a positive light What training is necessary for vigilantes And much, much more. Next week, we will tie it all together with a discussion on assassination politics and avenging angels, a concept promoted by Rayo in the 1960s. Kyle and I believe weve put together a plausible, rough outline for how real justice could be achieved and how to further efforts towards a (utopian) free society. Anarchist Vigilantes: Assassination Politics, and Avenging Angels (Part 2/2) (LUA Podcast #58) https://libertyunderattack.com/anarchist-vigilantes-assassination-politics-a... https://libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/lua-10.29-show-ima... https://libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/LUA171029FINAL.m... https://media.blubrry.com/liberty_under_attack_radio/p/www.libertyunderattac... https://ad-store.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/LUA/Documents/LUA171029FINAL.mp... https://www.bitchute.com/video/dsmIXa3Kno0/ On this episode of Liberty Under Attack Radio, Kyle Rearden joins me to conclude this two-part series on anarchist vigilantes, assassination politics, and avenging angels. Last week, we went in depth into how anarchist vigilantes could be used to defend person and property, drive public perception of anarchism in a positive direction, and how it could be used as a way to eventually abolish the State. This week, we tie all three of these things together and attempt to answer these questions: How could an assassination market work? How could the security of the participants be ensured? Could assassination markets be used as a tool to abolish the State? Slow the parasitism of an existing State? And more What are avenging angels? Could this use of Pavlovian psychology on the State actually work? How does an avenging angel fund differ from a legal defense fund? And more
On Thursday, July 29, 2021, 04:58:05 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Anarchist Vigilantes: Assassination Politics, and Avenging Angels (Part 2/2) (LUA Podcast #58) Anarchist Vigilantes, Assassination Politics, & Avenging Angels (Part 2/2) (LUA Podcast #58) | Liberty Under Attack
I cannot access that, but I think the same content is at:ANARCHIST VIGILANTES, ASSASSINATION POLITICS, & AVENGING ANGELS (PART 2/2) | | | | | | | | | | | ANARCHIST VIGILANTES, ASSASSINATION POLITICS, & AVENGING ANGELS (PART 2/2) | | | Apparently, a British person named Nick Roberts had an interesting idea, pre-Assassination Politics, to substitute assassination of leadership of nations for conventional warfare. Foreign Policy Perspectives 015, In Praise of Jackals: Assassination and Moral Defence Policy (1989), by Nick Roberts | www.libertarian.co.uk | | | | | | | | | | | Foreign Policy Perspectives 015, In Praise of Jackals: Assassination and... | | | I'm now up to about 9 minutes listening to this matter. I don't expect it to include references to digital cash, the Internet, encryption, etc, but it's clearly following the same line of reasoning. And remember:https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/from-crossbows-to-cryptography.pdf "From Crossbows To Cryptography:Techno-Thwarting The StateChuck Hammillweaponsrus@earthlink.netFuture of Freedom Conference, November 1987" Chuck Hammill suggesting using cryptography as a weapon. I believe I read Hammill's essay in 1988, and the 1992 issue of Scientific American magazine when it came out, and finally wrote my Assassination Politics essay beginning January 1995. Jim Bell
Slashdot's take on the matter from 2013, tldr... https://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/11/18/2035202/meet-the-assassination-marke... http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination-... Meet the 'Assassination Market' Creator Who's Crowdfunding Murder With Bitcoins 291 Posted by samzenpus on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:46PM from the dark-places dept. schwit1 writes "As Silk Road emerged from the 'dark-web', other sites have appeared offering services that are frowned upon by most. As Forbes reports, perhaps the most-disturbing is 'The Assassination Market' run by a pseudonymous Kuwabatake Sanjuro. The site, remarkably, is a crowdfunding service that lets anyone anonymously contribute bitcoins towards a bounty on the head of any government official–a kind of Kickstarter for political assassinations. As Forbes reports, NSA Director Alexander and President Obama have a BTC40 bounty (~$24,000) but the highest bounty — perhaps not entirely surprising — is BTC 124.14 (~$75,000) for none other than Ben Bernanke." http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072985/ PAM Futures http://fc12.ifca.ai/pre-proceedings/paper_69.pdf http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-18/dark-web-exposes-75000-bitcoin-base... https://assmkedzgorodn7o.onion/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product Assassination Politics (Score:4, Informative) by ryanr ( 30917 ) * <ryan@thievco.com> on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:48PM (#45458139) Homepage Journal Assassination Politics [outpost-of-freedom.com] I think he went to jail for it. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:5, Funny) by ifiwereasculptor ( 1870574 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:09PM (#45458355) As well he should. That website's layout is downright criminal. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:56PM (#45459221) That page might be "downright criminal", however, it is not the messenger, it is the message, that counts. That page was put up back in the mid-nineties. HTM code was quite limited. So, it ain't pretty. Neither are those who think that pretty means more than content. BTW, Jim did not put up the page. I did, as the FBI was looking at both Jim and I (investigating), so out of respect for Jim, I put it up while he was in prison. I will keep it up simply to stick it in the face of the feds. There have been over 600 visits to the page, today, mostly because of the link provided here. So, Jim's thoughts from two decades ago seem to still deserve attention. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by maestroX ( 1061960 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:43PM (#45459525) First post with a link that's not slashdotted. pussies Re:Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @09:39AM (#45462491) That's odd, I'd say the layout is perfect. There are no huge bars of whitespace running down the sides of the page, something that you commonly see in "properly" designed layouts. There are no advertising inlays positioned in counterintuitive locations. Paragraph breaks are used properly, and headings separate sections of the text. The page even renders properly and remains 100% functional when viewed in Lynx. I'd say the layout makes use of HTML the way HTML was designed to be used. It's a refreshing change of pace. I'd argue that it's the "Web 2.0" way of abusing HTML that's downright criminal. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:16PM (#45458433) Yeah this is fairly old news. As far as I'm aware he's been in and out of prison for most of his life since proposing the idea in a fit of extreme libertarianism. Did someone actually go through with it? Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:19PM (#45458475) Credit Default Swaps. You can include practically any terms you want in a swap. I'm sure the lawyers could write up a clause covering 'unplanned change in head of state' to cover an assassination. In fact, it would not surprise me if paper traded by major banks are covered for a sudden change in the Fed's governing body. <Tinfoil_hat_mode>I would not be surprised if the mortgage backed security market collapse was triggered in part by an 'unfavorable change in the Administration' clause in some contracts. </Tinfoil_hat_mode> Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:32PM (#45459059) Journal Agatha Christie: The Pale Horse. You place a bet with an unscrupulous bookmaker that a certain person will live beyond the next month. When that doesn't happen, you have to pay the bet. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by bmo ( 77928 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:38PM (#45459099) You place a bet with an unscrupulous bookmaker that a certain person will live beyond the next month. When that doesn't happen, you have to pay the bet. Isn't this called insurance? "The good-hands people" around yer neck. -- BMO Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by kill-1 ( 36256 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:43PM (#45459129) If you bet that your own house burns down, it's insurance. If you bet that your neighbor's house burns down, it's a credit default swap. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by shentino ( 1139071 ) <shentino@gmail.com> on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:18PM (#45459369) Actually with insurance you're betting that it WILL burn down. The analogy back to the bookmaker would be a bet AGAINST survival. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:48PM (#45459165) Homepage ...triggered in part by an 'unfavorable change in the Administration' clause in some contracts... Perhaps not in contracts, but in my time working in finance, I have seen investment strategies planned heavily on the outcome of a single election, considering ramifications for a few years in advance. While I never saw anything as ridiculous as "sell all of $SECURITY if $CANDIDATE wins", I did encounter plans like "if $CANDIDATE wins, move into $SECURITY until $PROMISE happens, then move out of $LOSER1 or $LOSER2 as appropriate". Re: Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:43PM (#45460171) Record market highs are unfavorable? Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by boorack ( 1345877 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:49PM (#45458763) This will be pretty good excuse for government thugs to shut down Bitcoin and possibly jail anyone having some in his/her posession. I'm not sure US government thugs did actually conceive such crap but I'm perfectly sure they wouldn't be happier hearing this news. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:1) by ButchDeLoria ( 2772751 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:54PM (#45458791) Good luck, after the Congressional hearing today, they're going to embrace it. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:18PM (#45459737) Homepage because it's not cratering like the US dollar, the government has to put their money into something. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @06:01AM (#45461721) Journal Bitcoins have experienced drops in value over the course of a single day that are greater than the drop in value of the US dollar over the entire great depression, or its total deflation over the last 100 years. It's not cratering because it's value is effectively a random number and it will keep going up for as long as people are making money from the wild fluctuations in value of an unregulated instrument. When the big speculators cash out and the rest realise that they just own a magic number that no one with significant assets has ever promised to accept in payment, you'll see what cratering really means. Re: Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:46PM (#45460183) How is the dollar cratering again? Re:Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:13PM (#45459705) This will be pretty good excuse for government thugs to shut down Bitcoin and possibly jail anyone having some in his/her posession. I'm not sure US government thugs did actually conceive such crap but I'm perfectly sure they wouldn't be happier hearing this news. So you're saying that if any other government were to shut down a site hosting a "hit" on the Head of State, they would not be thugs? Good to know. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21, 2013 @04:46PM (#45484693) Good luck with that. Bitcoin users are harder to track than torrenters, and slowly becoming as numerous. The only reason they got Silk Road's is because they tracked down the site and grabbed the physical boxes in the process. Remember kids, never keep what you want to keep. Meanwhile, I'd love to see them come up with a charge against anyone involved in bitcoin that would stick. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:18PM (#45458969) Yes, he went to jail for various tax-related charges, and then again for violation of parole, and was released in March 2012. And now this website is online. Not that the two have any affiliation. what about the ads in soldier of fortune (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:20PM (#45458497) where you can find people willing to do mercenary work Re:what about the ads in soldier of fortune (Score:5, Interesting) by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:54PM (#45459197) Journal where you can find people willing to do mercenary work I suspect that up to half of them are bogus, and the other half are likely scams. What's left is probably well out of Interpol jurisdiction, let alone that of the FBI (or RCMP, or {insert European national police force here} ), since you're probably going to do it in the borders of some craphole nation already torn asunder by civil war or rebellion. Re:what about the ads in soldier of fortune (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @01:30AM (#45460905) Everything is out of Interpol's jurisdiction, because Interpol has no jurisdiction...anywhere. I'm not sure why comments insinuating it does keep popping up on /. (Perhaps there are many Lord of War fans lurking about?). Interpol as an organization only has the ability to assist law enforcement agencies in member countries by providing them with information. That's it. Re:what about the ads in soldier of fortune (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:14PM (#45464041) Interpol as an organization only has the ability to assist law enforcement agencies in member countries by providing them with information. Even providing of information is normally done under some jurisdiction. Re:what about the ads in soldier of fortune (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @10:25AM (#45462885) Those ads are mostly placed by pimply teenagers with delusions of grandeur. COD fans who think they are ready for battle. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:54PM (#45458213) Not for it directly, for it is clear first-amendment content. The feds got him for other things (questionable or not). Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by shentino ( 1139071 ) <shentino@gmail.com> on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:17PM (#45459355) Soliciting a market for murder for hire is a lot WORSE than shouting fire in a crowded theater. This is swinging your fist so far into your neighbor's nose that you're punching the back of their skull out. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:55PM (#45459603) I don't think it's worse than that, because _if_ someone attempted very few would be harmed. Nor do I think it's the same by any comparative measure. Shouting "Fire" in a theater harms numerous people that are all innocent. In the case of an assassination attempt, most likely the guy who tried to pull the trigger, and perhaps a body guard or two would be hurt and perhaps the politician. An attempted assassination would be one criminal trying to kill another criminal (at least using the sample names in TFA). People often make the mistake of putting politicians on pedestal, and it should be treated as worse than janitorial use. At least in a Republic. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3) by Mitchell314 ( 1576581 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:18PM (#45460337) In the US, we don't hold the position that just because you are a criminal means you should be killed. In fact, the bill of rights has this peculiar amendment addressing that punishment should not be in excess of the crime committed. It's dictatorships and very anti-freedom hellholes that take the opposite stance. tl;dr: We put humans life (politician, criminal, or not) on a pedestal. That's part of being a civilized Republic. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:32AM (#45460679) "We put humans life (politician, criminal, or not) on a pedestal." Not exactly. But those lives **certainly** have a great deal of value... to the Corrections Corporation of America. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:33AM (#45460685) I didn't claim there was no equal protection under the law. I responded to a person that claimed that assassinating a political figure was worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater. There was just a bit of sarcasm in the comment regarding a criminal (assassin) killing a criminal (politician). A bit because while everyone has equal protection, generally society has much less pity on a criminal killing another criminal, compared to a criminal killing a citizen that is not a criminal. Additionally, criminals are displaced from society and during certain punishments are not citizens (at least with the rights and privileges as every other citizen.) Putting politicians on a pedestal has nothing to do with being a Republic. It is called being brain washed into believing that all of these politicians are celebrities that should be worshiped. The first President was pretty close to Socrates' description of what a politician should be. He didn't want the job either time he was voted in. People like that are the ideal a Republic depends on to be successful. If your last statement was that we are everyone is "special" and you are trying to be the coach of the "feel good" squad, do so with a bit less generalization after trying to argue a point that was very specific. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @05:56AM (#45461697) Journal So you're saying that being a politician is just considered a misdemeanour? Re: Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:39PM (#45460145) So it's okay to kill janitors? Re:Assassination Politics (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:18PM (#45458463) Everyone's guilty of something these days - if they want to deal with you all they have to do is look closely enough. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:4, Insightful) by paiute ( 550198 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:21PM (#45459385) Everyone's guilty of something these days - if they want to deal with you all they have to do is look closely enough. If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu Re:Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:47PM (#45459565) Everyone's guilty of something these days - if they want to deal with you all they have to do is look closely enough. If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu That's because he used the handwriting sample to forge contracts with the devil that his agents would then "discover" while searching his enemy's house (the Church had its own extensive judicial system in those days). It's one of those phrases, like "let them eat cake", that has been twisted and distorted from its original context even if it is not wholly apocryphal. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:3, Funny) by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:04PM (#45459975) Journal That's because he used the handwriting sample to forge contracts with the devil that his agents would then "discover" while searching his enemy's house (the Church had its own extensive judicial system in those days). It's one of those phrases, like "let them eat cake", that has been twisted and distorted from its original context even if it is not wholly apocryphal. [citation needed] Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by jalopezp ( 2622345 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @07:12AM (#45461933) He's unlikely to even have said the phrase, let alone implied anything about framing the poor honest man over a pact with the devil. The story is not good because it's true, it's good because it's good. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by RockDoctor ( 15477 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @05:50AM (#45471077) Journal If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu Richelieu was an optimist. He admitted to the possibility of an honest man existing, for his agents to find, get handwriting from, and then have hung. Modern law enforcement doesn't really believe in the possibility of people not being "perps" in some form. people who use it will get jack rubyed (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:26PM (#45458543) and the guy who did that will die soon after that Re:people who use it will get jack rubyed (Score:2) by FatdogHaiku ( 978357 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:41PM (#45459505) Reminds me of the movie "Shooter" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822854/quotes [imdb.com] First quote... Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by homey of my owney ( 975234 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:19PM (#45459373) 'have appeared offering services that are frowned upon by most.' Frowned on? Really? Frowned on?! Are you fucking kidding me? Have reached the point with political correctness that we can't call it what it is?! Fucking crazy?! Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by korbulon ( 2792438 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:31PM (#45459445) It's not political correctness when it's an obscene understatement made for comic effect, but in your case... WHOOOSH! Re:Assassination Politics (Score:2) by chill ( 34294 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:09PM (#45459671) Journal The Queen is not amused. Re:Assassination Politics (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @11:06AM (#45463355) I read the essay you linked to. My head hurts, and I want my money back. Jim Bell takes lunacy to a whole new level. absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:5, Insightful) by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:49PM (#45458147) Homepage Journal guaranteed to get the whole government in on breaking the Bitcoin chain, as well as getting your ass parked in a Federal prison for a whole lot of years. it's so idiotic that it has to be a government operation to suck in idiots who are looking for jail time. Re:absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:5, Interesting) by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:00PM (#45458267) Homepage No, it's guaranteed to divest some foolish people from spare bitcoins. Re:absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:1) by kruach aum ( 1934852 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:22PM (#45465571) I don't know about you, but I divest of Re:absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @04:53PM (#45475939) (1) announce that you are taking money in escrow for payment to assassins (2) do not pay out claims. Assassins and payers will not to come forward and sue you, and if they did, you would just claim that any contract that involves illegal activity is not a contract (3) profit :) (4) the Feds might go after you anyway on the grounds that your website listing bounties is still an incitement to murder (5) jail :( Re:absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:32PM (#45458601) Agreed. this is so monumentally stupid that I think its gotta be either a government sting or a false flag operation to turn public sentiment against bitcoin and scare lawmakers into shutting bitcoin down. Re:absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:54PM (#45458795) More likely a scam. Any hitman with the skills to kill a sitting president isn't going to leave his fucking house for $25K. You'd have to be a complete retard to believe that this is ever going to work. The only one making money on this is the operator, who is going to take the coins and run. Re: absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:3, Insightful) by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:33PM (#45459449) Journal Hitmen with mad skills are largely a creation of Hollywood. The lone wolf who is willing to die is what keeps the USSS up at night, not the fictional professional assassin. Re: absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:2) by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:20PM (#45459755) Journal But Batman...! Re:absolutely the dumbest idea ever (Score:2) by neo8750 ( 566137 ) <<ten.ikspez> <ta> <ikspez>> on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:36PM (#45460137) Homepage Or could that be the point? What a better media story as why they need to crack down harder on the internet...Just cause the services being sold are bad doesnt mean that the person selling them is a bad guy or even real. It could just be a huge charade to tarnish bitcoins and its users. this post is sarcasm (Score:4, Informative) by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:50PM (#45458155) What, no direct link to the site? How is this disturbing? (Score:5, Insightful) by will_die ( 586523 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:50PM (#45458159) Homepage It is pretty straight forward how it will work. 1) People send in money. 2) After a while the site closes down. 3) Person that put up the site earns a nice profit. The only disturbing part is the guy did it so early, someone with real planning would of waited for the US Presidential election and then really brought in the money. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2) by mythosaz ( 572040 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:53PM (#45458209) This. A million times this. I wish I had a bitcoin scam to stand up while they're still $hundreds a coin.... Why do people send cash to god-knows-where and just pray it ever goes where it's supposed to... Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:5, Insightful) by rogueippacket ( 1977626 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:58PM (#45458245) The same reason the vast majority of people have problems with money - their spending decisions are largely driven by emotion and lack discipline. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:48PM (#45460501) Yeah, and not because they can't find a fucking job that pays a livable wage. Let them eat cake, right? Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:25PM (#45464171) While there are certainly many people who can't find a job that pays a liveable wage (BTW most seek for one that's not related to fucking), it's certainly not the vast majority. And there are more than enough examples of people who have an above-average income and still have problems with their money. Heck, some superstars who got shitloads of money end up broke because they simply couldn't handle it. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @01:48PM (#45465165) Because someone doesnt have a good job theyre more likely to send cash to an unknown website? That makes absolutely no sense, dumbass. Poor people are not any more or less stupid than non-poor people. Being poor is not some justifiable excuse for being an idiot. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @08:25PM (#45468723) Poor people are not any more or less stupid than non-poor people. Being poor is not some justifiable excuse for being an idiot. http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/08/31/1350207/the-cognitive-cost-of-povert... [slashdot.org] Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2) by icebike ( 68054 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:10PM (#45458369) It is pretty straight forward how it will work. 1) People send in money. 2) After a while the site closes down. 3) Person that put up the site earns a nice profit. Strike number 3, an replace it with: 3) Three letter agency that put up the site knocks on your door. Seriously, how could you not consider this might be a honeypot for kooks? Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:49PM (#45458771) So 1)Set up honeypot website 2)People donate to "assassinate person X fund" 3)Person X gets assassinated 4)Uhoh. You've just been implicated in enticement to the assassination of person X. Enjoy your time in jail. (Where person X is someone who will not be named due to jack-boot allergies but you know who I mean). Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2) by icebike ( 68054 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:54PM (#45458793) Except that the assassination doesn't actually have to take place. Merely offering money to such is illegal. Even if no money has actually changed hands yet. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:12PM (#45458931) In the original proposal by Jim Bell, you aren't actually offering money for assassination. You are just making a "bet" on when some individual will die. You can increase the pot without stating a time, in fact. Whoever wins the "bet" gets the money. In no way is that illegal. What this guy has done, on the other hand..... Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2) by khallow ( 566160 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:35PM (#45459471) You are just making a "bet" on when some individual will die. You can increase the pot without stating a time, in fact. [...] In no way is that illegal. Three factors can make it accessory to murder. First, does the bet pay off if someone murders the subject of the bet? Second, is the bet substantial enough that someone can profit by murdering the subject? Third, will you benefit in some substantial way by the death of the target? If the answer to those three questions is "yes", then I think you're still subject to the law. For example, life insurance allows you to bet on other peoples' lives to some degree. Some people have gamed this so that they're insuring relatives or friends who are unaware of the insurance and then killing said relatives or friends. But here, if the crime is revealed, then the insurance company doesn't pay out - it's a basic part of life insurance policies. Even if the killer succeeds at the murder and subsequent insurance payout, the insurance company loses money and fails to profit at all from the scheme. So despite it being a bet on someone's life, it fails two of the factors I mention. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:32PM (#45465643) Of course the person who ultimately pays for the assassination in the bet model makes a bet that the person does not get assassinated (because, after all, that's what makes him pay if the assassination takes place). So assuming the rules you give are correct and complete, let's check for him: First, does the bet pay off if someone murders the subject of the bet? Clearly, no. For him the bet pays off if nobody murders the subject of the bet. Second, is the bet substantial enough that someone can profit by murdering the subject? Well, this is probably a yes (otherwise he'd find no assassin "betting" against him). However, if it is a much-hated person, it could also be a big number of small bets by different people, and then no single bet would be substantial enough by itself. Third, will you benefit in some substantial way by the death of the target? At least not from the bet itself. So if all three criteria have to be true, the one paying is pretty safe. If two criteria have to be true, anyone making only a small contribution is safe, and a single large better is safe as long as he cannot be shown to profit from the death of the target in some other way. However I still think in the real world, you'd not get away with this. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2) by khallow ( 566160 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @10:07PM (#45469409) Clearly, no. For him the bet pays off if nobody murders the subject of the bet. It pays off for the other side of the bet. Bets always have at least two sides to them. At least not from the bet itself. The problem here is that it creates incentive for a potential assassin or some party that contracts to assassins to bet in favor of a person's death and then act to make that happen in order to collect the winnings. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @03:15AM (#45461241) Thus proving once and for all bitcoin IS money. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2) by mjwalshe ( 1680392 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:34PM (#45459455) 3) Three letter agency that put up the site knocks on your door. - with a breaching charge Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:31PM (#45464235) Exactly. This is obviously a honeypot by CIA or FBI. seems wrong... (Score:4, Interesting) by schlachter ( 862210 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:22PM (#45458511) it seems wrong that such a site with a list of people to execute could exist. it brings the good old lynch mob in to the digital era. fun times. gov officials should not have to operate in fear of assassination. yet. it is interesting that this is exactly what the us gov is doing with its enemies, building hit lists, ranking them, and executing. Re:seems wrong... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:32PM (#45458599) Government officials should live in fear of their lives. They've shown that they can't be trusted in other circumstances. That said, this does look like an amazing scam. How are you ever going to prove you killed they person and get your money? And how are you going to get your money back when no one kills the person? Re:seems wrong... (Score:3) by Dan541 ( 1032000 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:38PM (#45459101) Homepage Government officials should live in fear of their lives. Says the person living in fear of other /. users. Re:seems wrong... (Score:2) by Lennie ( 16154 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:59PM (#45459231) Just today I heard about a soccer world championship from years ago. Where a player in the national team of Columbia made a big mistake, they found him dead the next day with 12 bullets in his body. So it's definitely not only politicians which should be careful it seems. Re:seems wrong... (Score:3) by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:23PM (#45459769) Homepage That was an accident, he fell on his pistol that fired all 6 rounds, then he reloaded it and fell on it again. Stop trying to make it sound like something other than a very simple and common accident. Re:seems wrong... (Score:2) by Lennie ( 16154 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @05:57AM (#45461701) That reminds of Russia. In Russia they have no problems with reporting a suicide of a person with multiple gunshots to the head. Or many, many stab wounds. Possible, but not very highly unlikely that it was suicide. Re:seems wrong... (Score:2) by Lennie ( 16154 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @05:58AM (#45461711) I think I got my not and unlikely mixed up :-) Re:seems wrong... (Score:1) by airdweller ( 1816958 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @05:54PM (#45467657) "they have no problems with reporting a suicide of a person with multiple gunshots to the head." Actually, suicides with two gunshots to the head are not unheard of. Not sure about more than two. 12 bullets! (Score:2) by schlachter ( 862210 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:59PM (#45459615) Well, with 12 bullets in his body, it's no surprise they found him dead. Now if you had said they found him practicing shots on goal with 12 bullets in his body, now that would be surprising. Re:12 bullets! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:36PM (#45465693) Now if you had said they found him practicing shots on goal with 12 bullets in his body, now that would be surprising. While eating twelve bullets probably isn't exactly healthy, I don't think it would not allow you to practice shots afterwards. Re:seems wrong... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:42PM (#45458695) There should be threat of job loss, not life, unless it comes to war crimes. Re:seems wrong... (Score:2) by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:42PM (#45460469) Government officials should live in fear of their lives. They've shown that they can't be trusted in other circumstances. And ensuring that only those who's lust for power overrides even their self-protection instinct seek the job improves things how? Re:seems wrong... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @01:16PM (#45464771) Government officials should live in fear of their lives. No. Do you know why all dictators are doing evil to the people? Out of fear for their lives. There may be a few who are genuinely evil, but most started with really good intentions, and got turned into the monsters they became due to fear. The absolute worst you can have is someone in power who is in fear for his life. And the absolute best of democracy is that you can get rid of someone in power without taking his life. If I had to choose between two "half-democracies", one where people are voted into office, but then stay there for the rest of their life, and one where you have no control over who gets into the office, but where you can vote them out of office again (and then they cannot be put back in, of course), I'd clearly take the second. And you don't even have to look to dictatorships. Just look at the laws that have been enacted after 9/11. Why were those passed? Simple: Out of fear. If you have fear, you want to have control. The higher your fear, the higher your desire for control. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:2) by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:38PM (#45458649) It is pretty straight forward how it will work. 1) People send in money. 2) After a while the site closes down. 3) Person that put up the site earns a nice profit. Yes, tick off a community of users whose defining trait is that like to hire hit men, that sounds like a wonderful business plan. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:3) by Hentes ( 2461350 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:48PM (#45458751) But where would they hire the hitmen after the site has closed? Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:54PM (#45459203) The defining trait seems to be: fools with money, soon parted. There is a world of difference between being the kind of fool who throws their money away carelessly on anonymous scams, and the kind of person who actually has contacts with hired killers. In fact, in most cases, "hired kills" are not, it's more about the gang mentality. Strong upper echelon gangsters pressure vulnerable, naive recruits to commit murders to "prove themselves". While we like to imagine these "professional killers" that are glamorised in movies and video games, the vast majority of organised murders are the result of peer pressure and attempts to prove loyalty (including the large number of murders carried out by terrorists). Finally (Score:3) by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:46PM (#45458725) Journal We found the missing part of the '???' belonging to this meme. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:56PM (#45458227) Or it's simply a honeypot. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:00PM (#45458279) Or some bizarre ultra-libertarian performance art. Re:How is this disturbing? (Score:3) by lgw ( 121541 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:56PM (#45458805) Journal Is there a difference between a really good scam and "bizarre ultra-libertarian performance art"? I think they meet in the middle. THIS is "bizarre ultra-libertarian performance art (Score:2) by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:16PM (#45458953) Homepage Or it's simply a honeypot. Or some bizarre ultra-libertarian performance art. Still wouldn't be as bizarre or outlandish as the time in 2006 that Loyalist Michael Stone attempted to enter the Stormont Assembly in Northern Ireland and assassinate the leaders of Sinn Fein, then claimed that it was "performance art" [bbc.co.uk]. How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by tomkost ( 944194 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:51PM (#45458167) How exactly do you prove your the one who shot or poisoned the target? Seems difficult to collect not to mention the legalities and morals of the act. Sounds more like an FBI honeypot. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by rogueippacket ( 1977626 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:03PM (#45458299) They sort of explain it in the article - the theory is that being the assassin, the act itself has been pre-meditated and you have chosen the date of the murder. You then make a donation to the deadpool, including a hashed version of your date. Once the act is done, you send an email (ideally anonymous) to the site operator with that date inside. The operator performs a hash check on it, and if it matches the data included with your donation, you are most likely the killer. Or, you're just really good at guessing when people are going to die. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:5, Insightful) by jcochran ( 309950 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:39PM (#45458657) Seems to me that the creator of that site is shortsighted in how he or she confirms who the assassin is. Namely, that the assassin has to be able to specify the date of death prior to the death. That task if fairly easy for a large number of ways of committing murder. But not always possible. For instance. 1. Poison 2. Opportunity - Assassin may be in a position where he or she has multiple chances of contact with the target, but is unable to predict exactly when the contact would be suitable for the actual assassination. Frankly, the motive of the site creator is rather foolish and childish. Given this paragraph in the original article: Sanjuro's grisly ambitions go beyond raising the funds to bankroll a few political killings. He believes that if Assassination Market can persist and gain enough users, it will eventually enable the assassinations of enough politicians that no one would dare to hold office. He says he intends Assassination Market to destroy "all governments, everywhere." it seems to me that Sanjuro is advocating world wide anarchy. I personally, don't like most governments, however total anarchy is worse than the government we currently have. Frankly, we need something to hold in check the various sociopathic assholes that from time to time attack other people. We need public services such as fire, police, sanitation, sewers, water, etc. There's a lot of infrastructure that frankly needs a government. And even well balanced, social people from time to time will disagree with each other. And said disagreements will from time to time get quite acrimonious. Hence the courts. Frankly, Sanjuro is either a nutcase, or a honeypot. In either case, it would be best to avoid him. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:1) by elsuperjefe ( 1487639 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:56PM (#45459215) Homepage Seems to me that the creator of that site is shortsighted in how he or she confirms who the assassin is. Namely, that the assassin has to be able to specify the date of death prior to the death. in other words this could be seen as an office pool (with no actual buy-in): guess when controversial government official X is assassinated! Frankly, Sanjuro is either a nutcase, or a honeypot. In either case, it would be best to avoid him. so you think that paying money (under real or false pretenses) to have someone killed is something to be avoided? your wisdom is inspiring. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by LF11 ( 18760 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:28PM (#45459427) Homepage Why do you think anarchy is worse than the government we currently have? All of those functions you describe are perfectly reasonable to be accomplished on a town- or city-level at the highest. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by richlv ( 778496 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:16PM (#45459725) because another country that can pool resources will just come over and kill or exile half of your population. be it russia, china or whatever. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:53PM (#45459913) All of those functions you describe are perfectly reasonable to be accomplished on a town- or city-level at the highest. ...And when that larger city a few miles over decides you'd make a nice annexation? Anarchy is fucking retarded. For it to work, you sow the seeds of the exact problem it claims to solve. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:42PM (#45460169) An ideological system run by murderers instilling the fear of death doesn't sound much better (or even, perhaps, different) than what we have now. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by kumanopuusan ( 698669 ) <goughnourc@noSpam.gmail.com> on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:29PM (#45459431) The would-be assassin could register all of the several methods and dates they're planning. They simply need to write down the details separately, hash and make a separate one bitcoin donation for each. It's not free, but it's still feasible. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by cheaphomemadeacid ( 881971 ) <`cheaphomemadeacid' `at' `gmail.com'> on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:31PM (#45459811) Journal Frankly, we need something to hold in check the various sociopathic assholes that from time to time attack other people. And you truly believe giving the same sociopathic assholes guns/nukes/armies is gonna solve that? =) Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by someone1234 ( 830754 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @03:29AM (#45461287) If i knew this site was serious, i would put bounty on Sanjuro's head. But this is more likely a fraud. I would still put bounty, but not on this site :D Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by magic maverick ( 2615475 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @04:08AM (#45461395) Homepage Journal I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present [Afghani, and the previous Iraqi] war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @01:27PM (#45464915) Your logic is as sound as the logic of people who see obesity and conclude that humans should not eat at all. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @05:18AM (#45461607) "it seems to me that Sanjuro is advocating world wide anarchy" John Lennon, "Imagine" Whatever happened to that guy? In other news, 50 years: JFK. RIP. Hardly an anarchist, but arguably the last legitimate, real U.S. President. Peace. Out. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @05:22AM (#45461619) "Frankly, Sanjuro is either a nutcase, or a honeypot. In either case, it would be best to avoid him." Bastard child of John Poindexter and Jim Bell? Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @10:49AM (#45463183) But who would build the roads?! Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by SteveFoerster ( 136027 ) <steve@stEULEReve ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @06:04PM (#45476671) Homepage This is like living in a state that only has state-owned liquor stores and asking, "But without government, who will sell booze?" Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:04PM (#45463937) Journal I personally, don't like most governments, however total anarchy is worse than the government we currently have. Total Anarchy could never exist for very long. If every government disappeared tomorrow, it would create a power vacuum which would be filled by some other entity. Perhaps a church, gang, tribal council, etc. People like controlling one another (and harming one another) way too much to ever make "overlords" extinct. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:2) by SteveFoerster ( 136027 ) <steve@stEULEReve ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @06:02PM (#45476657) Homepage Frankly, we need something to hold in check the various sociopathic assholes that from time to time attack other people. Right, that's the whole point of this thing. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2013 @01:26PM (#45492563) Its a noble cause. "it seems to me that Sanjuro is advocating world wide anarchy" This is not about anarchy, but more about chaos and tribalism, keeping certain tribes small enough so that none of them can have too much power will avoid genecide and war. Anarchy is more of an idealist concept that some form of society could exist without any form of hierarchy, this is something completely different (and much more reasonable). This is about the best idea I've heard of in years, and I sincerely hope he can achieve that goal of abolishing all governments, everywhere... But really, he will need our support. Have a little imagination, when someone tries something new like this, we need to give it a chance, otherwise it can never work, please try to be more supportive, it can work so long as people don't bash it too much. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:11PM (#45458371) Or you exhaustively checked dates against the deadpool. Re:How do you claim the prize? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:10PM (#45458365) How exactly do you prove your the one who shot or poisoned the target? Seems difficult to collect not to mention the legalities and morals of the act. Sounds more like an FBI honeypot. Yeah. Typical FBI honey pot; Incite peoples to commit crime, provide them the tool and the opportunity then make the arrest to prove your relevance to the public. Im on the list (Score:4, Insightful) by EMG at MU ( 1194965 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:51PM (#45458171) I feel like I have been put on the list just for reading this. But then I realize I'm already on the list for everything else I read on the internet. I would be expecting the NSA to be cracking Bitcoin / TOR as we speak to prosecute people for material support of terrorism. Re:Im on the list (Score:3) by LordLucless ( 582312 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:17PM (#45458441) I would be expecting the NSA to be cracking Bitcoin / TOR as we speak to prosecute people for material support of terrorism. Cracking bitcoin wouldn't help the feds track down anyone. All it would let them do is print free money, which they can pretty much do anyway. Bitcoin isn't anonymous; it's pseudonymous. The NSA can, with no effort at all, find out your Bitcoin pseudonym. Then they just need to associate your that with your real identity, which they can do via their traditional means of spying on everything that happens. Re:Im on the list (Score:2) by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:24PM (#45459003) Homepage Journal Not really. If you mine your own coins or get them through secure physical transactions (exchanging USB flash drives) they can be anonymous. Spend them via Tor and on something like this which does not require any of your personal information. Re:Im on the list (Score:2) by LordLucless ( 582312 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:27PM (#45459033) Once you spend them, your transaction (and your pseudonym) become part of the blockchain, and you are no longer anonymous (but are still pseudonymous). That is, anyone who checks the blockchain can find the id of who sent the coins. Anonymity relies on whether you can stop anyone making a connection between your blockchain id (pseudonym) and your actual identity - and you're correct, this is where things like Tor come in. Re:Im on the list (Score:2) by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @01:56PM (#45465275) Homepage Journal If your ID is random and throwaway and never makes any other transactions other than the mining then you remain anonymous. Difficult to organize but far from impossible. Re:Im on the list (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:25PM (#45458539) Since they basically have a database of the entire internet, it's not much more than a database query away. Re:Im on the list (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @08:42PM (#45468863) All it would let them do is print free money, which they can pretty much do anyway. Why the "pretty much"? Did I miss something? Has their printer broke? Re:Im on the list (Score:3) by Lost Penguin ( 636359 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:36PM (#45458633) Homepage "I would be expecting the NSA to be cracking Bitcoin" I would expect them to be mining with some large ass cluster to fund new black projects. Re:Im on the list (Score:2) by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:00PM (#45458835) Everyone is on the list. Jail time (Score:2) by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:52PM (#45458187) I bet that the owner of the site could be charged with "conspiracy to commit murder". Re:Jail time (Score:4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:57PM (#45458241) I'm fairly sure they don't charge agents running a honeypot... Re:Jail time (Score:4, Insightful) by AGMW ( 594303 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:00PM (#45458273) Homepage Who was the US politician who openly called for Assange to be assassinated? They've not collected him from Washington and shipped him to Guantanamo yet I see! Re:Jail time (Score:2) by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:13PM (#45458411) That might be considered incitement but when monetary rewards come into it then it crosses the line into conspiracy.I doubt any politician or reporter ever said "I will pay someone $X to kill Assange." Re:Jail time (Score:2) by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:22PM (#45458505) Journal Who was the US politician who openly called for Assange to be assassinated? "University of Calgary Professor" "Tom Flanagan, a former aide to the Canadian prime minister, has called for Assange's assassination" http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/t/assang... [nbcnews.com] Canada is part of the US by now, isn't it? Did the kids sew another star on the flag yet? Of course he was "obviously talking tongue-in-cheek" and got quoted out-of-context by idiotic reporters. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/flanagan-regrets-wikileaks-assassination-rem... [www.cbc.ca] Re:Jail time (Score:4, Informative) by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh&gmail,com> on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:52PM (#45458789) Journal Sarah Palin only said it in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge way, and he's a she: https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/11/does-palin-want-to-whack-assan... [go.com] Re:Jail time (Score:2) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:47PM (#45459161) Homepage Journal Canadian politician, not US. Re:Jail time (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:03PM (#45458303) Who was the US politician who openly called for Assange to be assassinated? I don't know. You made it up. They've not collected him from Washington and shipped him to Guantanamo yet I see! Hard to imprison someone who doesn't exist. Re:Jail time (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:25PM (#45458535) I think AGMW may be confusing Washington Time columnist with an elected position. [washingtontimes.com] While AGME was incorrect, I do not believe Jeffrey T. Kuhner has been arrested. Although, it's worth noting that he is not offering money for said assination, but saying the US goverenment should order it as a matter of policy. Re:Jail time (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:36PM (#45458631) Being a US politician, he is presumed "incompetent until proven effective", so he just gets a free pass. Obviously no one listens to our politicians or takes their promises seriously. I'm sure Assange is perfectly safe. So what if... (Score:4, Interesting) by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:55PM (#45458219) Homepage Journal ...someone starts a bounty on the site for "Kuwabatake Sanjuro"? Yaz Re:So what if... (Score:3, Funny) by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:59PM (#45458255) Journal Can it be any Government official? I always knew I'd find a way to get back at that small town meter maid..... Re:So what if... (Score:3) by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:39PM (#45458659) Homepage Journal I always knew I'd find a way to get back at that small town meter maid..... Oh, just pay the meters for other people and they'll completely flip out [freekeene.com]. Re:So what if... (Score:2) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:48PM (#45459169) Homepage Journal Curse her for enforcing parking rules and not letting you do what ever the hell you want. Re:So what if... (Score:2) by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:11PM (#45458391) Homepage ...someone starts a bounty on the site for "Kuwabatake Sanjuro"? Yaz He's not a government official. Neat self-exclusion. Also by not offering hits against corporate officers (way more interesting), he prevents a large amount of extrajudicial consequence from hitting him (governments are ostensibly bound by laws, corporations can operate in low-law zones). Perhaps, he figures, focus on proving an MVP [1], and then expand to more profitable markets once he has a reasonable amount of success? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product [wikipedia.org] Re:So what if... (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:16PM (#45458423) Since when would a libertard be against something a corporation does? They practically fall over themselves to suck the dicks of Corporate America. ok remus (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:34PM (#45458621) as opposed to you, who just practically falls over himself to suck dicks period! ZING Re:ok remus (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:48PM (#45458757) You were an excellent teacher. Re:So what if... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:21PM (#45459757) He's not? How do you know? Who is he? Let's shoot this guy :) Re:So what if... (Score:2) by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:46PM (#45458735) Homepage Journal "The Assassination Bureau", starring Diana Rigg (Mrs. Peel) amoung others. The IMDB summary has the spoiler, but it's basically about the parent post, set right before WWI. Re: So what if... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:06PM (#45458887) Post of the day...you earned it. He's safe (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:56PM (#45459217) Since he's the only person who can pay out the coins. =) But still, would be a clear message for a government to send. Re:So what if... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:59PM (#45460545) That might destroy us all... like typing "google" into google. You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:5, Insightful) by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:01PM (#45458283) Journal Political violence doesn't work to actually implement social change. It only plays into the hands of authoritarians who rule by fear, in this case fear of you. Kill Bernanke, and they have a great propaganda tool against your cause. And they can replace Bernanke with no trouble. And you haven't actually done anything to harm the people whose interests Bernanke is protecting. There is an excellent essay on the topic, dating from the 1970s, titled You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship [libcom.org]. From the preamble: When left-wing terrorism is being carried out in a consistent way in society, it gives the state extra leverage in using political repression against individuals and the left in general. When by their own actions terrorists serve such ends, they are contributing to the destruction of politics and the closing of various options for the spreading of ideas before they have been fully utilised. Of course, the state will readily use various repressive methods if it meets any substantial resistance or if it has to handle a social crisis which is creating resistance. Terrorism and guerrilla-ism cannot be attacked just because they produce repression. Even more important is the fact that there is nothing to have made it worthwhile. In the end the guerrillas get wiped out and there is nothing left but repression (and a law and order mentality amongst the people). Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:3) by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:10PM (#45458363) Homepage Political violence doesn't work to actually implement social change. Shooting JFK was effective in changing policy. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by tylersoze ( 789256 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:21PM (#45458501) Uh it was? https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedy+vietnam [google.com] Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:54PM (#45459201) Homepage Journal Yes, it was. Looking at his history, it's hard for me the believe he would have let it go past '66 or so. The assassination put some one who wanted it to be a win at any cost war. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:10PM (#45459305) Indeed and I think the people who killed JFK, or at least their familial descendants since these dynastic assholes are pretty dynastic deserve some payback. I applaud this site. Alone Assassination is a poor tool. But I think provided with other measures such as a working democracy it could be part of a very well balanced system. It's primary downside is more fund will be stolen from the regular working and generally uninterested non-political populace to provide more security and protection. Captcha: Booming - lol Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by mythosaz ( 572040 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:25PM (#45458537) Political violence doesn't work to actually implement social change. It only plays into the hands of authoritarians who rule by fear, in this case fear of you. Kill Bernanke, and they have a great propaganda tool against your cause. And they can replace Bernanke with no trouble. And you haven't actually done anything to harm the people whose interests Bernanke is protecting. I like to think I shouldn't have to say I am not advocating the assassination of Bernanke, but you never know around here... That said, an assassination of Bernanke might actually raise consciousness of the whole, "Wait, huh, the Federal Reserve is WHAT?!?" issue. It'd dominate news cycles. The assassin's manifesto explaining how "evil" the whole thing is might get poured over on news channels that aren't Fox. Who knows. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by Yaur ( 1069446 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:45PM (#45458711) Not likely. McVeigh's manifesto got 0 attention and Kaczynski's only got published because it was demanded at a point where he had already killed and promised to stop if it was published. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:56PM (#45459213) Homepage Journal Also, the vast majority of people may just realized the Federal Reserve serves a very good purpose and chose to ignore kooks. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:55PM (#45459211) Homepage Journal ""Wait, huh, the Federal Reserve is WHAT?!?" since everyone knows that, I"m not sure why killing him would do, in that regard. It would disrupt markets. Re: You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:08PM (#45460279) The Fed acts as the lender of last resort? Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2, Flamebait) by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:29PM (#45458569) Journal Political violence doesn't work to actually implement social change. Education by Liberals equals stupidity. American Revolution (to name one). Civil War (to name another). If there is such a thing as a "good war", then the ones fought for liberty are the ones worth fighting, lest you end up a slave to a tyrant simply because you believe the lie "Resistance is Futile". Unless of course you are looking for an individual (or small group) who pulls off a coup of some sort. In which case, you'd be equally wrong. The Assassination of MLK Jr, while it (helped) affected change, it wasn't the change the assassin was aiming for. It did however, help galvanize the movement and add people to the cause. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:44PM (#45458703) Journal Unless of course you are looking for an individual (or small group) who pulls off a coup of some sort. Yes, that is the type we're talking about here. By the time you have a popular uprising, the social relationship is already destroyed. In which case, you'd be equally wrong. The Assassination of MLK Jr, while it (helped) affected change, it wasn't the change the assassin was aiming for. And that's exactly the effect the authors of the essay are warning against. Small scale political violence is counter-productive. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:00PM (#45459239) Homepage Journal "Education by Liberals equals stupidity. " You equal stupid. That whole statement is stupid, and the world is now stupider because it's on the internet. The poster you are replying made a stupid statement, and some how it's become education by liberals equals stupid. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:3) by Ryanrule ( 1657199 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:32PM (#45458597) What if you blow up the authoritarians? Say, the cock brothers? Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @12:32AM (#45469975) Who? Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by wile_e_wonka ( 934864 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:42PM (#45458679) And they can replace Bernanke with no trouble. Like, they could replace Bernanke with this person [wikipedia.org], who has already been selected to replace Bernanke... (though not yet confirmed by the Senate) It seems like a bad time to have Bernanke at the top of the list. What's the bounty on the new lady? Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by Copid ( 137416 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:15PM (#45459719) In fact, they'd have no choice but to replace him with Janet Yellen in the interim. She's the Vice Chair, so she takes over in his absence anyway. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by BringsApples ( 3418089 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:25PM (#45459011) I hear what you're saying, but what if, and I'm going out on a limb here, but what if the American government was ultimately behind the 9/11 attacks? If the "authoritarians who rule by fear" are the ones causing the fear, then it's win, win for them. Looking over what you quoted, seems to drive my point home, no? Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:51PM (#45459187) Homepage Journal "Political violence doesn't work to actually implement social change. " that's why the Americas are British, Hitler is still running Europe, and Japan has a a world power military. POlitical violence is what cause the former democratic and liberal Mideastern countries to turn into religious theocracy. Re: You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:14PM (#45460309) That's why India is still British ... oh wait. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:12PM (#45458405) Not according to the French (Revolution)! Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:28PM (#45459039) You're making a terrible assumption that killing Bernanke is only limited to those who oppose him. Ultimately I don't see the assassination of Bernanke to forward or thwart any agenda but there are plenty of causes that could benefit from creating a martyr. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:31PM (#45460117) Journal "Political violence doesn't work to actually implement social change." Gavril Princip begs to differ. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @08:05AM (#45462095) Thing is, they don't need to wait until someone kills Bernanke to have a great propaganda tool against any cause. They can and will crank up the propaganda when it pleases them, all that's required is repetition, repetition, repetition throughout the media. So by all means refrain from fighting back on anything if you like, it's a great way to stroke your ego thinking you're so important that you can give them a propaganda opportunity they *need*, and would *never* have had if *you* hadn't stood up for your principles. Me, I do what I like. If I get fed up enough, I act accordingly. That's what men have done for centuries. Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:2) by Tom ( 822 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @08:18AM (#45462135) Homepage Journal You can go back even further. Nietzsche already wrote it, in his famously aphorism style: It is only thanks to the anarchists that the kings are sitting in their chairs solidly again. (no quote marks, because I cite from memory and it's probably not 100% correct). Re:You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @09:25AM (#45462411) i cant beleive you got insightful for that crap, the only reason we are where we are today is because after 2000 years kings realized that if you have everything and people dont have anything to lose, you life will last 20 years tops before someone beheads you and pees down your throat, but if everybody has shit, your life lasts 80, you will still have more thatn you will ever need, and no one will cap your ass. Thats the whole road this species has traveled, thats the whole civilization right there, we are fucking going nowhere, and the circumstances today are there because of self preservation of the elite, because absolute greed leads to, instead of dudes getting head, dudes losing their heads the theory of "and at some point tyrants grew a soul" or the theory of "and somehow, possibly by magic, people got their rights", ARE *******************FUCKING RETARDED BULLSHIT************** Bernanke and Bitcoin (Score:2) by Lorens ( 597774 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:04PM (#45458319) Journal Searching for Ben Bernanke brings up as first news "BERNANKE: Bitcoin 'May Hold Long-Term Promise' Business Insider - 4 hours ago Ben Bernanke sort of endorses Bitcoin." Do you think he knew of the bounty? Re:Bernanke and Bitcoin (Score:2) by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:16PM (#45458435) Bernanke endorse US bonds. Do you think he endorses paying meth whores for $10 backstreet hummers? Re: Bernanke and Bitcoin (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:16PM (#45460325) T-bills are the gold of the international banking system. Anyone Else Remember the Pentagon Futures Market? (Score:3) by StickyWidget ( 741415 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:08PM (#45458341) I just remember the Pentagon wanting to set up something like this because they tend to be such great predictors of the future. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072985/ [nbcnews.com] ~Sticky Re:Anyone Else Remember the Pentagon Futures Marke (Score:2) by Burz ( 138833 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:29PM (#45460109) Homepage Journal I thought of it as soon as I saw the headline. Thanks for posting a link! Oh right... Ben Bernanke, of COURSE. (Score:5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:11PM (#45458383) ... only the guy who near single-handedly saved the world economy from total and utter destruction. (YES, he did have a bit to do with the bubble in the first place... but that was mostly the previous free-market, deregulationist Fed chairman's fault.) Of course, this assassination nonsense is a scam and a horrific idea. But sweet jesus, these anti-Fed demogogues are such self-denialist losers. Sure, let's go back to the gold standard so we can have a Panic every 15 years. Let's relinquish total control over our money supply and our economy for absolutely no reason. Let's just hand over our nation's economic advantage as the world's go-to currency... great idea... ...say the same idiots who insisted QE would lead to global hyperinflation (wrong), that the biggest problem our government has is the national debt (wrong), that nations need to tighten their belts during a recession (wrong), that there was no gold bubble (wrong), and that nothing bad would ever happen if we default... How many times do these people have to be proven wrong, over and over? But I guess it makes sense that the ultra-paranoid sorts of people who would be attracted to the idea of bitcoin are the same ones who would hold some kind of insane vendetta against the Fed, totally missing the mark on who REALLY to blame for the near collapse and meltdown of western civilization. Not anti fed (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:05PM (#45458871) Its altogether more simple, they have bitcoins. Why look for paranoia when greed will do. Self denialist losers ? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:01PM (#45459247) who the hell modded you interesting? Right - those who expose the theft are "Self denialist losers" compared to the biggest theft in human history. Let me give you a lesson in reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0 Once you digest that, and you have no response for the criminal enterprise that is "the fed", slowly walk away from your computer and take a deep breath. Then come back to reality. You're back? Great! In a nutshell, the federal reserve is the reason we as humanity are enslaved by debt. And Ben Bernanke heads that private cartel of foreign banks (who's shareholders are never disclosed) I can understand why someone might not like his evil thievery. That's great you bought the entire mainstream media lie anonymous coward. But those who know about jekyll island, the betrayal of woodrow wilson to the united states, and how andrew jackson fought this evil banking force when their chartesr expired, know the true history of banking. You take your last 10 years of your pitiful understanding of the history and shove it up your butthole, while the rest of us recognize hundreds of years of European banking interests subverting the liberty of every nation on earth. END THE FED Re:Self denialist losers ? (Score:2) by Xaedalus ( 1192463 ) <Xaedalys.yahoo@com> on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:14PM (#45459339) Yeah cool story bro... I'll side with OP. Last time I checked, European banking interests weren't all that solvent thanks to the dithering of the EU. Plus, an economy based on debt has done far more for the general good of humanity than an economy based on produced net assets ever has. There's a very good reason that the Dutch and the English eventually bested the French in the 1700's. Re:Self denialist losers ? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:44PM (#45459537) The debt we have today is far different than the debt of yesteryear. The world today is extremely wealthy, wealthier beyond the wildest dreams of 18th century thinkers. The problem is allocation. What to do with all that wealth. You can't "invest" it all in factories and stores. That's too risky. Wealth has accumulated faster than the ability of societies to reliably put it to go use--at least, using our current social models. So the end result is that you have a ton of wealth floating around. Much of it is parked in the stock market and other similar assets, not principally to be invested in companies, but because these markets allow you to grow money on trees, effectively. Much of the surplus wealth from around the world just keeps getting put into these baskets. And it'll keep working in perpetuity, as long as the underlying economy remains relatively profitable (as it has) and people don't panic. The rest is parked as "debt". But this isn't traditional debt. They're not trying to make tons of money. They're simply trying to preserve value in a world awash in cash. "Debt", especially government debt, just doesn't mean the same thing as it used to. It's a different beast altogether. This is why pumping more money into the system, as we have, hasn't resulted in much, if any inflation. There are two different economic universes in existence--the traditional one, where money is invested in capital assets, and this nether world in which trillions of dollars of wealth has no place to go. Adding more money into this nether world doesn't create inflation, because these guys aren't using it to increase salaries or reduce prices or anything of the sort. We gauge inflation by the price of goods and services, but the handful of people and companies with all this money... they can't effect the price of basic goods and services, because they're limited by how much they can consume. And they're not stupid enough to initiate a race to the bottom by "investing" in basic goods and services and flooding those industries with cash. Re:Self denialist losers ? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:02PM (#45459631) As an example, say somebody gave you $10 billion dollars today. How long would it take you to adjust your consumption behavior to spend more? Weeks, months, maybe years. Then what? There's a cap to how much can spend as an individual. So you switch into entrepreneur mode. How much could you spend on starting or funding ventures? Probably a lot, but it would take a long while to figure out where to place that money. And after you've exhausted all your ideas on cool new industries, then what? Unless you're Elon Musk, you probably have billions still. So you "invest" it in the stock market. But with the relatively rare exception of an IPO (a few per day, mostly small) or buyback plan, most money placed into the stock market just sits there, never to be used by any company for capital investments. Enlarge this scenario by many orders of magnitude. All of sudden your old intuition about how money works is utterly and completely useless to understand the dynamics of all this wealth. One of the only strategies that economists have come up with to date for how to put this money to effective use is government debt. If investors are too skittish to invest in capital expenditures, then just borrow their money, hand them an IOU, and invest it yourself. And the only people capable of pulling off this trick are large governments. Is that a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. But if it's a bad idea, it's not bad for any obvious reason, other than "government is profligate and stupid" But corporations can be just as profligate and stupid. Whether it's the government spending it, or a corporation, hardly matters.. But if we make a normative judgment that some of this wealth needs to be put to productive use, and if corporations are too skittish to do it, then why not do it ourselves? We've entered a brave new world. Re:Self denialist losers ? (Score:2) by Copid ( 137416 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:18PM (#45459739) So you "invest" it in the stock market. But with the relatively rare exception of an IPO (a few per day, mostly small) or buyback plan, most money placed into the stock market just sits there, never to be used by any company for capital investments. Money doesn't go "into" the stock market. It goes through the stock market and ends up in the hands of whomever you bought the shares from. That's a critical distinction that causes serious trouble for your theory. Re:Self denialist losers ? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @11:14AM (#45463437) Rand Gold Owl. Special Special Special secret power knowledge. Re:Self denialist losers ? (Score:2) by jratcliffe ( 208809 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:29PM (#45459435) You take your last 10 years of your pitiful understanding of the history and shove it up your butthole, while the rest of us recognize hundreds of years of European banking interests subverting the liberty of every nation on earth. Translation: it's the Jews!!! Re:Oh right... Ben Bernanke, of COURSE. (Score:1) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:02PM (#45459261) Homepage Journal Don't bother, about 2 people on /. actually understand why the Federal Reserve is their and how it operates. These simpletons think everything has one silver bullet solution. Re:Oh right... Ben Bernanke, of COURSE. (Score:1) by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:48PM (#45459879) Journal Don't bother, about 2 people on /. actually understand why the Federal Reserve is their and how it operates. Ah, but do they know the difference between 'their' and 'there'? This poster doesn't claim to fully understand the black magick of modern economics, but I do understand these two numbers: APR on my savings account: 0.05% APR on my car loan: 0.9% The current policy is discouraging the accumulation of savings while encouraging the assumption of ever increasing debt loads at all levels of society: individual, corporate, and governmental. You don't have to hate the Federal Reserve to realize that's not going to end well for us in the long run. Re:Oh right... Ben Bernanke, of COURSE. (Score:2) by Copid ( 137416 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:19AM (#45461097) The current policy is discouraging the accumulation of savings while encouraging the assumption of ever increasing debt loads at all levels of society: individual, corporate, and governmental. The current policy is discouraging the accumulation of savings accounts (and cash in your matress) and encouraging savers to put their money to more productive use. That's a good thing when the economy is performing below its potential. Thought experiment: if savings accounts started paying 20% tomorrow, what would happen to investment in productive activities? Re:Oh right... Ben Bernanke, of COURSE. (Score:2) by MikeBabcock ( 65886 ) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:23PM (#45460365) Homepage Journal I'm all for not assassinating people, but the gold standard didn't cause the problems you think it did. Re:Oh right... Ben Bernanke, of COURSE. (Score:2) by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @07:13AM (#45461937) Journal Yeah, Bernanke's a real genius. It takes a special kind of genius to turn a recession into an ongoing malaise. The name Sanjuro Kuwabatake (Score:5, Informative) by seibai ( 1805884 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:12PM (#45458399) For people who don't get the joke, "kuwabatake" means "mulberry farm" in Japanese (where you would raise silk worms). "Sanjuro" is a standard alias for a 30 year old guy [wikipedia.org] (it literally means "30 year old guy", more or less). Re:The name Sanjuro Kuwabatake (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:24PM (#45458525) The name of Toshiro Mifune's character in the movie Yojimbo. He pretty much comes up with the name on the spot when he was asked. Re:The name Sanjuro Kuwabatake (Score:2) by Jamu ( 852752 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:24PM (#45459403) Great film. It was remade as A Fistful of Dollars. Re:The name Sanjuro Kuwabatake (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:26PM (#45458553) And for those who *really* don't get the joke, it's Toshiro Mifune's character in Yojimo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yojimbo_%28film%29 Re:The name Sanjuro Kuwabatake (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:44AM (#45461165) The joke is that he's not a 30 year old farmer at all, he's a 40 year old otaku living in his mom's basement. Re:The name Sanjuro Kuwabatake (Score:1) by hicksw ( 716194 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @10:58PM (#45469611) ... "Sanjuro" is a standard alias for a 30 year old guy (it literally means "30 year old guy", more or less) ... and all this time I thought it meant, "Return of the Bodyguard" ...and I don't mean Kevin Costner. PsyOps? (Score:2) by IonOtter ( 629215 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:16PM (#45458437) Homepage I wonder if this isn't an operation to sour the public on Bitcoin? I mean, not that it needs much to sour the folks here on Slashdot, but the common Joe/Jane on the street might need some Emmanuel Goldsteins to scream at for two minutes. And with all the revelations of Snowden and Wikileaks, calling someone a "tinfoil hatter" has lost most of it's sting. hmm (Score:2) by buddyglass ( 925859 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:31PM (#45458591) I'll laugh if the entire site is a honeypot designed to identify people willing to crowdfund the assassination of world leaders. Re:hmm (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:00PM (#45459951) Anyone remember the Rockford Files where Angel (local dipshit) has an ad for hit-man services, figuring his customers will not be able to complain if he doesn't come through. Everything goes great until one of the targets gets killed - but not by him LOL. Summary ripped without attribution? (Score:2) by ThePyro ( 645161 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:06PM (#45458873) Summary appears to be ripped verbatim from zerohedge. Or did it originate somewhere else? It'd be nice if people would cite their sources. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-18/dark-web-exposes-75000-bitcoin-base... [zerohedge.com] CIA funding? (Score:2) by danbuter ( 2019760 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:06PM (#45458889) Why do I think the home server for this assassination market is located at the CIA headquarters? business method patent (Score:4, Insightful) by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:26PM (#45459031) For every assassination bounty hosted they should also host a corresponding anti-assassination bounty. The assassin would be paid the net pro-assassination value, that is, the difference between the two bounties, and the bounty hosting site would keep the remainder. For opposing interests of equal magnitude in a bidding war this would be hugely profitable for the bounty hosting site and also result in nobody actually getting assassinated. It would also be more equitable because it represents the opinions of both pro-assassination and anti-assassination sides, not just the pro-assassination side. Though seriously, the entire subject is revolting. Almost every American, love Obama or hate Obama, love Bush or hate Bush, agrees that they do not want their President to be assassinated. Despite disagreements in American politics, there are essential fundamental core values which unite us all, and that we do not assassinate our leaders is one of them. Re:business method patent (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @01:54AM (#45461001) Funny. Has any other nation actually had so big percentage of their top officials asssasinated as the USA? Re:business method patent (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:11AM (#45461067) Though seriously, the entire subject is revolting. Almost every American, love Obama or hate Obama, love Bush or hate Bush, agrees that they do not want their President to be assassinated. As someone who remembers JFK's assassination (and as well RFK & MLK) I couldn't agree with you more. Assassination is a tool of cowards who afraid of the world changing in a way that won't fit their world view (or occasionally summary executions in a power grab). Re:business method patent (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @03:23AM (#45461269) "... there are essential fundamental core values which unite us all, and that we do not assassinate our leaders is one of them." Kennedy, hello? Re:business method patent (Score:2) by SleazyRidr ( 1563649 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @11:16AM (#45463461) Are you... trying to say that the Kennedy assassination was a good thing, in line with American values? Re:business method patent (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:18PM (#45464073) Whether the belief is a value shared by opposing political parties and whether leaders are actually assassinated, as you reference using the example of Kennedy, are distinct issues. Re:business method patent (Score:2) by Dan541 ( 1032000 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @09:42AM (#45462509) Homepage Personally I think it's a scam. The site operator will simply take the bitcoins for themselves. This is one occasion where I have no sympathy for the scam victims. Re:business method patent (Score:2) by SleazyRidr ( 1563649 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @11:20AM (#45463497) I agree with your underlying point, that assassinating politicians will generally lead to bad things, but I can't help seeing the technical difficulties in your proposed way the market could work. Take the Obama figure of $24k. He's still fairly popular, so he could probably raise that much for the "don't assassinate Barrack Obama" campaign. The site owners walk off with $48k for nothing! People will see that and stop using the site. Actually then the site will die and the only bad thing is that a couple of jokers walk off with a bunch of money, so it might be alright after all... Re:business method patent (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @11:51AM (#45463795) soooo, when your bounty is up over a certain threshold you get a nice mail "Look at that, some people really want to kill you. You know, if SOMEBODY were to give me "insert_threshold_plus_fees" you would have nothing to fear. Yes, that really sounds great. Re:business method patent (Score:2) by MooseTick ( 895855 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:31PM (#45464225) Homepage Rather than the bounty hosting site keeping the remainder, I think more people would likely pay into an anti-assassination bounty if it went to a charity of some sort. Perhaps of their choosing. Then only people with a total lopsided hatred against them would outcompensate the anti-assassination side. This would also help more money go to charity since for every dollar you give it could become two. Then the question would remain, what do you do with the anti-assassination money if the individual is actually assinated? Re:business method patent (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:47PM (#45465801) Sadly our 'leaders' do not share the attitude of thou shalt not assassinate leaders of nations. Re:business method patent (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @07:52PM (#45468527) They do, actually -- it's a Mutually Assured Destruction kind of thing..... Unless, of course, they think the other country could never marshal the resources to retaliate, but given that 25 blokes could take down the twin towers, that could be an iffy assumption. Re:business method patent (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @12:08AM (#45469887) > Almost every American, love Obama or hate Obama, love Bush or hate Bush, agrees that they do not want their President to be assassinated. Why are you talking about muricans? I'm pretty sure plenty of non-US people want the US president to die. They don't have bitcoins, though. Great business plan (Score:2) by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:50PM (#45459179) 1) Create anonymous crowd funding website for dodgy activity people won't want to own up to (out of fear, like drug or murder prosecution). 2) Have people give you money. 3) Shut down site and pocket money. ... Profit! The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:48PM (#45458141) Odds are you're going to be dead immediately after, so what good does the money do you? Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:3) by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:52PM (#45458199) You may want another recipient to collect the bounty while you do what you otherwise do not mind doing, or may even be inclined to do. The world is a diverse place. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:4, Informative) by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:54PM (#45458215) Journal The last few chumps who took shots at US Presidents all lived to talk about it. The Secret Service is a law enforcement organization, not an execution squad, they're under the same obligation as any other LEO to apprehend a suspect alive when possible. Of course, Bitcoin probably doesn't go very far at the Terre Haute prison commissary..... Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by cheater512 ( 783349 ) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:00PM (#45458275) Homepage Oh I disagree. I would imagine the population there would be familiar with the Silk Road. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2, Informative) by Jayfar ( 630313 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:18PM (#45458461) Of course, Bitcoin probably doesn't go very far at the Terre Haute prison commissary..... Oh I disagree. I would imagine the population there would be familiar with the Silk Road. I think that's the Hershey Highway you're thinking of. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by EdIII ( 1114411 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:01PM (#45459251) I think you mean baseball. It doesn't matter whether they are pitching or catching, they're still playing ball.. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:05PM (#45458321) ... That you know of. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @11:54AM (#45463825) Please cite any assassination attempt you suspect. Please. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:5, Informative) by NoKaOi ( 1415755 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:01PM (#45460257) The last few chumps who took shots at US Presidents all lived to talk about it. Every successful US presidential assassination has resulted in the assassin's death: Lincoln: The assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was tracked down by Union soldiers and killed. Garfield: The assassin, Charles Guiteau, was executed by hanging. McKinley: The assassin, Leon Czolgosz, was executed by electric chair. Kennedy: The assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald*, was shot in the Dallas Police Headquarters. *There are plenty of conspiracy theorists that disagree with this. However, if you're in the "he didn't act alone," but that he was the shooter, he was still killed. If you believe he wasn't the shooter, then whoever was remains unknown and wouldn't have the opportunity to collect their bounty. Of course, if you do it in another country you might have a chance at survival. For example, the dude who threw a grenade at GWB in the country of Georgia received a life sentence because Georgia (the country) has abolished the death penalty, even though he did kill a Georgian high ranking agent when being apprehended. Of course, if he had been successful the US may have intervened and killed the guy. Either way, at best he would have had to enjoy his bitcoins from a Georgian prison. So how could you get away with surviving it, yet be known to have done it so you can collect your bitcoins? Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:1) by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @01:21PM (#45473829) Journal Every successful US presidential assassination has resulted in the assassin's death: Sure, after the fact, by the judicial system (except for Oswald)..... I was trying to dispel the notion that the USSS would shoot the person outright, if they had the ability to take him alive, not that they wouldn't be executed after the fact. Actually I hinted at that, Terra Haute is where the Federal death row is.... Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:1) by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:57PM (#45458239) Journal You can find anything on the internet [bop.gov], should have waited a bit longer for my post. ;) Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by ifiwereasculptor ( 1870574 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:14PM (#45458415) Is that what I think it is? They aren't simply content on using slave labor anymore in prisons, they're also turning the slavers into consumers for double the profits? Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:30PM (#45459047) I'm sure it's not as bad as you think. Inmates clearly have a choice between Speed Stick, Degree, and Power Up deodorant brands. It occurs to me you could actually be beaten up in prison if you pick the wrong one, though. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:3) by ifiwereasculptor ( 1870574 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:42PM (#45459521) I'd rather not use one. According to the ads, deodorants are sexy as hell, and sexiness and prisons are disastrous bedfellows. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:44PM (#45459139) While incarcerated inmates get a weekly prisoner's pension. It's not a lot, but it allows them to have a small amount of control over their own affair while incarcerated. What they don't spend while incarcerated, they receive as a lump sum upon release to get them by while they are being declined jobs for being a felon. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @09:47AM (#45462557) Yes, I'm sure the local prison gang is very happy with their new source of protection money. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:39PM (#45459849) Journal Profits? Did you look at the link? Some of the items (stamps) are sold at cost, others are sold at prices below anything I can match at the grocery store (generic Advil, 24 count, $1.65), while a few seem marked up a small amount ($2.05 for a single AA battery). Frankly I'm surprised they can meet costs at these prices, since there's a non-zero cost associated with trucking these items into the prison for sale. Commissary isn't where they screw inmates and their families. That would be done via the collect phone calls required to communicate with the incarcerated, as anyone who has ever had a friend or relative in prison can attest to. There's a reason why cellular phones are one of the hottest ticket contraband items on the inside. Not sure if the Federal system operates like this or not, but I have had the privilege of communicating with family members on the inside in New York (>$0.50/min back in the 1990s) and North Carolina (>$0.75/min), and they absolutely hose you on those calling rates. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:22PM (#45458521) Once the first bullet flies LEO's could care less about "apprehending the suspect", they will shoot first and ask questions later. About the only way the guy is coming out alive is if there is a witness and the guy with the gun, tosses it to the side, and lies facedown with his arms wide waiting for them. Otherwise he's toast. See modern SWAT tactics. Even then he's just about as likely to get a bullet to the back of the head. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:3) by imunfair ( 877689 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:05PM (#45458869) Homepage Actually by killing someone important you'd probably be more likely to live these days. They'd want to know if you were working alone, so you'd end up in some black site across the globe being tortured. After that was over they might kill you, or more likely make a public example out of you. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @04:54PM (#45467149) Homepage They'd never kill you. That would require somebody to make a decision that there is no chance that you know something of value. That's WAY too much responsibility for anybody with the power to actually make that decision to assume. They'll just play with you like a toy until you die of natural causes, and you'll probably get better healthcare than the average American for that time. But, it isn't exactly treatment I'd sign up for all the same! Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by N1AK ( 864906 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @05:19AM (#45461609) Homepage Is the site really a serious thing though? Unless the site is actually holding the BTC is eskrow and the assassin trusts them then why on earth would you take the job and expect to get paid. What's to stop any jackass from claiming they killed Obama if some other group of crazy racists or some such did it? Call me old fashioned but if I ever wanted someone killed then I can't imagine how a site like this would look remotely appealing as a way to go about it. Re:The problem is collecting the bounty (Score:2) by Dekker3D ( 989692 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:31PM (#45464231) The protocol this site uses, thought up apparently two decades ago, would prevent people from falsely claiming to have killed the target. Read up on it. It's scarily effective. I'm so sorry. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:50PM (#45458161) But for those dollar figures I can't even be bothered to do a recon. The Jackal. Re:I'm so sorry. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:58PM (#45458253) Perhaps they should crowd-fund it to get higher bounties. Re:I'm so sorry. (Score:5, Funny) by Rob the Bold ( 788862 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:05PM (#45458329) Perhaps they should crowd-fund it to get higher bounties. Ya, I saw something on Slashdot [slashdot.org] about that. Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:03PM (#45458859) I don't condone this shit... however it is ridiculous who tops the list. There are far more deserving candidates (not saying do it... just for argument's sake). Here are some ones to start: Vladimir Putin, former KGB man and strongest proponent of the new U.S.S.R. Ayatollah Khameini and anyone in Iran's Revolutionary Guards Any member of the Taliban or Al Quaida Kim Jong Un President (for life) Mobutu of Zimbabwe and all his cronies Anyone from a Mexican drug cartel Whoever authorized killing protesters in Tienanmen Square (and even more in the un-televised side streets and cities) Misogynistic Muslims (including Saudi Royalty) etc. etc. etc. But seriously, this is not to advocate an assassination or 'hit', it is just to point out people in power who are doing real harm to others. Advocating assassination would be ridiculous. But compared to these people, the worst in American government are like boy scouts (OK aside from a few guys like President Cheney). And not the anal sex ones. Hey, not that there's anything wrong with that. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:5, Insightful) by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:12PM (#45458933) Journal But compared to these people, the worst in American government are like boy scouts Not really. One example you gave was "anyone from a Mexican drug cartel". But mexican drug cartels are only dangerous because drugs are illegal. Those who vote to keep drugs illegal are just as responsible for those deaths as the cartels are. Further, they're responsible for every death caused by impure drugs, or drugs of unknown concentration. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:3) by ifiwereasculptor ( 1870574 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:58PM (#45459613) Not only that, but even if we take the deaths and horrors the US government is directly responsible for, by actions which are violent in nature (so I'm excluding both inaction and disastrous economic measures, for the purposes of this comparion). they beat the mexican cartels pretty easily. Look at the number of dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at the US prision system: almost 1% of its population is behind bars - that's more than 2 million people. Working people, producing armaments and other cheap goods. It's institutionalized captivity and slavery. The mexican cartels are showy, yes, and maybe inspire more horror, but that's only if you don't take scale into consideration. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:1) by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:00PM (#45460255) Journal Straw man. Just because the U.S. did bad in Iraq doesn't make criminals in other countries innocent. Or even make them less bad. Afghanistan was necessary. I agree that lax fire control on mostly the American military's part was often in the realm of criminal negligence. From bombing civilians to friendly fire on allies. Right at the beginning a retard American pilot killed a bunch of Canadian soldiers who were shooting on a known rifle range. The pilot was never punished. Another time an A-10 came in without asking and took out a platoon of Canadian infantry during one of the biggest conventional battles of the war. The majority of the platoon was killed or wounded. Other than that, not really a valid argument. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:3) by ifiwereasculptor ( 1870574 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:58PM (#45460535) Straw man*. Just because I said the US goverment is arguably worse does not mean I'm saying other criminals are innocent or any less bad. This isn't a sports match, one "side" doesn't have to "win". And we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "Afghanistan was necessary" thing and on the classification of what the American military did. Their actions weren't only "criminal negligence", they were straight up war crimes by definition. *That would be misrepresenting some else's argument, like you did to mine. I did not even allude to any given argument, just made a subjective analytical comparison. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:2) by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @03:13AM (#45479371) Journal You are trying to say the U.S. government did something bad when the U.S. government has nothing to do with what the cartels do. I'd say that was deflecting the argument. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:1) by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:22PM (#45458991) Journal You're an idiot. Just because drugs are illegal doesn't make it imperative that people hack of the heads of dozens of people. Or murder university students who were never involved in any illegal activity but pissed off a cartel member who can kill with seeming impunity. Bodies hanging from overpasses are not the result of drug laws, they are the result of people who have no regard for human life. Just because making something legal might reduce this activity does not in any way what-so-fucking-ever mean that the drug laws force people to commit mass murders and dispose of the bodies in drums filled with sulfuric acid. Yours has to be one of the dumbest comments ever. Nice way to apologize for murdering thugs just because you want to smoke a joint. You would be better to argue that people who break the law thus creating the demand are the ones who are the cause of the murders. But even that is disingenuous. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:20PM (#45460069) How about this one-word refutation-by-example: Prohibition. You aren't right, and you're an asshole, too. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:1) by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:50PM (#45460207) Journal Yet another moron who thinks anti drug laws are adequate justification for criminals to murder people. I'd like to hear you at parties. I can just hear you, "oh yeah, it was great that those guys cut the heads off of a dozen innocent people. If it wasn't for laws in another country these guys would be regular church going guys planting flowers and singing kumbaya! Those evil American law makers are causing these guys to go out and murder people... those criminals have no free will of their own and only murder in reaction to anti drug laws." Bullshit. You and everyone who thinks anti drug laws are the root cause of these guys murdering people are idiots. If it wasn't drugs they could smuggle it would be something else and they would still murder. I don't think marijuana laws make sense either. But I don't think anyone who believes that bad guys in countries with corruption and lax law enforcement are bad because of drug laws make sense either. They're just bad. Maybe if you and your ilk stopped smoking so much dope you wouldn't be one and could figure this out. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:1) by Copid ( 137416 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:25AM (#45461121) Yes, prohibition caused a lot of extra crime associated with the black market. But you know what? Most people managed to get through prohibition without murdering people. Sure, the people who didn't were responding rationally to financial incentives, but they were also awful, awful people who murdered folks over money. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @02:01PM (#45465345) The people who are in drug cartels and other illegal fields are there because illegal = more money. If you legalize all drugs and the money dries up, they will move onto slavery, arms trafficking, etc. The problem is that these people have no morals and not enough fear of the law, not that there exist illegal things for them to do. Unless you plan to legalize everything, this problem will always exist. Prohibition didn't "cause" people to start murdering each other, it just provided an extremely convenient opportunity. The people who operated based on alcohol during prohibition went back to drugs, arms dealing, etc after it was over. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:25PM (#45459015) Legal or not, the cartels will still protect their money monopolies in the legalized areas. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @06:51AM (#45461855) Those who vote to keep drugs illegal are just as responsible for those deaths as the cartels are. *rofl* Idiot. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @12:19PM (#45464103) And if women were simply forced by law to give it up whenever someone else wanted, there would be no rape. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:3) by IonOtter ( 629215 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:20PM (#45458981) Homepage The problem with your list, is that without exception, every one of them has a well-established and documented reputation for hunting down and killing those who target them for assassination. So please! By all means, go for it. I'd ask you to tell us how it went, but somehow, I don't think we'll need you to tell us? We'll find what's left of you on the 6-o-clock news. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:2) by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:07PM (#45459665) hunting down and killing those who target them for assassination. So don't miss. Put enough money on the table and some real pros might be attracted to the contract. As far as those funding the operation: That's what BitCoin/Crowdfunding is for. Good luck finding the responsible parties. Re:Once Again Missing Perspectives (Score:2) by MikeBabcock ( 65886 ) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:25PM (#45460377) Homepage Journal I'd be interested in seeing the internal list of assassinations ordered by each Putin and Obama and see who wins that one. Why Bernanke on top? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:53PM (#45458211) ...because guys at Wall Street and generally in business have plenty of spare bitcoins, no conscience, and think it's "funny" Letters of marque (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:00PM (#45458265) Remember kids, if the government does it it's OK. Re:Letters of marque (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:02PM (#45458297) Well, yes, they are authorized to do so by the Constitution. this is no disturbance in the force (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:02PM (#45458293) I'm curious why this market, created to fulfill a legitimate need, is being called "disturbing". Doesn't the US have a history of kneecapping (foreign) terrorists and (foreign) dictators while leaving alone home-grown genocidal monsters [wikipedia.org]? I had exactly the same idea (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:03PM (#45458301) I'm now happy to see someone is taking the matter at hands. When i see the US are allowed to commit remote murder in almost any part of the world and on the other hand retarded coercive "leaders" are a threat to our society as a whole (think David Cameron) i think it's absolutely normal to see people organizing themselves and financing a campaign to get said person killed. The people of the internet have more legitimacy than any government. At least there should be public crowdsourced lists of dangerous people for everyone to see and sometimes take action when possible in order to purge the world. Ben? Really? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:05PM (#45458327) It sure is easy to glean the political leanings of the largest contributors. Hint: Starts with "liber" and ends with "naive sockpuppet of the far-right" Re:Ben? Really? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:11PM (#45458381) Yep, just another Randian Libertardian.
From what I'm seeing about Bitcoin (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:08PM (#45458349)
Crypto viruses, this, ransoms, .... Bitcoin is doomed. Regardless of whose doing the harm (i.e. false flag), the fact of the matter is that Bitcoin's days are numbered. It's way too conducive to illegal and harmful behavior. Re:From what I'm seeing about Bitcoin (Score:1) by jones_supa ( 887896 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:35PM (#45458625) Pretty much the same thoughts. At first I thought Bitcoin was a cool liberal money system and I supported it. But now I'm starting to think that maybe it's actually good that there is some level of real trackability for monetary transactions. Sadly Bitcoin provides a tool for criminals to send "black money" easier, which in turn helps to make the world a shittier place. Re:From what I'm seeing about Bitcoin (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:36PM (#45459087) It's way more traceable than cash... if anyone with power ever really cares the perceived anonymity will disappear. It's Ben Shalom Bernanke (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:18PM (#45458467) People, have some respect to full names and stop using short versions. Re:It's Ben Shalom Bernanke (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:26PM (#45458555) So says Anonymous Dickhead Coward Up until about five minutes ago . . . (Score:1) by mmell ( 832646 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:35PM (#45458627) My knee-jerk reaction was "hell no - don't let any government meddle with bitcoin - it's a chance to create a world economy without nationalistic or patriotic encumbrances." Screw that - I suppose this illustrates why such an economy is inherently subject to exactly the sort of abuses we have governments in place to prevent. Up with Electronic Banking! Death to Bitcoin! I'm going to get flamed here; too bad. If Bitcoin can't regulate itself sufficiently to prevent abuses, than Bitcoin has to go. Re:Up until about five minutes ago . . . (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:34PM (#45459069) Neither can cash. Cash has to go. Re:Up until about five minutes ago . . . (Score:2) by geekoid ( 135745 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .dnaltropnidad.> on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:04PM (#45459275) Homepage Journal Yes, it fact cash can. I still hold the ultimately electronic cash will fail do to the ease and power of attacks. Re:Up until about five minutes ago . . . (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @06:10PM (#45476727) Another careless post crapped out by Geekoid, a man far too busy and important to proof-read his own gibberish. Amusingly this Geekoid idiot has been seen in the wild attacking other people's postings for their spelling and grammar. Arrogance and hypocrisy at its very finest! Re:Up until about five minutes ago . . . (Score:2) by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <plugwash@@@p10link...net> on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:13PM (#45459331) Homepage I suspect that many governments really want to get rid of cash but know they can't get away with it just yet. So they tighten the screws on large scale cash users by doing things like requiring the banks to report large cash transactions and limiting the size of the largest banknotes printed. Oh and they don't link this to inflation so the "real value" of the largest transaction you can easilly make with cash gradually declines. Re:Up until about five minutes ago . . . (Score:2) by MikeBabcock ( 65886 ) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:24PM (#45460371) Homepage Journal You mean like cash? Cash needs to be regulated so people can't buy illegal drugs or guns or child soldiers or slaves with it. Jeez people. Re:Up until about five minutes ago . . . (Score:2) by mmell ( 832646 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @06:20PM (#45467865) It is. Don't believe me? How many drug deals do you hear about involving Credit/Debit cards or even checks? Cash is regulated too - try to deposit $1000.00 or more in one shot at your local bank, you'll see what I mean. Re:Up until about five minutes ago . . . (Score:2) by MikeBabcock ( 65886 ) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Thursday November 21, 2013 @04:31PM (#45484543) Homepage Journal Who said we need banks to use cash? Why do you think criminals keep it in cash form? Come on. There was a paper about this... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:43PM (#45458699) Interesting that the approach used for confirmations was presented at a cryptography conference just over two years ago: http://fc12.ifca.ai/pre-proceedings/paper_69.pdf No paywall, direct link to PDF. Good! (Score:1) by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @07:18PM (#45458967) This whole Bitcoin thing and everything associated with it is an ongoing circus made up of different kinds of idiots. Idiots who don't understand that Bitcoin is the most non-anonymous "currency" in existence. Idiots who don't understand that Bitcoin is completely unusable as any kind of legitimate business transaction because the value fluctuates wildly. Idiots who don't understand that the Internet is completely non-anonymous. Idiots who don't understand economics 101. Bitcoin, to me at least, is a lot like Sarah Palin: Unbelievably stupid and something nobody should waste time with, but like a car wreck, something we can't stop watching in utter disbelief. Prior Art (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:02PM (#45459257) The Assassin's Guild in Discworld, for one. Congratulations (Score:1) by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:18PM (#45459365) Journal You are now no better than those you despise and for the exact same despicable things for which you claim they do. This is free market capitalism (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:20PM (#45459747) What is not to like. By opening markets and eliminating barriers to entry, we ensure that our assasinations are of the best possible quality. Mr Bernake should heartily applaud the efforts of this free market entrepeneur. No longer are political assasinations entireley controlled by governments. We all know how bloated and beurcratic governments are. Let's let the free market to it better. Free trade and fair markets for all. In a sense robbery and rape are also free market policies. Rape allows for the best possible genes to be passed along. Hell Chingis KHan is responsible for 1/6 the worlds' populations. You can't say that aint strong. Robbery means that those who have the most highly developed martial arts skill get to keep their stuff. I am all for this. How many time have you seen old people who can barely walk with a lot of stuff. By encourating free market robbery, we ensure that the youngets and best looking people have the most stuff. What is not to love. Off coarse everything I just said flys out the window when you have a society that adheres to a strong code of moralls. But then again all the free market capitalists frown on moral codes, and have no problem outsourcing overseas, running payday lending operations, or using slave labor. They have no problem bankrupting a company and then living their life out in the cayman islands. So assasination may not be such a bad thing. Ben Bernanke? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:11PM (#45460001) As Forbes reports, NSA Director Alexander and President Obama have a BTC40 bounty (~$24,000) but the highest bounty — perhaps not entirely surprising — is BTC 124.14 (~$75,000) for none other than Ben Bernanke. It sort of says a lot that Forbes had to tell their readers that "some guy named Alexander" is the Director of the NSA and "Obama" is the President (of something...), but apparently all their readers know exactly who Ben Bernanke is, without any further information. Look here NSA (Score:2) by Princeofcups ( 150855 ) <john@princeofcups.com> on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:18PM (#45460047) Homepage Woohoo! Where do I donate? Hey NSA, mark my file as "promotes assassination, subversive, needs to be watched closely." LINK (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @03:41AM (#45461319) https://assmkedzgorodn7o.onion.to not news (Score:2) by Tom ( 822 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @08:15AM (#45462121) Homepage Journal At this time, it's a cute idea, but not newsworthy unless you want to advertise the service. Post an article when they have paid out the first bounty. If one anarchist has his way (Score:2) by Optali ( 809880 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @10:57AM (#45472501) Homepage WTF do Anarchists have to do with this? OK, it's Forbes and they belong to the kind of idiots who call "liberal" to anything that doesn't carry a huge cross on his neck and owns a Tea Party affiliation card... but mates, moderate yourself. Anarchists just don't give a shit answer (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21, 2013 @03:16PM (#45483811) to take this seriously, and not just attraction for medias, every listed person should have personal address. In any case, for killing politicians, 100 000 euro is minimum necessity as reward. there is just 1 btc. Beside it, it is not secure for killer that he writes to him in advance the exact time and date when politicians will finish dead. killer can be arrested because of that. there is good website of killer at freenet, but he told me he is not working now in America, only Europe. this is the key which can be used with freenet project software: USK@RcdvyeyP47D7YtCVPdixdBdJTZbVaKAykSuxl--a608,ZKr~orlQ6Zm4lHECLHKlUB7SCACDNnPndaW19reaHEQ,AQACAAE/ContractKiller/0
https://www.dailydot.com/crime/deep-web-murder-assassination-contract-killer... Searching for a hitman in the Deep Web Empowered by encrypted email programs and Bitcoin, hitmen (and -women) are able to advertise their services with seeming impunity. Aaron Sankin Crime Published Oct 10, 2013 Updated Jun 1, 2021, 4:34 am CDT http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grosse_Pointe_Blank http://weirderweb.com/2012/11/26/dont-lecture-me-about-contract-killing-weir... http://books.google.com/books?id=-L8B8ydtHZ4C With the arrest of alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht in San Francisco last week, there’s been a renewed spotlight on the shadowy network of the Deep Web, the sites accessible only through the encrypted Tor network. Granted the cover of anonymity, users there engage in activities ranging from expressing political dissent to selling massive amounts of marijuana. While most of the attention has been paid to the trafficking of illegal narcotics, even a quick tour through the Deep Web shows the prevalence of another type of clandestine service: contract killers. Featured Video These sites, with URLs consisting of random sequences of alphanumeric characters, can’t be viewed with traditional Web browsers. A Tor browser, which routes users’ information through a system of nodes around the world rendering people using the service effectively anonymous, is required to obtain access. However, from there, finding someone with a certain moral flexibility is as easy as searching “assassin” or “hitman” on one of the many Deep Web forums or search engines. Advertisement “Doing this over the TOR network is probably the safest way to do it at all,” writes the operator of Unfriendly Solution on his or her site. “I do not know anything about you, you do not know anything about me. The desired victim will pass away. No one will ever know why or who did this. On top of that I always give my best to make it look like an accident or suicide.” “I have gained endless experience(s) in this [sic] 7 years. It has changed me a lot. I don’t have any empathy for humans anymore,” Unfriendly Solution boasts. “This makes me the perfect professional for taking care of your problems and makes me better than other hitmen. If you pay enough I’ll do ANYTHING to the desired victim. If I say anything I mean anything.” Click to enlarge Advertisement Unfriendly Solution only accepts payment in Bitcoin, the standard currency for Deep Web transactions. Bitcoins can be transferred electronically between computers or smartphones without an intermediary institution—making it a safe unit of exchange for people who don’t want their financial activities monitored. “It is of mutual interest to make everything anonymous,” explains a post on the site of C’thulhu Resume, another murder-for-hire group. “It means we don’t know you and you don’t know us. We can’t send you to prison, and you can’t send us to prison.” Claiming to be an “organized criminal group, former soldiers and mercenaries from the [French Foreign Legion], highly-skilled, with military experience of more than five years,” C’thulhu Resume takes its name from a series of horror stories by fantasy writer H. P. Lovecraft. Even in a corner of the Internet that revels in badass machismo, there’s still room for a nod to nerd culture. Click to enlarge Advertisement One of the strangest facets of the entire ecosystem of Deep Web murder-for-hire sites is in the way that many of them employ marketing techniques considered fairly standard for sites selling legal products. For example, C’thulhu Resume advertises itself with the mock cheery slogan: “The best place to put your problems is in a grave!” Hitman Network, which claims to be a trio of contract killers working in the United States, Canada, and the European Union, offers people a commission for referring their friends. “Tell others about this shop, and earn 1% from every purchase they will make,” reads a message on the site. Unlike some of the other services, which hold up their lack of ethical considerations as a selling point, Hitman Network does draw a line between what it will and will not do: “no children under 16 and no top 10 politicians.” Click to enlarge Advertisement Quite possibly the strangest murder-for-hire Deep Web site is Assassination Market, which bills itself as a system for crowdfunding assassinations. It’s like Kickstarter, but for murder. The system works like this: The name of a target is added to Assassination Market’s list and the site’s users can add bitcoins to a pool of funds associated with that individual. People can place predictions on when the target will die and whoever makes the correct prediction takes the pot home. The assumption here is that at least some of the people making said predictions will actually carry out the hit at the prescribed time to collect their winnings. The site’s creator, who goes by the name Kuwabatake Sanjuro—the moniker taken by the nameless wandering samurai in the movie Yojimbo—defends the Assassination Market in a FAQ that functions as the enterprise’s manifesto. “Killing is in most cases wrong, yes. However, as this is an inevitable direction in the technological evolution, I would rather see it in the hands of me than somebody else,” writes Sanjuro. “By providing it cheaply and accurately I hope that more immoral alternatives won’t be profitable or trusted enough. This should primarily be a tool for retribution. When someone uses the law against you and/or infringe [sic] upon your negative rights to life, liberty, property, trade or the pursuit of happiness, you may now, in a safe manner from the comfort of your living room, lower their life-expectancy in return.” Advertisement There are currently five people on the site’s list, all of whom are major public figures. Sanjuro insists he only allows people on the list for “good reason,” noting that “bad reasons include doctors for performing abortions and Justin Bieber for making annoying music.” It’s unclear precisely how many of these sites are the real deal and how many are someone engaging in a fantasy they have no intention of actually carrying out. Many in the Deep Web community hold the opinion that most sites in advertising contract killing services fall squarely into the latter category, or are at least pulling a fast one on buyers who should probably know better. A conversation captured by WeirderWeb between a prospective assassin and a prospective client on the anonymous forum Underground Message Board 2.0 last year seemed to show the self-proclaimed hitman to be something less than a cold-blooded killer. However, there’s ample evidence people deeply immersed in the upper echelons of the Deep Web were comfortable taking out hits online. Advertisement When the Department of Justice released its charges against Ulbricht, one detail of the government’s case really jumped out. Allegedly, Ulbricht hired hitmen to kill two people—a member of the site who was extorting him and an employee he believed might reveal his identity to law enforcement. Even though, at least in the blackmail case, there’s no concrete evidence a hit was actually carried out based on police records, the incidents (if real) would seem to suggest that Ulbricht was confident it could be done in the first place. Sites offering contract killing aren’t restricted to the Internet’s dark, anonymous underbelly. It’s possible to just type hire-a-killer.com into any standard browser and book a hit. (Note: Please don’t do actually this). They take credit cards (sorry, not American Express). Earlier this year an Iowa woman was arrested for attempting to solicit a hit on her father using someone she found on Craigslist. It isn’t only the (sometimes only implicit) anonymity provided by the Internet that potentially makes hiring a contract killer online more attractive than doing so face-to-face. Advertisement “In most cases, solicitors will not or can not conceive any notion of why they share in the culpability of the murder or attempted murder,” write authors Robert Hanser, Walonda Wallace, and Kaine Jones in an article entitled “Murder for Hire: Assassination and Contract Killings” in the book Organized Crime: From Tracking to Terrorism. “Often the solicitor’s … rationale is the argument that he or she did not physical commit the act and therefore is not culpable. … However, solicitors do not see themselves as murderers. Rather, they see themselves as normal people making a business deal and do not feel compelled to take responsibility for their actions.” Following this logic, by removing themselves from any direct contact with the act’s ultimate perpetrator, it’s possible employers feel a greater moral distance from the crime as well as a greater physical one. “In the eyes of the law, though,” add the article’s authors, “the solicitor is just as bad as the contract killer.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination... Meet The 'Assassination Market' Creator Who's Crowdfunding Murder With Bitcoins Andy Greenberg http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html http://cryptome.org/ap.htm As Bitcoin becomes an increasingly popular form of digital cash, the cryptocurrency is being accepted in exchange for everything from socks to sushi to heroin. If one anarchist has his way, it'll soon be used to buy murder, too. Last month I received an encrypted email from someone calling himself by the pseudonym Kuwabatake Sanjuro, who pointed me towards his recent creation: The website Assassination Market, a crowdfunding service that lets anyone anonymously contribute bitcoins towards a bounty on the head of any government official--a kind of Kickstarter for political assassinations. According to Assassination Market's rules, if someone on its hit list is killed--and yes, Sanjuro hopes that many targets will be--any hitman who can prove he or she was responsible receives the collected funds. For now, the site's rewards are small but not insignificant. In the four months that Assassination Market has been online, six targets have been submitted by users, and bounties have been collected ranging from ten bitcoins for the murder of NSA director Keith Alexander and 40 bitcoins for the assassination of President Barack Obama to 124.14 bitcoins--the largest current bounty on the site--targeting Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve and public enemy number one for many of Bitcoin's anti-banking-system users. At Bitcoin's current rapidly rising exchanges rate, that's nearly $75,000 for Bernanke's would-be killer. Sanjuro's grisly ambitions go beyond raising the funds to bankroll a few political killings. He believes that if Assassination Market can persist and gain enough users, it will eventually enable the assassinations of enough politicians that no one would dare to hold office. He says he intends Assassination Market to destroy "all governments, everywhere." "I believe it will change the world for the better," writes Sanjuro, who shares his handle with the nameless samurai protagonist in the Akira Kurosawa film "Yojimbo." (He tells me he chose it in homage to the creator of the online black market Silk Road, who called himself the Dread Pirate Roberts, as well Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto.) "Thanks to this system, a world without wars, dragnet panopticon-style surveillance, nuclear weapons, armies, repression, money manipulation, and limits to trade is firmly within our grasp for but a few bitcoins per person. I also believe that as soon as a few politicians gets offed and they realize they've lost the war on privacy, the killings can stop and we can transition to a phase of peace, privacy and laissez-faire." The Forbes E-book On Bitcoin Secret Money: Living on Bitcoin in the Real World, by Forbes staff writer Kashmir Hill, can be bought in Bitcoin or legal tender. I contacted the Secret Service and the FBI to ask if they're investigating Assassination Market, and both declined to comment. Like other so-called "dark web" sites, Assassination Market runs on the anonymity network Tor, which is designed to prevent anyone from identifying the site's users or Sanjuro himself. Sanjuro's decision to accept only Bitcoins is also intended to protect users, Sanjuro, and any potential assassins from being identified through their financial transactions. Bitcoins, after all, can be sent and received without necessarily tying them to any real-world identity. In the site's instructions to users, Sanjuro suggests they run their funds through a "laundry" service to make sure the coins are anonymized before contributing them to anyone's murder fund. As for technically proving that an assassin is responsible for a target's death, Assassination Market asks its killers to create a text file with the date of the death ahead of time, and to use a cryptographic function known as a hash to convert it to a unique string of characters. Before the murder, the killer then embeds that data in a donation of one bitcoin or more to the victim's bounty. When a target is successfully murdered, he or she can send Sanjuro the text file, which Sanjuro hashes to check that the results match the data sent before the target's death. If the text file is legitimate and successfully predicted the date of the killing, the sender must have been responsible for the murder, according to Sanjuro's logic. Sanjuro says he'll keep one percent of the payout himself as a commission for his services. Just reading about that coldly calculative system of lethal violence likely inspires queasy feelings or outrage. But Sanjuro says that the public's abhorrence won't prevent the system from working. And as a matter of ethics, he notes that he'll accept only user-suggested targets "who have initiated force against other humans. More specifically, only people who are outside the reach of the law because it has been subverted and corrupted, and whose victims have no other way to take revenge than to do so anonymously." Even setting aside the immorality of killing, doesn't the notion of enabling small minorities of angry Bitcoin donors to assassinate elected officials sound like an attempt to cripple democracy? "Of course, limiting democracy is why we even have a constitution," Sanjuro responds. "Majority support does not make a leader legitimate any more than it made slavery legitimate. With this market the great equalising forces of capitalism have the opportunity to work in politics too. One bitcoin paid is one vote closer to a veto of whatever legislation you dislike." Sanjuro didn't actually invent the concept of an anonymous crowdfunded assassination market. The idea dates back to the cypherpunk movement of the mid-1990s, whose adherents dreamt of using encryption tools to weaken the government and empower individuals. Former Intel engineer and Cypherpunk Mailing List founder Tim May argued that uncrackable secret messages and untraceable digital currency would lead to assassination markets in his "Cryptoanarchist's Manifesto" written in 1992. A few years later, another former Intel engineer named Jim Bell proposed a system of funding assassinations through encrypted, anonymous donations in an essay he called "Assassination Politics." The system he described closely matches Sanjuro's scheme, though anonymity tools like Tor and Bitcoin were mostly theoretical at the time. As Bell wrote then: If only 0.1% of the population, or one person in a thousand, was willing to pay $1 to see some government slimeball dead, that would be, in effect, a $250,000 bounty on his head. Further, imagine that anyone considering collecting that bounty could do so with the mathematical certainty that he could not be identified, and could collect the reward without meeting, or even talking to, anybody who could later identify him. Perfect anonymity, perfect secrecy, and perfect security. And that, combined with the ease and security with which these contributions could be collected, would make being an abusive government employee an extremely risky proposition. Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner would even risk staying in office. Bell would later serve years in prison for tax evasion and stalking a federal agent, and was only released in March of 2012. When I contacted him by email, he denied any involvement in Sanjuro's Assassination Market and declined to comment on it. Sanjuro tells me he's long been aware of Bell's idea. But he only decided to enact it after the past summer's revelations of mass surveillance by the NSA exposed in a series of leaks by agency contractor Edward Snowden. "Being forced to alter my every happy memory during internet activity, every intimate moment over the phone with my loved ones, to also include some of the people I hate the most listening in, analysing the conversation, was the inspiration I needed to embark on this task," he writes. "After about a week of muttering 'they must all die' under my breath every time I opened a newspaper or turned on the television, I decided something had to be done. This is my contribution to the cause." Assassination Market isn't the first online service to suggest funding murder with bitcoins. Other Tor-hidden websites with names like Quick Kill, Contract Killer and C'thulhu have all claimed to offer murders in exchange for bitcoin payments. But none of them responded to my attempts to contact their administrators, and all required advanced payments for their services, so they may be scams. And how do Assassination Market's users know that it's not a similar fraud scheme designed to steal users' bitcoins? "You don't," Sanjuro admits. But he argues that if it were a scam, it would be a very complex and risky one, given that even threatening to harm the president of the United States is a felony. Kuwabatake Sanjuro, the ronin samurai in the film "Yojimbo" whose pseudonym the Assassination... [+] Other than that, "I can but appeal personally," Sanjuro writes. "I live a comfortable, albeit somewhat spartan life, and the only thing that really pains me is the increasing attacks on the liberties I enjoy in my daily life, mainly my personal privacy. I cannot buy that with money, so I have no need of it. There is nothing I want more than to see this project succeed, and for that I need dead politicians." If the system does prove to work, the launch of Assassination Market may be ill-timed for Sanjuro, given law enforcement's recent crackdown on the dark web. In August, the FBI used an exploit in Tor to take down the web hosting firm Freedom Hosting and arrest its founder Eric Eoin Marques, who is accused of offering his services to child pornography sites. And just last month, the FBI also seized the popular Bitcoin- and Tor-based black market for drugs known as Silk Road and arrested its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht. Sanjuro counters that in addition to Tor, Bitcoin, and the usual encryption tools, he has "measures in place to prevent the effectiveness of such an arrest. Naturally these will have to be kept secret." He adds that, like an earlier generation of cypherpunks, he puts his faith in the mathematical promise of cryptography to trump the government's power to stop him. "With cryptography, the state, or any protection firm, is largely obsolete...all activity that can be reduced to information transfer will be completely out of the government's, or anyone's, hands, other than the parties involved," he says. "I am a crypto-anarchist," Sanjuro concludes. "We have a bright future ahead of us."
The Ring of Gyges: Investigating the Future of Criminal Smart Contracts https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2976749.2978362 We show that CSCs ... are efficiently realizable in existing scripting languages such as that in Ethereum. ... Our results highlight the urgency of creating policy and technical safeguards against CSCs in order to realize the promise of smart contracts for beneficial goals. https://predictiontoken.github.io/ http://www.primitivism.com/assassination.htm https://www.submergingmarkets.com/submerging_markets/2006/11/assassination_p... http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint... http://www.anarcha.org/sallydarity/ArmedStruggleAgainsttheInstitutionsofPatr... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internet_assassination https://stottle.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-admit-war-crime-on-prime-time.html https://www.hetknp.org/huurmoordenaars-via-internet/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-government-endorsed-assassinations.php https://www.lawfareblog.com/age-open-assassination https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/inside-the-cias-kill-list/ https://www.economist.com/international/2018/03/15/states-are-finding-new-wa... https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/democide-vs-other-causes-of-... https://truth11.com/2012/04/04/the-cias-history-of-assassinations-of-america... https://healthresearchfunding.org/19-shocking-statistics-democide/ https://ivypanda.com/essays/assassination-moral-legal-political-and-practica... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/04/the_cia_and_ass.html https://www.jns.org/opinion/terminating-terrorists-and-assessing-assassinati... https://thebitcoinnews.com/the-politics-of-destruction/ https://dailybitcoinreport.com/the-politics-of-destruction/ https://web.archive.org/web/20060505215440/http://zolatimes.com/v2.26/jimbel... https://web.archive.org/web/20060505215440/http://anti-state.com/vroman/vrom... https://news.bitcoin.com/the-jim-bell-system/ https://news.bitcoin.com/the-jim-bell-system-revisited/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn15H__1FOk http://detsorteregister.info/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbirch/2021/04/14/new-digital-money-new-dig... http://www.dgwbirch.com/words/books/before-babylon-beyond-bitco.html https://deadyodafish.blogspot.com/ https://www.sherrilynkenyon.com/book-series/league/ " The League® The #1 New York Times bestselling series. The League®: Nemesis Rising®, Nemesis Legacy® & Nemesis Dynasty™ Every Live Has A Price™ In the Ichidian Universe, no one was safe. People were dragged from their homes and killed in the streets- victims of a ruthless tyrant who was bent on being the sole ruler of their entire cosmos. Those who opposed him and his army formed an alliance called The League. After they put down the tyrant Justicale Cruel, the League realized that the best way to keep trouble from starting was to cut it off at its head. A separate group of soldiers was needed, The League Assassins. Highly trained and highly valued, they are the backbone of today’s government. But not even the League is immune to corruption… Welcome to a world where corrupt assassination politics dominate everything and everyone. It’s kill or be killed. You’re either the hunter or the prey, and every life has a price. Most live in fear. We fight back. These are the men and women who come from the streets and from bloodied backgrounds of survival. You just have to decide if they’re better than the ones chasing you… Or worse. Sarcastic, loyal, highly trained and lethal, these men and women are the next generation of heroes who have come together to protect the innocent from the corrupt governments and The League that prey on those who can’t stand against them. They know how to laugh in the face of madness and danger, and to endure the worst The League and their enemies can hurl at them. They will not stand by and watch greed, tyranny and injustice tear their worlds apart any longer. The war is on… "
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2150511/ The List (2013) When the man behind a popular website that ranks the world's most corrupt individuals is voted number one on his own site, he becomes the target of a killer who is out to murder every person named to the top of "The List." https://duckduckgo.com/?iax=videos&ia=videos&q="democide"
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?
the promise of smart contracts for beneficial goals.
The future may soon be one of freedom, one without today's legacy archy. And Prediction Markets may answer one of the most persistant questions held back by people [1] as only being possible under the domain of the State... Q: But but but... who will build and maintain the Roads? A: Whoever answers the questions that are posed to the market for funding. System freely determining the validity of questions, level of funds accumulating, eventually motivating the takers to make predictions... fully distributed, no prime government contractors, no ownership or authority in existing roads, open specification, for all. (PM's often better than DAO's at least in the case of public roads, since DAO's typically imply and assert themselves as owners, leading to problems of anti-privacy/freedom/free-use of tracking/tolls, enforcement, access control, fraud, theft, corruption, eventual shift from "private in the public interest" to public nuisance, etc. DAO's often better in private contexts such as business, or voluntarily subscribed insurance choices, etc.) Those wanting freedom-of-travel roads will see to it that those general and particular questions will be posed and funded and thus answered by predictors when valid... no vehicle gps trackers or registration or taxes or tollbooths or anything else needed but free markets. Whether each single pothole, or all the roads of a region, Prediction Markets have been noted as capable of motivating maintainers to show up. Now go propose, fund, and predict the fixing of that annoying pothole! Peace, Love, Anarchy. [1] Who are brainwashed in government indoctrination camps (aka: public schools) to ignore that lots of roads were and are done on volunteer/donor, communal shared, or private interest basis.
Govts are the sole proposal writer, contract awarder, and money thief for roads, all enforced by deadly force, an untenable situation by any measure. Now while the headline title action of AP may for various reasons never come to pass, the more general form from which it derives, that being Prediction Markets (PM's), will definitely reach adoption for lots of uses. In fact, PM's are ideal for answering the remaining age old question of "But who will build the roads?" in a voluntary NAP preserving libertarian society. Therein, everyone who wishes is free to propose whatever potential road contracts they wish in the form of prediction questions. Everyone is free to see all contracts, to place and fund wagers raising the stakes of the questions they prefer to have answered by takers. Contracts could specify road quality, which sections or sets of roads, etc, anything from repairing a single pothole, to entire new builds. Anyone can now enter the market and be a taker, can see all questions and funds in the market, and are all free to grab any contract and begin work as soon as any contract reaches a price level that earns an acceptable profit. Public proof of funds will give takers the confidence of payment they need to initiate work. The PM's, through oracles, etc will not award payment until work is completed to specification. Unlike government's crony favoritsm awards, sole sourcing, subsidies etc, the openness of a PM naturally drives down prices and raises contract conformance and quality. And wasteful roads and bridges to nowhere will not be built. Ownership of roads by the State, or by any other entity, is no longer needed. No GPS trackers, vehicle registrations, odometer tracking, no bills or collectors sent to privacy invading easily abused databases of residents, no license plate scanners, RF tags, toll booths, etc... all of those legacy models will disappear. Roads become truly ownerless. This does not preclude private roads, yet clearly this may make the private model annoying and inefficient by comparison. Since people do not wish to have their vehicles damaged and bumpy rides by bad roads, they will be naturally incentivized to use the free market to fund the predictions covering the roads they use or wish to use, this includes roads to far off vacation destinations, used trucking companies, etc. In fact, by eliminating government and its waste tax and regulation, users will have more funds available to them to support higher quality roads. In decentralization, crypto, education, personal responsibility and charity, we trust. https://reaction.la/anarchy/roads.htm Anarchocapitalist roads, drains, and real monopolies. Ordinary law and order in anarcho capitalism is unlikely to be a big problem, one that ordinary people think about much or notice much, except in the sense of large gangs or external governments attempting to become governments. All too often however, we will find someone saying “if only there was someone who had enough authority to make this road straight, wider, and free of charge” If we look at the rise of kings, in the early stages of their rise one of the chief advantages of dangerously great and highly centralized authority was that the king would keep “the king’s road” open, enabling money and people to get where they wanted to go, by killing those who would set up barricades and shake down travellers. Unless people in an anarcho capitalist society are prepared to keep their own damn roads open, it is not going to work. Lots of roads are privately owned today. The roads in a housing development are often owned by housing association, sometimes voluntary, sometimes compulsory. In some rather small developments, the road is owned by the guy on the top of the hill, who passes around the hat as necessary, but everyone has the right to use the road to access the other properties. In my case, I own one side of such a road, and the owner of another property owns the other side, but everyone has the right to use the road to access any one of five properties. All five properties own an easement on both sides of the road. In an anarcho capitalist society, the small roads would all work like this, and the big roads would all be toll roads. There is a problem with toll roads, and with any long linear property. In principle, the owner could make a profit by providing an obstacle rather than access, by charging people to cross his property. This is obviously illegitimate. He can reasonably charge for providing access, for allowing people to drive along his property, but not for allowing people to cross it, charge for providing access to other places, not for blocking access to other places. For an anarcho capitalist society to work, people would need to demand a right of access, should be willing to pay for roads, but not pay for road blocks. If people succeed in charging for blocking, rather than providing, access, then trade and commerce would be severely impaired, as it was during the middle ages. This, illegitimate toll collection, is the greatest problem parts of the world that do not have a central government, for example Somalia, and Afghanistan shortly after the fall of the Taliban. For an anarchic society to succeed economically, most people must believe that they have a right to get to any place they have a right to be. This is already a principle in English common law. An easement over private property is always presumed to exist to allow people to get to any place they have a right to be, but for anarchy to work, this principle has to be in people's hearts. In an economically successful anarchic society, if you do not want people barging over your property, you have to provide a way around it. Let us suppose for example someone owns a narrow strip of land running all the way across the country from east to west, perhaps originally acquired to build a road or some such. Now if he makes it into a nice road, it is reasonable that he should be free to charge anyone who wishes to use that road to go from East to West. But what of those who want to go from North to South? Should he be free to make his road into a wall, and charge those who wish to cross it? Obviously not. But how, in an anarcho capitalist society will travellers stop him? Obviously in an anarchist society, no one except those affected are going to be concerned to stop him, so there has to be a norm, a widely accepted view, that it is in fact legitimate for people to be free to get from any place they have a right to be, to any other place they have a right to be, and not be stopped, and that if they are unreasonable and obstinately stopped, they can do what it takes to pass, meeting force to force – which implies that if a union, or anyone else, trys to blockade someone, that someone can start shooting. This was in fact the norm, reasonably accepted behavior, in the early years of unionism in the United States, a fact that many people find horrifying, but which seems pretty reasonable to me. The union would set up camp on the key road serving the employer’s facility, and sooner or later, the employer would have to start shooting. Critics of capitalism tend to see monopolies everywhere, even where no one else sees a monopoly, and fans of capitalism often do not see monopolies, even when one seemingly exists. But there is a reason why a seeming monopoly is often not a real monopoly. Suppose one large business smelts all the aluminum, as in fact right now it does. Provided there is nothing that stops anyone else from smelting aluminum, what is the harm in that? This would only be a problem if no one else could smelt aluminum. So the aluminum monopoly may look like a monopoly, but really it is not, for it can only keep its “monopoly” by keeping prices low and quality high. Suppose on the other hand, one big landlord owned all the land, or owned land surrounding every person's land and claimed the right to prevent passage, and enforced his will. Then that would indeed be a monopoly. That big landlord would have the power of a socialist state, would in fact be a socialist state, and people would be right to rebel against that state, kill its rulers, and redistribute the state’s property to individuals. If a real monopoly, not what socialists call a monopoly, but a true monopoly occurs, then all the capitalist arguments against socialism and justifying violence against socialist measures apply to that monopoly, and if that monopoly dresses itself in the clothes of property rights and voluntary agreements, then all the socialist arguments against property rights and voluntary agreements apply to the property of that particular monopoly. But when property rights are thus set aside, one always winds up killing people. Before confronting such an alleged monopoly, one needs to ask: should we be killing people, or should we be seeking an alternate source of these goods?. In most cases, to ask the question is to answer it. The so called monopoly is usually no monopoly at all – but with local roads, local drains, and the like, real monopolies really do abound. How shall anarcho capitalists deal with this without neighbors killing each other too often? The right to cut across other people's land if there is no reasonable way around has to be upheld, the right of innocent passage, placing an obligation on landowners to provide for travellers – the landowner has to provide a way around his property, if he is to be entitled to shoot people cutting across it.
Will Prediction Markets be the answer to "But Who Will Build The Roads?", and other Questions of "Shared / Public" resources? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Judgment_Project https://daily.jstor.org/how-accurate-are-prediction-markets/ https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC8605461 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Marketcast-Method-for-Aggregating-... https://universaldebatingproject.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-good-judgement-pro... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426620302442 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3398761.3399010 https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2108.11631.html unihedge https://dimacs.rutgers.edu/news_archive/wsforecasting https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Information+Precision+in+Online+Communities%3... https://www.jasss.org/21/1/7.html https://ci.acm.org/2019/assets/proceedings/CI_2019_paper_34.pdf https://3lib.net/book/11187069/1b5fa9
https://reason.com/volokh/2015/11/13/brennan-and-jaworskis-markets/ "Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests" Georgetown political theorists Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski recently published an excellent new book, Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests. ... https://www.amazon.com/Markets-without-Limits-Commercial-Interests/dp/041573... https://www.libertarianism.org/videos/introduction-political-philosophy-jaso... https://cei.org/opeds_articles/review-of-markets-without-limits/ https://marketswithoutlimits.com/
In The Age Of COVID, We're Reminded An Unjust Law Is No Law At All https://mises.org/wire/age-covid-were-reminded-unjust-law-no-law-all https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/2334395618953078543/36635717282941863... https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20220211-canada-s-ontario-declares-stat... https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/does-the... https://mises.org/wire/american-revolution-was-culture-war It has become something of a habit in both the American and Canadian media to insist that the Canadian trucker protest against vaccine mandates is an "illegal protest." They are "illegal border protests," one American news affiliate proclaims. Canada's National Post dutifully refers to the protests in its headlines as illegal acts. The term "illegal" has been used a multitude of times by Liberal Party politicians in the House of Commons. The premier of Ontario—one of Canada's most hysterical politicians—not only paints the protests as illegal but as a "siege." Other opponents of the protests refer to them as an "occupation" and as an "insurrection." "Lawbreaker" as a Political Slur So why the obsession with labeling the protests illegal? The idea, of course, is to cast suspicion on them and portray them as harmful and morally illegitimate. We could contrast the rhetoric surrounding the trucker protest with that of the Black Lives Matter protests. In the case of the BLM protests, illegal acts were downplayed and ignored, with one obvious riot labeled a "mostly peaceful" protest. when it comes to protests and other acts of which the regime approves, legality is never an issue. The regimes of the world, of course, like to use legality as a standard for judging human behavior because the regimes make the laws. Whether or not the laws actually have anything to do with human rights, private property, or just basic common sense is another matter entirely. Thus history is replete with pointless, immoral, and destructive laws. Slavery has been lawful throughout much of human history. Temporary slavery—known as military conscription—is still employed by many regimes. In the US, the imprisonment of peaceful American citizens of Japanese descent was perfectly lawful under the US regime during World War II. Today, employers can face ruinous sanctions for hiring a worker who lacks the proper immigration paperwork. Worldwide, people can be jailed in many jurisdictions for years for the "crime" of possessing an illegal plant. During covid, the reality of arbitrary law came very much to the fore when unelected health bureaucrats and lone elected executives began ruling by decree. They closed businesses, shut people up in their homes, and imposed vaccine and mask mandates. Those who refuse to comply—and businesses who refuse to enforce these edicts—are condemned as lawbreakers and subject to punishment. The Moral Limits of "Law and Order" All of these legal provisions, acts, and sanctions represent mockeries of basic natural rights rather than protections of them. The notion that laws can be perversions of true justice has long been obvious to many. In fact, the disconnect between morality and legality is a fundamental aspect of Western civilization. The basic notion is very old, but the idea's endurance in the West was reinforced by the fact that Christianity began as an illegal religion and early Christians were often considered to be criminals deserving of the death penalty. It should be no surprise, then, that Saint Augustine declared an unjust law to be no law at all and compared kings to pirates: the decrees of pirates, of course, are not worthy of obedience or reverence. And if kings are like pirates, kingly decrees are of equal respectability. This same tradition fueled Saint Thomas Aquinas's support for regicide (in certain cases). Needless to say, regicide has been always and everywhere declared illegal by the would-be targets. Yet, unfortunately, declaring something to be "illegal" remains an effective slur. There is no shortage of people who proudly consider themselves to be blind supporters of "law and order" and who insist "lawbreakers" are axiomatically in the wrong. Their simple-minded refrain is "if you don't like the law, change it" and many of these people naïvely believe that acts of legislators and regulators somehow reflect "the will of the people" or some sort of moral law. The opposite is often the reality. Thankfully, in the United States, the value of lawbreaking is so "baked in" to the historical narrative that it's difficult to ignore, even today. The American Revolution was fundamentally a series of illegal acts. The Declaration of Independence was little more than a declaration of a thoroughly illegal rebellion. In response, the king sent men to the colonies to enforce law and order. The American response to this attempt to enforce the law was to kill the government's enforcers. Less violent acts committed by American rebels were equally criminal, ranging from the Boston Tea Party to a multitude of assaults on tax collectors committed by Samuel Adams's Sons of Liberty. Modern shills for the regime have unsurprisingly tried to redefine this conflict as one of a tussle over democracy. "Those American revolutionaries fought for democracy," the claim goes. Thus, by their definition, no one is ever allowed to rebel in a jurisdiction that has occasional elections. (The reality is that the American rebellion was about the protection of human rights. Elections had little to do with it.) Fortunately, it will take more than cheap slogans about democracy to undo the fact that the national origin story is about having contempt for the laws of one's political leaders. In much of the world, however, rebellion against unjust laws is not regarded with equal amounts of reverence. In Canada, for instance, the national origin story is largely about following the rules and politely asking one's overlords for autonomy. This is bound to affect how one sees the roles of law and disobedience. It Is Often Prudent to Follow Unjust Laws This isn't to say that open rebellion is necessarily wise. Avoiding illegal acts is often—if not usually—the prudent thing to do. We often follow the law simply to stay out of jail and avoid attracting the attention of regulators and government enforcers. For those who prefer spending time with their families to spending time in prison, this only makes sense. Moreover, disobeying unjust laws can often bring even more unjust laws as a result. It is one thing to follow the law for prudential reasons. It is another thing entirely to assume the law brings with it some sort of moral imperative. Few laws do. Yes, there are laws against murder, but murder is just one case where the letter of the law happens to often match up with what is fundamentally moral and right. Countless laws lack such solid standing. When we hear government officials or media pundits refer to something as "illegal" or unlawful, all this should really do is cause us to ask if the defense of these laws is actually prudent, moral, or necessary. Some laws are well founded in basic protections of property rights and other human rights. But many laws are nothing more than the fruits of political schemes to help the regime maintain power or to reward its friends at the expense of others. We can always expect the regime and its supporters to try to outlaw things they don't like. And once such things are illegal, we'll hear all about the evils of the "lawbreakers" any time those lawbreakers threaten the prestige or power of the regime. (Lawbreaking in favor of the regime, of course, is always tolerated.) It's a highly successful trick they've been using for thousands of years.
In The Age Of COVID, We're Reminded An Unjust Law Is No Law At All https://mises.org/wire/age-covid-were-reminded-unjust-law-no-law-all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a52uMkEg4g Crypto: Giver of Law Multiple mechanisms, including Funding Lobbying and Influence Campaign Markets, are now developing to check and push support for crypto. In a world rapidly and rightly adopting crypto for freedom, being anti-crypto may end up the same as all the positions over eons past that also resulted in political suicide. Coinbase Now Lets Users Check Which Politicians Are Crypto Friendly https://decrypt.co/109809/coinbase-now-lets-users-check-politicians-are-cryp...
Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues
Does the Church Condone Tyrannicide? https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/does-the... FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS With the recent terrorist attacks, some have suggested that the leaders of these terrorist organizations be assassinated for the good of all people. What would be the Churchs teaching on this? Hitler%20headquarters.gif The moral issue here is that of tyrannicide the killing of a tyrant, and specifically, the killing of a tyrant by a private person for the common good. Technically, there are two classes of tyrants: a tyrant by usurpation (tyrannus in titulo), a ruler who has illegitimately seized power; and a tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine), a ruler who wields power unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily. Tyrannicide has had support from various philosophers and theologians through the centuries, including the ancient Greeks and Romans, most notably Cicero; Catholics, most notably John of Salisbury (d. 1180) Jean Petit (d. 1411), and Suarez (d. 1617); and Protestants, most notably, Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Calvin. St. Thomas Aquinas gave the most substantial argument for tyrannicide. He based his position on his arguments for just war and capital punishment. St. Thomas concluded, "He who kills a tyrant (i.e. an usurper) to free his country is praised and rewarded" (In 2 Sentences, 44.2.2). A tyrant by usurpation has illegitimately seized power and, therefore, is a criminal. When there are no other means available of ridding the community of the tyrant, the community may kill him. According to St. Thomas, the legitimate authority may condemn him to death using the normal course of law. However, if the normal course of law is not available (due to the actions of the tyrant), then the legitimate authority can proceed "informally" to condemn the tyrant and even grant individuals a mandate to execute the tyrant. A private citizen who takes the life of a tyrant acts with public authority in the same way that a soldier does in war. The key conditions for a justifiable act of tyrannicide in this case include that the killing be necessary to end the usurpation and restore legitimate authority; that there is no higher authority available that is able and willing to depose the usurper; and that there is no probability that the tyrannicide will result in even greater evil than allowing the usurper to remain in power. A tyrant by oppression is one who has come to power legitimately, but rules unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily. Here the community must confront the tyrant, and if necessary, depose him, formally or informally, according to the course of law available. In most circumstances, a private citizen morally cannot kill a tyrant by oppression, because the tyrant came to power through a legitimate means and thereby the community must depose him. If the community does depose the tyrant, according to St. Thomas, he becomes now a tyrant by usurpation and thereby may be eliminated by an act of justifiable tyrannicide in accord with the above norms. However, if the tyrant by oppression attacks the citizen, jeopardizes the welfare of the community with the intent leading it to destruction or killing the citizens, or commits other evils, then a private citizen can morally commit an act of justifiable tyrannicide. Moreover, if because of the tyrant's rule, a nation cannot defend itself, is on the course of destruction, and has no lawful means to depose or to condemn the tyrant, then a citizen may commit an act of justifiable tyrannicide. Interestingly, many modern political philosophers would posit that a leader who abuses power and has become tyrannical ipso facto loses legitimacy and becomes an usurper. Please note that the Church has not definitively taught on this subject. The Church not only recognizes the authority of legitimate rulers and their duty to uphold the common good of the community, but also the duty of citizens to support a legitimate government. However, the Church also has set standards of just war and even capital punishment which would be applied to a conflict between a community against an unjust tyrannical leader. Keep in mind that an act of justifiable tyrannicide would have to be an act of last resort, when no other reasonable course of action is available to protect the community. Perhaps a particular example would help. In the Summer of 1944, many officers in the German military realized that their country would soon lose the war. The Allies had successfully landed in France with the D-Day Invasion and were pushing toward Germany; the Soviets were advancing from the East; the major cities of Germany were bombed heavily and frequently. To save Germany from devastating defeat and form a new government, Lieutenant Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg, described as "a serious Catholic," formed a plot to assassinate Hitler on July 20. He and other members, including Field Marshal Rommel, Field Marshal von Witzleben, and General Beck, knew that Hitler had to be removed from power, and recognized that no regular means of government existed to do so. The only course of action seemed to be justifiable tyrannicide. Von Stauffenberg reportedly met with Cardinal Count Preysing of Berlin to discuss this matter, and his eminence honored the motives and offered no theological objection to restrain him. In so doing, Cardinal Preysing placed his own life in jeopardy with the Gestapo, but was never implicated in the plot. On the evening of July 19, von Stauffenberg stopped by a Church to pray and then retired to bed. The next day, July 20, he planted the bomb at the Wolf's Lair at Rastenburg in East Prussia. It exploded, but failed to kill Hitler. Von Stauffenberg and three others were arrested and executed that very night; others would endure the same fate later. However, they committed, or at least tried to commit, an act of justifiable tyrannicide. (See Fitzgibbon, 20 July, p. 150, Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 1042ff, Royal, The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century, p. 154.) Again, the Church has not definitively taught on this moral issue. However, terrorism is a real evil that must be confronted and stopped. Terrorists must be identified, isolated, and brought to justice. However, if there are no means of bringing them to justice or there are communities who support, protect, and promote them, thereby thwarting the pursuit of justice, then the leaders of nations may consider an act of justifiable tyrannicide as a last resort. Acknowledgement Saunders, Rev. William. "Does the Church Condone Tyrannicide?" Arlington Catholic Herald. This article is reprinted with permission from Arlington Catholic Herald. The Author Father William Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope parish in Potomac Falls, Virginia. He is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. The above article is a "Straight Answers" column he wrote for the Arlington Catholic Herald.
Meta Search: journals, whitepapers, etc... "assassination+market" "assassination+politics" "market+for+assassination" "prediction+market" ... etc https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q="Assassination+market" https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q="Assassination+market"+-wikipedia https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q="Assassination+market"+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="Assassination+market" https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q="Assassination+market"+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403:galkqgoksq0&cof=FORID:13;AH:left;CX:Wikipedia%20Reference%20Search&q="Assassination+market" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query="Assassination+market"&acc=on&wc=on https://www.nytimes.com/search/"Assassination+market" https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q="Assassination+market"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim_Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_dalton_bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_dalton_bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/james_dalton_bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesdbell8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jamesdbell8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_market Talk:Assassination market
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. Proposed deletion This page was proposed for deletion by Bigdaddy1981 (talk · contribs) on 13 June 2009. It was contested by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) on 2009-06-19 WikiProject Council This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Death (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance) WikiProject Crime (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance) WikiProject Internet (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance) Contents
1 Melodramatic opinion 2 Missing sources? 3 Issues 4 The discussion is not quite historically correct 5 Needs Revision 6 Sloppy thinking 6.1 Vote 7 Trillion dollar hit 8 Unclear Writing 9 Al Qaeda 10 Jim Bell mention missing? 11 "Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" 12 Online marketplace has closed 13 Identical to Agatha Christie Book 14 Assassination market cashed out 15 List of murders ordered via markets Melodramatic opinion Resolved – Objectionable passage deleted, per WP:NOR/WP:NPOV/WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. The final sentence of the article, "If the concept is taken up as civil disobedience as suggested by Jim Bell then this could easily lead to the end of all open and above ground government anywhere on earth," seems a bit too apocalyptic for a serious encyclopedia. this is kind of intense, but given the sophistication of Al Qaeda etc., I am quite sure we are not telling them anything here they don't already know... Missing sources? Resolved – Not missing. Interestingly, much of the material describing this stuff is no longer on the open web... This isn't true really. Large proportions of the very early cypherpunks archives are on the web. [1] This topic was discussed there heavily 1993 onwards. The ideas are all covered at a broad level in Cyphernomicon and Bell's Assassination politics articles. Among other archive sites of CP materials, and of course archive.org. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Issues Resolved – Long since fixed. The "Jim Bell" link to zolatimes redirects to another location which yields 404 "File not found". The final sentence of the third paragrpah is incomplete. It ends "it is substantially more difficult to assign criminal liability for the action(s)." Substantially more difficult than what? Dominus 14:50 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC) The discussion is not quite historically correct Tim May had already discussed the idea of cryptographic protocols enabling the existence of abhorrent markets (such as assassination markets) before Jim Bell's "Assassination Politics" post (which was intially to the cypherpunks mailing list, iirc. I personally recall seeing such discussion in the extropians mailing list ~1993-1994 and on cypherpunks in 1994. Tim May is easily discovered on Usenet, so finding his email address is simple. I recommend contacting him for his version of events. This discussion is peurile imo because Jim Bell is misrepresented and unable to defend himself.Jim was the first to bring out the great libertory and freeing effects that assassination politics would bring to the world. Quite the opposite tack to the neo-nazi Tim Mays ' abhorrent' markets. Jims conception was less of a market and more of a mass movement of civil disobedience and he is quite explicit about that toward the end of his ten page essay. Jim was investigated, charged and is serving hard time today whereas no one knows where the neo-nazi Tim May is and no one cares. Jim Bell was arrested and charged while at the same time the pentagon was stealing the concept and renaming it ' Policy analysis markets.' Shades of the infamous theft of PROMIS software from the INSLAW company.From my reading of the cypherpunks list it peaked with the genius, Jim Bells contributions circa 1996-7 and then declined rapidly under the flaming racist meglomania of the neo-nazi Tim May. Stuff about Jim is stored at Cryptome inc trial testimony and he should be released in 2010, a prophet without honor in his own land and in his own time, Jim Bell is a latter day Martin Luther King and assassination politics is the death warrant for all governments. Last time I checked, Martin Luther King didn't tell people to kill people. Jim Bell did not write his Assassination Politics essay in 1997. It was begun in early 1995, and various chapters were written over the next year+. (One chapter was not written by Jim Bell: It was written by a journalist, writing for Asahi Evening News, in reaction to Bell's essay: Bell chose to include it in the AP essay because it was well-written and entertaining.) Finally, Jim Bell is no longer in prison, having been released March 12, 2012. If he hadn't been released, this paragraph would not have appeared. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Needs Revision The article says: the assassination of major figures such as Saddam Hussein would have an immediate impact--very profitable for anyone anticipating it. With the capture and imprisonment of Saddam Hussein, this remark appears to be obsolete. -- Dominus 16:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) I changed Hussein to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia - that seems to solve the problem raised above, and also probably constitutes a better example than Hussein, because even before his capture Iraq's participation in world oil markets was highly restricted, whereas Saudi Arabia is a massive force in oil, and so the assassination of King Fahd would likely have even greater effect. Sloppy thinking There are two concepts of assassination markets that are used in this entry, and they are quite different. They are horribly mixed up in this article. The first is that of a futures exchange where you can (anonymously or not) speculate on the assassination of a certain individual on a certain date. This is similar to the Policy Analysis Market that were suggested and that are highly discredited by now. The second is that of assassins, who themselves (or their peers) profit financially from the assassinations they carry out through bets in financial markets. This is not an 'assassination market'. It is just insider trading in well-established markets. My suggestion is to just merge this into Prediction market - and keep it there as a footnote - DocendoDiscimus 18:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Vote Against! I dont agree with you. This article should be kept as a separate part. It concerns the theory about assasination markets as proposed by Jim Bell (or whatever his name is) both as a conspiracy theory and as he (Tim) thought about it. Also, and this is equally important as the first argument, it considers what impact cryptography mixed with capitalism/crypto-anarchism (onion routing esp.) has on society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.11.232.248 (talk • contribs) 21 July 2006. Oppose You seem to misunderstand the concept; the prediction market is what provides the incentive for the assassins to operate, thereby instead of being a mere futures exchange, the prediction market in effect becomes somewhere to commission assassinations on a given date. Skomorokh incite 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Against! Historically it has been called assassination markets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.32.81 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Trillion dollar hit The article seems to imply that Al Qaeda traders made a trillion dollars on shorting airline stocks after the 11 September attacks. As the NYSE total market cap is about $19.7 trillion I find it very hard to believe that any group could make 5% of this on one series of trades. I'm going to tone down this claim unless someone can come up with a reputable cite. Lisiate 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] I read at the time that there was Al Qaeda was suspected of manking about $200 million ”going a bear” on airline stocks; this money was probably more about raising fianances than an alternative justification for the act. Scott197827 22:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] I don't see how it could be read to even remotely imply that al-Qaeda made a trillion-dollar profit on 9/11...rather, it's simply referring to the severe decline that occurred on the stock markets that day (which may indeed have decreased the NYSE's total market cap by a trillion dollars) Kurt Weber 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] Unclear Writing "Certainly the expensive investigations, arrests and prosecutions of Jim Bell, Carl Johnson and Matt Taylor were not theoretical. Were enough activists to join them then the entire process of repression would have to be seriously compromised. And this 'denial of service' attack from the net would work with even more synergy if following on from any external and directly physical attack. This threat to the state is verifiable. The threat is real - albeit virtual - because first responders would be distracted." What's going on in this paragraph here? It sounds like it was written by Charlie Brown's teacher. 154.20.115.35 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Al Qaeda If somebody wants a ref to the Al Qaeda debate, here it is, [2] - dont know why it has been deleted from the original version of the article. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Er, no. That is a computer-generated book taking its information from... Wikipedia. Bit circular. Fences&Windows 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jim Bell mention missing? I don't have time to look for it right now, but it seems as if this article is missing something. I came here after seeing the discussion on Jim Bell's page, but Bell isn't even mentioned on this page. The only mention is in the final paragraph... "He began an initiative called Operation Soft Drill — a term which reporter Declan McCullagh wrote was created by Bell — with the stated intention of intimidating police and corporate polluters into respecting human rights." It looks like an earlier reference to Bell was removed, leaving only this passing mention. I'm not familiar with the article myself, and I'm heading out for a while, but I thought I'd mention it for some of the editors who are more familiar with the article. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] I put Bell back in, though he did not originate any of the terms in question. The text before my re-adding edits was senseless, since it referred to both "Bell" and "assassination politics" in totally non-sequiturial ways. I just added some Bell stuff from scratch, without reference to earlier versions of the article. Someone or other is POV-warring on this article to remove any mention of Bell, and that cannot stand. But maybe earlier versions were objectionable in some way(s). I'm not friend or fan of Bell (nor his enemy), but he unquestionably played a very major role in this issue. Frankly, he scared the hell out of a lot of people, more so than May (Denning notwithstanding), since May wasn't too detailed, while Bell really wanted to implement this. NB: The fact that assassination futures (another term that should probably be added) are among the most scary-for-lotsa-people aspects of crypto-anarchism isn't really covered, and people like Dorothy Denning are not mentioend at all. Some stuff can probably be reworked from the main Crypto-anarchism article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I want to know about assassination-futures!!! Please add whatever you know about it! If you dont have sources, please just dump some hints here, and maybe I can dig it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.32.81 (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" I've just replaced a reference that simply said the above (see this version of the article) with a 'citation needed' tag. I'm guessing this was a Tor URL - does anybody know? And does Wikipedia really not allow these? Let me know and I'll raise it elsewhere on Wikipedia if necessary, as being able to cite Tor sites would certainly be useful for articles like this! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was linking to the URL of the assassination market-implementation itself. Wikipedia stopped me when I submitted, with the error message that the URL was blacklisted. Maybe its because its an assassination market. I do not like this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.32.81 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I see. This article and this Reddit thread led me to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which seems to include *all* .onion URLs. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Here's a couple of additional discussions on the inclusion of .onion links. Seems that they're not allowed because of WP:ELNO#EL7, which lists "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country" under "Links normally to be avoided". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] @83.254.32.81 and Jonathandeamer: I am assured that official .onion links for pages will be whitelisted. See [3] and [4] (both of those links will eventually have to be redone/archiving) I am told the main concern is that they might be substituted with bogus links by unscrupulous editors. To be sure, I didn't get this link to work, but on the other hand, it seems impossible to be certain that it is down for good, even if taking the pot and closing shop sure seems like a smart move. In any case, I think we will eventually need to keep track of which Assassination Market we were talking about, since any idea this spectacularly bad never goes out of style. Wnt (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Online marketplace has closed Original research from myself has determined the site closed in June 2014 and that the money never moved since. Alas I am not a reliable source, but I am on the only one AFAIK. http://pirate.london/2015/11/whatever-happened-to-the-crowd-sourced-assassin... Deku-shrub (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] It is relatively easy to verify that the monies has not been moved from the accounts. Wikipedia accepts references to public databases for example when referencing genetic sequences, publicly known mathematical constansts and whatnot, so it should be possible to reference the bitcoin blockchain too, right? Here is the transaction history and balance for the account dedicated to Bernanke assassination: blockchain.info page for the account. 2001:2002:51E3:8007:3AD5:47FF:FEB9:111D (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Identical to Agatha Christie Book The terms of this website appear identical to the plot of an Agatha Christie book, the Pale Horse (1961). I wonder if this is relevant for the main page. Assassination market cashed out https://pirate.london/fake-blockchain-assassination-market-remembers-his-wal... Deku-shrub (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply] I updated it with RS https://harpers.org/archive/2020/01/click-here-to-kill-dark-web-hitman/ Zezen (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for that partial agreement. See the Pirate London site for more such cases (from the US) or details. Bows. Zezen (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] List of murders ordered via markets This https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47747357 apart from more famous ones. Zezen (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] That wasn't via a market Deku-shrub (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] BBC says it was: The documents seen by BBC Russian suggest the man who allegedly placed the order for the murder [on Hydra market], who goes by the pseudonym Miguel Morales, was being investigated by Lt Col Shishkina while other sources are much more specific. The first "Internet hitman requests", market-based or otherwise, date to 2004 and earlier: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/may/29/crime.uknews Zezen (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Fair, I had not read into that. None the less, that was arranged by a general purpose darknet market, not a murder-specific one Deku-shrub (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Categories: Stub-Class Death articles Low-importance Death articles Stub-Class Crime-related articles Mid-importance Crime-related articles WikiProject Crime articles Stub-Class Internet articles Low-importance Internet articles WikiProject Internet articles This page was last edited on 7 June 2022, at 23:17 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_market&offset=&limit=500&action=history 7 June 2022 curprev 23:17, 7 June 2022 MalnadachBot talk contribs m 19,219 bytes +8 Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) undo Tag: AWB 29 December 2019 curprev 04:34, 29 December 2019 Zezen talk contribs 19,211 bytes +194 No edit summary undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 28 December 2019 curprev 15:02, 28 December 2019 Deku-shrub talk contribs 19,017 bytes +223 →List of murders ordered via markets undo curprev 14:29, 28 December 2019 Zezen talk contribs 18,794 bytes +499 →List of murders ordered via markets undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 25 December 2019 curprev 19:53, 25 December 2019 Deku-shrub talk contribs m 18,295 bytes +6 →Assassination market cashed out undo curprev 19:11, 25 December 2019 Deku-shrub talk contribs 18,289 bytes +120 →List of murders ordered via markets undo 24 December 2019 curprev 15:58, 24 December 2019 Zezen talk contribs 18,169 bytes +205 →List of murders ordered via markets: new section undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit curprev 14:43, 24 December 2019 Zezen talk contribs 17,964 bytes −1 →Assassination market cashed out: format undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit curprev 14:43, 24 December 2019 Zezen talk contribs 17,965 bytes +175 →Assassination market cashed out: mv undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit curprev 14:42, 24 December 2019 Zezen talk contribs 17,790 bytes −349 →Identical to Agatha Christie Book: misplaced undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit curprev 14:41, 24 December 2019 Zezen talk contribs 18,139 bytes +176 No edit summary undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit curprev 14:40, 24 December 2019 Zezen talk contribs 17,963 bytes +173 No edit summary undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 8 October 2019 curprev 19:17, 8 October 2019 70.166.239.202 talk 17,790 bytes −1 →Missing stources? undo 14 April 2019 curprev 13:28, 14 April 2019 PkbwcgsBot talk contribs m 17,791 bytes 0 WPCleaner v2.01 - Task 17 - approved BRFA / WP:WCW project (Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links) undo 31 July 2018 curprev 18:11, 31 July 2018 Deku-shrub talk contribs 17,791 bytes +241 →Assassination market cashed out: new section undo 28 August 2017 curprev 16:45, 28 August 2017 Wnt talk contribs 17,550 bytes +336 →"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" undo curprev 16:43, 28 August 2017 Wnt talk contribs 17,214 bytes −1 →"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" undo curprev 16:43, 28 August 2017 Wnt talk contribs 17,215 bytes +671 →"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" undo 21 July 2017 curprev 22:46, 21 July 2017 Beorhast talk contribs 16,544 bytes +196 call out to an agatha christie book undo 20 July 2017 curprev 17:08, 20 July 2017 2001:2002:51e3:8007:3ad5:47ff:feb9:111d talk 16,348 bytes −129 →Online marketplace has closed undo curprev 17:06, 20 July 2017 SineBot talk contribs m 16,477 bytes +360 Signing comment by 2001:2002:51E3:8007:3AD5:47FF:FEB9:111D - "→Online marketplace has closed: " undo curprev 17:03, 20 July 2017 2001:2002:51e3:8007:3ad5:47ff:feb9:111d talk 16,117 bytes +476 →Online marketplace has closed undo 1 July 2016 curprev 00:21, 1 July 2016 MarnetteD talk contribs 15,641 bytes −1,153 →External links modified: rmv bot spam undo 31 March 2016 curprev 15:08, 31 March 2016 Cyberbot II talk contribs 16,794 bytes +1,153 Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot undo 19 February 2016 curprev 15:54, 19 February 2016 BattyBot talk contribs m 15,641 bytes +30 →top: talk page general fixes & other cleanup per WP:TPL using AWB (11894) undo 1 January 2016 curprev 22:33, 1 January 2016 Deku-shrub talk contribs 15,611 bytes +403 →Online marketplace has closed: new section undo 21 July 2015 curprev 23:46, 21 July 2015 Fixuture talk contribs 15,208 bytes +104 Assessment: +Crime: importance=Mid, class=Stub; +Internet: class=Stub, importance=Low (assisted) undo 12 June 2014 curprev 13:48, 12 June 2014 Magioladitis talk contribs m 15,104 bytes +4 talk page general fixes using AWB (10241) undo 13 December 2013 curprev 12:28, 13 December 2013 Magioladitis talk contribs m 15,100 bytes 0 Talk page general fixes using AWB (9784) undo 28 November 2013 curprev 18:48, 28 November 2013 Jonathan Deamer talk contribs 15,100 bytes +593 →"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" undo curprev 18:14, 28 November 2013 Jonathan Deamer talk contribs 14,507 bytes +419 →"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" undo curprev 18:12, 28 November 2013 SineBot talk contribs m 14,088 bytes +300 Signing comment by 83.254.32.81 - "→Sloppy thinking: " undo curprev 18:10, 28 November 2013 83.254.32.81 talk 13,788 bytes +67 →Sloppy thinking undo curprev 18:09, 28 November 2013 SineBot talk contribs m 13,721 bytes +300 Signing comment by 83.254.32.81 - "→Jim Bell mention missing?: " undo curprev 18:08, 28 November 2013 83.254.32.81 talk 13,421 bytes +173 →Jim Bell mention missing? undo curprev 18:05, 28 November 2013 SineBot talk contribs m 13,248 bytes +300 Signing comment by 83.254.32.81 - "→"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source": " undo curprev 18:04, 28 November 2013 83.254.32.81 talk 12,948 bytes +243 →"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" undo curprev 18:03, 28 November 2013 Jonathan Deamer talk contribs m 12,705 bytes +1 →"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source" undo curprev 17:52, 28 November 2013 Jonathan Deamer talk contribs 12,704 bytes +615 →"Wikipedia does not allow the URL of this source": new section undo 9 July 2012 curprev 21:07, 9 July 2012 Jamesdbell8 talk contribs 12,089 bytes −138 →The discussion is not quite historically correct undo 5 July 2012 curprev 04:03, 5 July 2012 Jamesdbell8 talk contribs 12,227 bytes +754 →The discussion is not quite historically correct undo 26 April 2011 curprev 22:56, 26 April 2011 Boneyard90 talk contribs 11,473 bytes +15 Evaluated importance for WP:Death undo 28 February 2011 curprev 08:06, 28 February 2011 SMcCandlish talk contribs 11,458 bytes +2,014 Misc. cleanup; someone please install ArticleHistory here to save space; →Jim Bell mention missing?: resolved? undo 6 April 2010 curprev 23:28, 6 April 2010 Dayewalker talk contribs 9,444 bytes +905 →Jim Bell mention missing?: new section undo 8 January 2010 curprev 01:58, 8 January 2010 Pollinosisss talk contribs 8,539 bytes +11 death project undo 2 January 2010 curprev 17:00, 2 January 2010 Pollinosisss talk contribs 8,528 bytes +22 death project undo 5 July 2009 curprev 00:07, 5 July 2009 Backslash Forwardslash talk contribs 8,506 bytes +104 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination market closed as no consensus undo 25 June 2009 curprev 21:23, 25 June 2009 Fences and windows talk contribs 8,402 bytes +328 →Al Qaeda undo curprev 17:45, 25 June 2009 Power.corrupts talk contribs 8,074 bytes +340 →Al Qaeda: new section undo 22 June 2009 curprev 18:04, 22 June 2009 Beltline talk contribs 7,734 bytes +103 {{oldprodfull |nom = Bigdaddy1981 |nomdate = 2009-06-13 |con = Colonel Warden |condate = 2009-06-19 }} undo 19 June 2009 curprev 12:20, 19 June 2009 Colonel Warden talk contribs 7,631 bytes +20 + links to sources undo 5 December 2007 curprev 06:25, 5 December 2007 Phoenixrod talk contribs m 7,611 bytes +2 section heading, to make table of contents accurate undo curprev 06:06, 5 December 2007 154.20.115.35 talk 7,609 bytes +21 No edit summary undo curprev 06:04, 5 December 2007 154.20.115.35 talk 7,588 bytes +734 No edit summary undo 7 November 2007 curprev 11:49, 7 November 2007 Skomorokh talk contribs 6,854 bytes +450 →Sloppy thinking: the sloppy thinking is yours undo 28 June 2007 curprev 06:22, 28 June 2007 BetacommandBot talk contribs m 6,404 bytes +241 subst'ing templates per WP:SUBST undo 21 July 2006 curprev 18:46, 21 July 2006 Phoenixrod talk contribs 6,163 bytes +41 →Vote: unsigned comment undo curprev 16:04, 21 July 2006 193.11.232.248 talk 6,122 bytes +438 →Sloppy thinking undo 8 June 2006 curprev 15:39, 8 June 2006 80.177.165.144 talk 5,684 bytes +288 No edit summary undo 21 May 2006 curprev 15:30, 21 May 2006 Kmweber talk contribs 5,396 bytes +345 →Trillion dollar hit undo 21 March 2006 curprev 22:48, 21 March 2006 Scott197827 talk contribs 5,051 bytes +286 No edit summary undo 10 February 2006 curprev 01:40, 10 February 2006 Lisiate talk contribs m 4,765 bytes −1 →Trillion dollar hit= undo curprev 01:40, 10 February 2006 Lisiate talk contribs 4,766 bytes +443 Trillion Dollar Hit undo 26 September 2005 curprev 18:56, 26 September 2005 DocendoDiscimus talk contribs m 4,323 bytes +44 →Sloppy thinking undo curprev 18:54, 26 September 2005 DocendoDiscimus talk contribs 4,279 bytes +73 No edit summary undo curprev 18:54, 26 September 2005 DocendoDiscimus talk contribs 4,206 bytes +754 No edit summary undo 14 July 2005 curprev 04:14, 14 July 2005 69.142.219.239 talk 3,452 bytes +272 No edit summary undo 31 March 2005 curprev 04:20, 31 March 2005 128.135.192.80 talk 3,180 bytes +379 →Needs Revision undo 22 November 2004 curprev 16:19, 22 November 2004 Dominus talk contribs 2,801 bytes +319 Saddam Hussein remark obsolete undo 21 November 2004 curprev 00:15, 21 November 2004 24.194.36.16 talk 2,482 bytes +78 No edit summary undo 16 November 2004 curprev 02:48, 16 November 2004 203.164.184.80 talk 2,404 bytes +1,252 No edit summary undo 9 June 2004 curprev 22:23, 9 June 2004 80.177.165.144 talk 1,152 bytes +543 The discussion is not quite historically correct undo 12 March 2003 curprev 14:50, 12 March 2003 Dominus talk contribs 609 bytes +364 No edit summary undo 28 March 2002 curprev 20:23, 28 March 2002 24.150.61.63 talk m 245 bytes +245
In fact, PM's are ideal for answering the remaining age old question of "But who will build the roads?" in a voluntary NAP preserving libertarian society.
Will Prediction Markets be the answer to "But Who Will Build The Roads?", and other Questions of "Shared / Public" resources?
Not only do General Prediction Markets (GPM's) solve the question of "What are the better 'public investments' to do?"... as determined by the actual public, instead of by tyrannies of (laughable "democratic") central authorities (which history has proven always care more about themselves than the human condition)... GPM's are also strictly better than "crowdfunding". This is because fraudulent countless crowdfund recipients will always popup to defraud the crowd at will, enabled by the fact that the contracts of the fraudulent crowdfund proposer are by nature setup as award-before-delivery mode, and even worse, in a many-losses-sent-to-one-walkaway-scammer payout mode. Whereas GPM's use award-upon-delivery to specification mode, from whatever inputs back the trusted-by-history-of-example payors (which predictors are free to choose from and predict or not), to the claimant payee upon completion. Of course such payee will need to have built up or secured via other methods the means to complete the work (herein "The Roads", or whatever meter or pothole of them) in order to claim the prediction and thus earn the reward. However, even that can be parceled out by the GPM's as piecewise rewards toward any larger goal... anyone who can earn the smallest of monetary units by their human labor, can spend that into claiming the next larger prediction, thus also remaining consistent with fundamentals of economics. Note also that GPM's rapidly advance human capabilities and drive public costs lower by being claimed by the first competitor that can arise do it profitably. No resources are wasted by any party, and crony favoritism, roads and bridges to nowhere, etc, are all driven out. Crowdfunds and Governments simply cannot match the performance of GPM's in these regards. Yes, silly tycoons will fund art deco roads to nowhere, but that is at their own loss and that of their investors, not lossed forced upon and extracted from the public through inflation and theft as all Govts immorally and criminally do today. Given the abject, guaranteed, inefficient, oppressive, corrupt, and ruinous failure of all Govt in history to do any such works... GPM's should be explored, developed, and operated to "Build the Roads", "Get to Mars", "Cure Cancer", "Fusion Power", "Charity", etc... whatever humanity feels needs done. You might find the results to be pleasantly surprising.
Various wrote:
https://mailing-list-archive.cryptoanarchy.wiki/archive/1996/11/e64f667c2786... cc9be681fd5656895f2/ Message ID: v03007804aea877ef27a6
How am I going to get paid? I don't mean some pseudoanonymous mechanism of payment, but who decides I get paid? Who do I complain to if I don't get paid?
hash of a document describing the intended details you pseudonymously complain to the public If they cannot prove it ... they lose power.
An autonomous General Prediction Market (GPM) is expected to morph those "human" problems away. Such a system would have a reliable survivable uncensorable distributed P2P VM node network executing a number of functions on its platform. Most of the theoretical bits do exist as pieces today, with the last piece being the AI language processors that have recently come online. In effect, a form of p2p distributed computing environment. - Oracle capable of searching and accurately assessing external news sources, self updating its API's to them as it goes. - Claims Processor that interprets formatted received claims and feeds them as queries to the Oracle. - Listing maintenance features, adding, refund on expiry, etc. - A Cryptocurrency protocol to accumulate bids, send awards. However it will be quite some time, probably more than a decade, before people are able to stitch everything all together to create the first truly autonomous GPM's. And when that technological AI Singularity happens you will probably have much bigger things to reckon with than a silly GPM. Now in the intermediate time until autonomous GPM's appear, there are some examples of non-autonomous PM's... There are a few p2p GPM's being built such as Augur, but all to date seem to have included the ability to cancel "unconscionable" markets. Of course it is known that what that really means is cancel culture censoring FreeSpeech, protecting Power from inconvenient inquisition of FreeSpeech, etc. Users may freely fork those projects around such restrictions. And they'll probably want to develop better resistant comms and cryptocurrency networks to run everything over. Then there may be a rise of DAO's to handle some of the needed functions of a PM. DAO's and Governance and Voting and all that are already well described elsewhere. Another set of problems. The fully degenerate case of a Sanjuro style PM has already been run at least a few times over the years. None proved out. A more elegant development upon Sanjuro dispenses with the "website" and uses the "blockchain" itself. Today anyone can run their own Prediction Markets, over a "blockchain" or any other cryptocurrency protocol used to transfer nominal value between addresses. All that is required is that the cryptocurrency (such as Ethereum ETH) supports the ability to send a message (the announcement, and a claim, as an arbitrary txtbin, encrypted and or signed as needed or not) to the same address which is serving as the publicly visible bid accumulator, or to whatever addresses the operator of the PM specifies. Today there are hundreds of such cryptocurrencies to choose from upon which one could run a market. It must be presumed that for all these non-autonomous forms of PM... - The game operator is inclined, by nature of their posing or selecting and running the questions, to have an interest in seeing an accurate prediction as an answer to those questions. - Any game operator that does not prove themselves, via starting with trivially completable questions and increasing to difficult questions, will now likely be ignored as a probable scammer. Thus they will not receive accurate predictions. - Bidders and Claimants will not patronize unproven operators. ... the anonymous drug markets have already proven that those presumptions are working well enough to achieve reasonably stable marketplaces capable of servicing users. Of course Sanjuro's notoriety was notable, so directly running a pertinent set of questions might still work today, but twice fooled will be the last time anyone bids such an unproven operation. It is also notable that the Ultimate Ponzi or Question, for which the market might seem to require high levels of proven trust, does not necessarily ever need to be posed, as in some cases that future question may disappear via the impart of prior lesser predictions... course of history already changed in that direction without ever going there directly. Though the talk of PM's have perhaps yet to be run entirely within a cryptocurrency protocol, there are already hundreds of PM's being run on websites to answer trivial standard fare questions such as outcomes of sports, weather, elections, etc. And there are lots of people coming up with genius methods to use many of today's top-100 cryptocurrency protocols in ways that weren't necessarily specified, forseen, or intended by their original designers. In short, it is possible for people to run PM's today. Designs will grow into becoming native crypto enabled p2p distributed forms of today's legacy Crowdfunding services. GPM's will eventually evolve to be used not just for standard fare, but to "democratize" and disintermediate things that people like, freely away from the central disaster of Government that they don't like. Charity, Roads, Science, Lifespan Longevity, Space Travel, Defense, Fusion Energy, Ridesharing, Voluntaryism, etc. All of these things can be accomplished with Prediction Markets. So if you see a stretch of road in need of repair, try sending the question out for inscription, maybe some other drivers will see it and bid it up, and maybe someone will come to pave the road according to the spec that was sent... no Government required. You might find the results to be pleasantly surprising :)
Politicians, Elites, Govts, Corps, and their Military Complexes will be the ones doing AP, against each other, their own whitepapers proffer the subject and analysis. Already have been centuries of their literal assassination of people, both domestic and abroad, directly and contracted. And more threats... Six Ways From Sunday? Ex-CIA Director 'Jokes' About Assassinating US Senator Former CIA Director Michael Hayden on Monday joked about assassinating Sen. Tommy Tuberville. Tuberville, who serves as the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been blocking bulk confirmations of hundreds of military officers for key leadership roles in protest of a Pentagon policy that pays for troops' abortions and other reproductive services. Tuberville’s blockade prevents the Senate Armed Services Committee from quickly approving nominations by a unanimous vote, forcing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to send some promotions to the full Senate floor for votes. A spokesman for Tuberville told NBC News over the weekend that the former Auburn University football coach isn’t planning on backing down from his blockade even amid Hamas’ deadly attack on Israel. -NY Post "Should Tommy Tuberville be removed from his committee?" asked Democrat activist Nathalie Jacoby, to which Hayden replied: "How about the human race?" How about the human race? https://t.co/UCGCfF1lA3 — Gen Michael Hayden (@GenMhayden) October 10, 2023 The reactions to the ex-head of an agency that's been known to 'reach out and touch' their enemies, suggesting Tuberville's assassination, are about what one would expect: Them: The media and the deep state are not out to get Republicans, that’s a conspiracy theory CNN National Security Analyst And Former Head Of The CIA Michael Hayden: Tommy Tuberville should be assassinated pic.twitter.com/mig8jma8Lg — Logan Dobson (@LoganDobson) October 10, 2023 Dear Spoogemonger. Tuberville has done America a great service. Questioning yours now. — Larry Schweikart (@LarrySchweikart) October 10, 2023 He's likely a CIA operative! None of them respect their oath. — Scott A McMillan (@scott4670) October 10, 2023 "Former CIA Director Michael Hayden calls for the assassination of Sen. Tuberville because the senator is performing desperately needed oversight of the U.S. Military," wrote The Federalist's Mollie Hemmighway on X. Truly sickening. — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) October 10, 2023 As the Post notes, this isn't the first time Hayden has taken shots at Tuberville. "Tuberville absolutely is a racist," Hayden posted to "X" last month. I have aphasia. Sometimes my meaning isn’t clear. What I meant to say is Tuberville absolutely is a racist. Or, in other words, it is not wrong to say he is a racist. https://t.co/bGHAhPJhQE — Gen Michael Hayden (@GenMhayden) September 29, 2023 He also signed an open letter in August from retired military and State Department officials slamming Tuberville's "reckless" protest. "Risking our military’s planning and preparedness, and our national security to make a political point is far out of bounds," reads the letter. "The world is too dangerous to cede our leadership, which is why we urge Senator Tuberville swiftly end his blockade and to respect our nation’s service members and their families."
Poll: Driven By Rage, Almost Half Of Young Democratic Men Say Assassination Of Political Opponents Ok https://www.tampafp.com/poll-driven-by-rage-almost-half-of-young-democratic-... June 2, 2022 Liam Edgar Democrats may be the most vocal, most rabid advocates for gun control. But that doesn’t mean they are anti-violence. In fact, a new poll shows an alarmingly high number of young Democrats are fine with assassinating political rivals. That was based on a newly released poll by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC, which has long routinely labeled its opponent's bigots or white supremacists, surveyed 1,500 people in April. True to form, the SPLC poll was intended to show how racism is alive and well on the right. The SPLC claimed in a press release that the poll indicated “the ideas underpinning the white nationalist ‘great replacement’ narrative recently cited by an alleged white supremacist terrorist in Buffalo, New York, have become thoroughly mainstream on the political right.” “Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans surveyed agree to at least some extent that demographic changes in the United States are deliberately driven by liberal and progressive politicians attempting to gain political power by ‘replacing more conservative white voters,’” the group noted. Of course, the SPLC steered clear of how those same “liberal and progressive politicians” and their media allies actually feed that narrative. They do so by cheering the decline of the white population, by openly and loudly declaring that America must atone for its racist past with set asides for blacks and other minorities in education and employment in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and by denouncing that America as “systemically racist” and arguing that the path to racial harmony lies in crowding whites out of political office, corporate boardrooms, and other power centers. Nonetheless, the SPLC said its intent of the poll was “to examine to what degree people in certain groups feel threatened or persecuted by members of a defined ‘outgroup.’” The group said it uncovered among respondents “a great deal of hostility for people on the other side of the political aisle. “A majority of both Republicans and Democrats believe their political opponents pose a threat to the country and want to harm their political opponents. That kind of animosity could fuel partisan violence — a possibility that our results suggest we should take seriously,” the SPLC said. The group noted that about 1 of 5 respondents “approved of threatening or assassinating a politician.” Buried at the bottom of its press release, the SPLC discussed its findings on “partisanship and violence.” It found that 67 percent of Democrats see Republicans as a “threat” to the country, compared to 63 percent of Republicans who felt the same about Democrats. When asked to identify the top three threats to America, Democrats answered with, in descending order, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, former President Donald Trump, and “extremists” in the Republican Party. The SPLC claimed, “Those on the right appear more likely to approve of political violence.” That emerged from a question about whether “some violence might be necessary to protect the country from radical extremists.” On that issue, 41 percent of Republicans agreed, compared to 34 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents. Yet when the SPLC asked if threaten or even assassinating is appropriate for a politician who is “harming the country or our democracy,” “levels of approval for both scenarios were slightly higher for Democrats than Republicans, driven largely by the approval of younger Democratic men.” Overall, 44 percent of Democratic men who were “younger,” defined as under 50, supported the idea of assassinating a politician they believed was “harming the country or our democracy. Only 34 percent of younger Republican men agreed, while just 6 percent of older GOP men did. And, naturally, as the SPLC noted, this is the Republican Party’s fault. “Not all of those who say they approve of violent actions are willing or able to commit them personally. The decision to carry out political violence depends on a multitude of factors, including opportunity, means and the broader political environment,” the group said in the release. “But we do currently live in a moment when political leaders are leaning into violent rhetoric, meaning the social sanctions against violence could be eroding and, in the process, creating an atmosphere more conducive to acts of political violence.” In conclusion, the SPLC added, “Our guard should be up, especially after receiving yet another stark reminder of the immense pain and violence that can come when far-right ideas are allowed to fester.”
Acting Prime Minister Of Haiti To Resign Amid Post-Assassination Political Crisis https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/19/haiti-prime-minister-claude-joseph-jovene...
" [this user's account deleted by social media censors] re: AP You mean like have a Neilson ratings device in every home and if enough people hit the kill switch on one politician at the same time, then, Zap! A lightning bolt strikes them down? I'll buy that for a dollar. "
If a tool can't be used to predict the building of roads and fusion reactors, then what good is it. https://foreprotocol.io/ https://discord.com/invite/foreprotocol https://t.me/fore_protocol https://twitter.com/ForeProtocol https://www.linkedin.com/company/foreprotocol https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeProtocol https://www.youtube.com/@foreprotocol The moment we’ve all been waiting for is finally here. FORE Predict, the first people-powered predictions ecosystem, will be live 12:00 UTC November 30th, 2023. Follow the countdown here. We’ve been working tirelessly to build a people-powered predictions platform that’s powered by you. A predictions ecosystem where the house doesn’t win, but you do. A trustless, secure set of smart contracts that enables you to profit off your opinions on anything, and without the bad odds and high fees seen on centralized counterparts. A decentralized platform where you hold the power, and your own funds. And above all, a peer-to-peer predictions ecosystem where you have the freedom to create, participate, and validate any markets on any events, and are rewarded for doing so. Welcome to a new era of predictions. From 12pm UTC on November 30th, you’ll be able to generate income from creating prediction markets on any event. You’ll be able to participate in prediction markets against other users, with better odds and lower fees than centralized counterparts. And you’ll be able to create a consistent revenue stream by simply validating prediction market outcomes. But we’re just getting started. After years in development, the launch of FORE Predict V1 is a huge milestone for us, but is just one of many to come. After launch, we’ll see the rollout of a fiat onramp, new market structures, new product features, new chain integrations, and even more ways for you to generate income sustainably. With our FORE token at our core, we’ll continue to ideate and iterate to develop new solutions beyond predictions, heading into new sectors ripe for decentralization and disruption. And we’ll be doing this with you in mind: our community members, holders, and users. A new world of predictions is coming, and it’s powered by you. Head here to learn more and earn FORE. Any questions? Connect with us below! FORE Protocol 6 Pottinger St, 000, Hong Kong 2PmB-VtW1AyI
While MungerCoin crashes, WarrenCoin is set to become the new hotness... Charlie Munger Meme Coin Pumps 31,000% After Bitcoin Hater's Death https://decrypt.co/207895/charlie-munger-meme-coin-pumps-31000-bitcoin-hater... $3.3M daily volume on a pair with $24k liquidity and now down 75%. Despite its highly volatile nature and the risk of being "rug-pulled" by anonymous creators, the coin attracted significant trading volume. The irony of the situation, where the passing of Munger lined the pockets of meme coin traders, is highlighted, given Munger's strong disdain for cryptocurrencies. This incident reflects the tendency of meme coins to capitalize on breaking news and speculative trading. "RIP to the dude who wanted to house college students in a windowless depressing prison." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chalrs-munger-hall-ucsb-bi...
the promise of smart contracts for beneficial goals.
Futarchy: Robin Hanson on How Prediction Markets Can Take over the World Transcript of interview Richard Hanania https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/futarchy-robin-hanson-on-how-predictio... https://podtail.com/podcast/cspi-podcast/18-how-to-get-better-elites/ https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1438142657356656640 https://twitter.com/RobinHanson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WLg-y_gT0w CSPI #18: Robin Hanson w Richard Hanania I recently had Robin Hanson on the CSPI podcast to talk about futarchy. It’s one thing to spread knowledge on a particular issue, it’s another to invent a new technology to create more knowledge in the world, and help apply it where needed. That’s what I see Robin doing. He convinced me that although it may take a very long time, one day humanity will give less of a role to systems like peer review and unaccountable bureaucracy in determining how we understand the world, and more of a role to prediction markets. The logic is just too compelling. But sooner is better than later, and if you want to be involved, please reach out. How it would work. Source. The first step towards this glorious future is convincing people that a world where more decisions are made based on prediction markets is desirable and achievable. In that spirit, below is a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity. To read more about futarchy, see here. (beginning of transcript) Richard: Hi, everyone. Welcome to the CSPI Podcast. I’m here today with Robin Hanson. Robin, How are you? Robin: Happy to be here and ready to talk about a big topic. Richard: We’re glad to have you. Before we get started, while a lot of our audience is going to know who you are can you just give a brief description of your background? What do you do? What are your research interests? Robin: I'm an associate professor of economics at George Mason University. I do an excessively diverse range of things. I just had a paper accepted in a astrophysics journal on the Grabby Aliens. I've done information aggregation. I have two books, one called The Age of Em: Work, Love, and Life When Robots Rule the Earth, and the other The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life. I guess we'll just find out more about my prediction market work in this talk. Richard: Do you have a degree in economics? Robin: No. I have a PhD in social science from Caltech. Caltech has a pretty small social science department with say 20 faculty covering all of social sciences. My degree was in social science. The first time I went on the job market I actually did better in political science, but second time I got this job offer in economics. Richard: Okay. What are your interests? One of the things I think we're going to spend the bulk of the time talking today is the idea of a futarchy. Is that how you pronounce it? Robin: Futarchy would be a fancy name for decision markets applied to government. The larger topic would be what institutions can we all share to argue and aggregate information so that we can form collective beliefs that we can act on together? That’s a question in academia. Robin: It's a question in government. It's a question in business. It’s a very fundamental, difficult problem. I think there's potential for doing a lot better than we've done. Richard: Yeah. What’s the problem? What do you see as the main issue that this is trying to solve? Robin: Well, you know most of you have been in conversations all your life. You know that in conversations it’s very complicated. People have all sorts of agendas. They aren't entirely honest all the time and they aren't focused on particular tasks. It's not clear you know that you can believe what they say. A reporter calls up various expert people with credentials or whatever and gets quotes for them, but they don't have a good incentive to tell their best estimate of the truth in those interviews. They're often incentivized to sound provocative, to ally with whatever political tribe they're with, et cetera. We have these problems all over in all the rest of the conversations we have in business, and government, and academia et cetera. The question is could we give people more direct, better incentives to actually tell the truth and figure out the truth so that when we had a meeting and people raised hands, and we made a decision what to do we would be doing it on the best knowledge we could have? Richard: Yeah. The way you answered that question, that made me think of something. Do you see this as a matter of incentives in the sense that whoever the experts are they just have to have better incentives, or do you also see it as sort of a selection process in that there is some trait, or collection of traits that humans vary on, and some people are just better at getting at truth than others? Do you take the first position? Robin: Both of those factors are important, and so you want an institution that relies on both. You don't want to just take a particular group of people and give them better incentives, nor do you just want a process that selects people. You want to both select people and give them good incentives so that people know when they're selected that they will fact those good incentives and they will be selected on the basis of anticipating that those good incentives will work well for them. Richard: Yeah. Futarchy is the process of aligning incentives to get better opinions, better policy? Robin: Well, futarchy is decision markets which is an application of prediction markets in general, which is an application of speculative markets in general. We might say we have this general institution of speculative markets, basically stock markets, commodity markets, betting markets, et cetera. They've been around for many centuries. They have this remarkable property that they often aggregate information very well from a diverse people. The idea of prediction markets is to use that mechanism on purpose to get better information about particular topics of interest, and then decision markets are prediction markets where the topic is directly targeted at a particular decision, where you're asking about the consequences of a particular choice to make those market estimates and advice as directly actionable as possible. Richard: Yes. It would be an example of futarchy, say if there’s a bill before Congress. It’s a, say stimulus bill, something in the news. You would have some measure of outcome, the GDP of the country in five years if you pass it or you don't pass it. Then basically the system you envision, basically there'd be a way for the legislators to have their votes tied, or whoever makes the decision tied to the results of the market. Is that right? Robin: Right. I think it’d be easier to start with like a more personal, smaller scale example before we get to reforming national government. Richard: Sure. Robin: I would suggest considering, fire the CEO markets. In ordinary public companies there's the CEO. One of the most important decisions that the board of directors makes is whether to keep or fire the CEO. The proposal would be to have stock markets that are conditional on whether or not you fire the CEO. An ordinary stock market you trade stock for cash, and the price there is an estimate of the value of the company and all the different scenarios it might be in. Now we're going to make called off stock markets and these are markets where we make trades of stock for cash but those trades are called off, or made as if they never happened if certain conditions aren't met. We could have a ‘if the CEO stays in power through the end of this quarter’ version of the market. In those markets the trades will be based on the expectation of how much the company will be worth if the CEO does stay. Then we can also have markets where the trades are called off if the CEO doesn't leave by the end of the quarter. Now this will be markets where people estimate, how much is this company worth if the CEO leaves? Then the difference between those two prices, CEO stays and CEO leaves, becomes an estimate of the value of the CEO for this company. That would be direct decision advice. The board of directors could look at that price difference and say, “Should we keep him, or should we dump him?” Richard: Is there any legal barrier to a company doing this or someone setting up a market like this? Robin: Well, there is SEC regulations about commodities. This could be thought of as a stock derivative. You need some sort of permission there. That's the main regulation limit. Of course you'd also need the board of directors in the company to be interested in these numbers. That's more the real limitation. Richard: Yeah. But it seems like you don't need to convince that many people as long as, putting aside the regulatory issue. If you have a corporation, presumably if the system of markets being better than other kinds of decision making is right they should have a huge advantage right, in the market? They should be able to make a profit and their business should do well. Robin: Our consistent experience with speculative markets is that when we compare them to other mechanisms like polls or committees they’re either about the same or substantially better. They’re almost never much worse. Sometimes the question is just easy, and any mechanism can give you the answer, like is the sun shining right now or something like that right? Everything will just tell you the answer. But then sometimes things are hard or complicated, and then existing institutions are doing a bad job. In that case the market can cut through and give you a better estimate. Richard: Okay. I get that. But then the question is wouldn't you just be able to... I mean you should be able to do this and then you can just have a tournament for your CEOs right? You could have 10 different prices right? You can just see the best one… Robin: Right. This conditional market mechanism hasn't actually been tested out in the world outside of the laboratory tests in that we haven't been able to get people interested enough to try it. We've had a lot of tests of speculative markets that aren't conditional in the sense that we've had markets on deadlines, whether you make a deadline in sales and things like that. We've probably had 100 different trials like that over the last few decades. Typically what happens is that if there's enough support for the market in order to induce an affectivity then again the price is about as accurate or more accurate than the status quo and most users are satisfied. The costs are modest. That's been the history for many decades. However a key problem is usually the market gets killed in the sense that an organization says to stop and doesn't continue it. The main reason is that it's relatively disruptive. These markets are politically disruptive. The way they are disruptive is analogous to, imagine you put a very knowledgeable autist in the C suite, that is somebody in the C suite that knows a lot about the company and they go to the meetings. They just blurt out when they know things that it's relevant to the conversation but they have no political savvy. They have no sense of, what does anybody want to hear, or who will be bothered by anything they say. That sort of an autist would not last long in the C-suite. They would be shunted aside and become an advisor to someone perhaps, trusted advisor to their side but they wouldn't be allowed to speak in the boardroom. But that's what a prediction market is. It has no idea who wants to hear what it has to say. It will often say things that people do not want to hear, and that embarrass them, and that contradict what they've said. Then all the worse of course it will be proven right. Richard: Yeah. But what's stopping the autist, or I guess what's stopping them is nobody has just done this yet? But theoretically you could imagine the autist setting up the rules for the corporation, right? Robin: You might if they were in charge at the beginning sure. Richard: Yeah. That's what you need. You need one rich autist interested in these ideas. He would go in and he would say the board has to operate according to these… Robin: Now we move to the question of like, what fraction of companies out there are actually maximizing profits? Richard: Yeah. Robin: It’s a very basic question in economics and in our world. We economists tend to assume as a simple initial working model that organizations that are for profit actually do maximize profits. That's the thing they usually do. If you give them a choice of A or B, and B is higher profit they'll choose B. Here if you apply that model you say, “Well, this looks like it would give them key information to make key decisions like, ‘Will we make the deadline,’ and it will be valuable. The cost is relatively low so of course they would do it.” That's what you would say if you were applying that theory. Then here we have a case where it looks like, well it hasn't happened yet. You might think, “Okay, innovation is slow. It takes a while,” but we’ve been waiting several decades. Honestly if I look across a wide range of other areas of corporate behavior I can't fully support this profit maximizing theory. I think I can find a lot of other places where what they do does not maximize profits. I could give you a long list of examples. We could go through some of those but then the question is, “Well, how do I come to terms with it? What theory do I have affirms in the absence of profit maximizing to explain the behavior?” Richard: Yeah. Well, actually I like the idea of going through the list. Besides not operating according to betting markets what leads you to the position that corporations don’t maximize profit? Robin: Well, of course until recently we appeared to have too little remote work. Most commenters had though remote work should be much more widely adopted and it hadn't been. We also have the standard story of too many meetings. Almost everyone in large organizations complains there are too many meetings with too many people in them that last too long, yet they keep happening. We usually have too many people interviewing new candidates as opposed to just looking at their credentials on paper. We often have, when a new person becomes the boss of a group of people usually some of the people they're the boss of they inherited, and some of the people they get to pick. Usually they give higher evaluations to the second group of people and everybody knows that. But they leave that on the books. We let them do that. There is a standard not invented here bias where we're not so interested in stuff that wasn't invented here compared to stuff that was invented here. There is yes man bias which is of course famously well known that if you're a manager and you’re trying to get people to tell you the truth about things one powerful strategy is to ask them what they think before you tell them what you think, and then use what you think as a way to judge how good what they think is. Even if you're not very well informed compared to them it still can give them an incentive to tell you what they think because their best guess about what you think is still whatever the truth is. However many managers don't follow this strategy. They very clearly telegraph what they think and therefore induce other people to be yes men, or yes women, where they just parrot and repeat back what the boss said so that not longer produces an incentive for the people to think carefully about what they think. It instead gives them incentive to parrot what the boss says. These are a half dozen examples here but I have a blog post somewhere where I went through 20 of them. Again we go down the list and we go, “Each one, if it was just one I might say, ‘Okay. I just don't understand that somehow. I'm not looking at it right. Somehow it really is profit maximizing.’” But if I've got a list of 20 of these things and they're big things I go, “Well, I guess I need a better theory.” Richard: Yeah. Okay. What is the alternative theory? Robin: I'd say that we want to think of large organizations as fields of battle between coalitions, but that each coalition is fighting for control over the organization, and most of these policies are in the interest of individual coalitions. They're just not in the interest of the organization as a whole. For example, in a coalition you want lots of your people in the meetings so that they can push for your agenda. It's great if the other people aren't in the meetings, especially if say they're remote working and they can't make a lot of the meetings, so you want the other people to be remote and not in meetings and your people in the meetings. You want your people to be interviewing new candidates so they believe that they owe you a debt of gratitude if you're hired, et cetera down the list. When coalitions are competing with each other there's policies that help coalitions which isn't so much what helps the company. Related to prediction markets or forecasts most coalitions are organized around a set of shared interests and they form an agreement to support certain projects. They just don't want their agreement to support those projects to be at risk to fluctuating estimates. Prediction markets will fluctuate right? At the moment it might favor something and then a week later it might change its mind right? That's just not very reliable as a member of your coalition. You want to get together and support George's project, and George's division. Then you want to do that early on and stick with it regardless of how the estimates change. Richard: Do you think this is what happened? I'm sure you've seen the charts showing for example in universities administrators, the number of administrators are going through the roof and the number of professors is flatter, just barely rising. I saw another one with the same thing with doctors versus medical administrators. Then someone on Twitter said that chart was no good. I'm not sure if it's good or not, but do you think as a general matter this is what's happening? Perhaps there's this administration bureaucracy that's where this coalition is getting bigger and bigger and it's just expanding because it's optimized for its environment? Robin: It's not a crazy theory but I haven’t thought that through. The question is if I had a coalition in a university for example would increasing the number of administrators within my part of the university help me win coalition battles against the other ones? If yes, then the theory is predicting that this happens, but it's not obvious that that’s true. But I don't know university administration as well as other people so maybe someone who knows that can comment. Richard: Yeah. Is this just a matter of it’s when institutions get too big? Does your theory predict that the smaller the corporation, if you have a founder for example, just a founder of just a few people, that they’re going to behave more rationally than a larger corporation that's been around for a while? Robin: That’s not my theory. That's just very widely predicted. Almost everyone says that small organizations have fewer of these coordination problems. They have other problems. There’s a lot of problems that bedevil smaller organizations. Often it’s just like the leader is arrogant, or blind and has all sorts of just personality issues, etc. Right? Robin: That tends to be the problem you have with very small organizations is the very personal conflicts. But at least you don't have these larger coalition battle problems. Richard: This is a problem it seems like. This theory would go... Well, let me ask you this way. What's wrong with the classic free market position that what will happen is you'll have varying degrees of rationality and the ones that are the institutions, and firms, and individuals who are rational will just out compete the ones who are not? What do you see going on there? Robin: I mean I think in fact the correct response is to say the free market version is probably the best. You just have no idea how much worse things can be. People often look at the status quo of a business world say that is relatively free market. They look at this up close and they go, “This looks terrible how could you possibly be defending this?” The argument has to be, “Well, it would just be so much worse without this.” And in fact often if you look to large stable organizations like universities and government agencies, or churches that have been around for a long time it is in fact worse. I think that's roughly right. Another story might be we've hobbled some of the competition between firms that might solve some of these problems. I honestly think one of the biggest wins we could do is to just allow stronger hostile takeovers. The laws at the moment make it harder to do hostile takeovers. They require a substantial tax on them in essence. If you see a badly run company and you have an idea how it could be run better the problem is how are you going to profit on that? But if you could just buy up the company, change its management and then sell it again after it was better that would be a big, powerful engine for making it better. There have been times when that mechanism has been allowed to do more and it has made huge changes. That's what inspired people to lock it down and prevent those changes because they were scared it was coming for them. Richard: Yeah. There's just this status quo bias. What's the regulatory barrier there? Is it antitrust, or what is it that makes it difficult to do this? Robin: The key thing is that when you are going to try to do a takeover bid you have to warn people so they can bid up the price on you, which means that you end up paying a substantially higher price, 20%, even more above what you would have paid if you could have bought the stock in stealth without people knowing you were trying to buy it up. Richard: Where do you... This is a technical question. How do you announce it and what happens if just some other…. Robin: Well, there is a formal process by which you announce that you have a certain number of shares in the company and that you're hoping to buy more. Again you can't have bought very many of them by the time you announce this. Then what typically happens is the prices get bid up in the expectation that you'd be willing to pay more for the company. Then you may or may not succeed in buying it up. There's also a number of other things we allow such as poison pills, various rules in which if there's a takeover then all the sudden some people get some extra stock, and some extra voting shares, and some extra abilities to make it hard for you. We have a whole bunch of these rules that have basically made it difficult for people to take over companies. Richard: Yeah. Your view is basically irrationality persists, irrationality as in non-profit maximizing behavior, and then presumably that's hurting the aggregate wealth of society. That exists because basically we're protecting institutions. We have a status quo bias- Robin: Right. We're making it hard to make changes. On the other hand competitive business world is one of our best worlds we have in our world. It's one of our shining examples of productivity and innovation is the business world to the extent that it is free to do something. Now you could just say, "Well, if we make it more free to pursue profits and to innovate then it could be even so much better." Richard: It's funny because you say this is the best world we have when you compare it to other things. My background is in international relations. People often start with the assumption that the country is trying to maximize something… Robin: Right. That's even crazier an assumption, presumably it's even easier to find counterexamples to that. Richard: Yeah. I would go further and say it's harder to find you know… Robin: Examples of it happening. Richard: Yeah. Exactly. Why doesn't the US just.. Robin: Right. How many wars were started that were actually expected profit wars for example? Richard: Yeah. They tend to be pretty crazy. The whole field to a certain extent is sort of built around... Of course that's not how everyone thinks. Robin: Right. But in the future we could imagine for profit, for company nations for example. Might imagine that it would be possible to make better run nations and that they would be more rational in this sort of selfish, strategic sense. That's a thing that could happen in the future. In some sense futarchy is this proposal to use decision markets for governments and it could in fact achieve that. Maybe we should say a bit about how that might work? Richard: Do you put futarchy in a larger intellectual tradition? Because a lot of people when they're coming up with an idea... Did you come up with this term by the way? Robin: Yeah, and I've been ridiculed for it. It has various associations in different languages, et cetera, but I was just thinking of it as a future government. That was my origin of the name. And yet of course the context, there's two key contexts. One is to show how far the idea could go if you just talk about, say firing CEOs or changing churches, or all sorts of smaller organizations. I don't think people get quite as inspired as if they could see how it could become a form of government, because that's pretty grandiose and high status. Futarchy is trying to show how it might look if you went all the way to that level of application. Not that I'm recommending that we do that first at all. I would recommend we try small scale experiments and work our way up to large organizations, but still that can be an inspiration to go down the path because you hope you might go that far. Of course it's also related to other proposed forms of government and so it has some differences and similarities to others. You can think about what it's emphasizing and what its problems are compared to the others. Richard: We put aside, we started with the markets for CEO performance. Could you talk a little bit about the broader, the grander idea? How would your ideal government function? Robin: In the CEO case we have an outcome that we agree on that's the relevant outcome, IE the stock price for this public company. Then we have discrete decisions. Do we fire the CEO or not? That's the key things we need to make this apply to other things. For a national government say, the discrete choices would be each new bill that's proposed. We'd be asking, “If we pass this bill are we going to be better off?” Then for the outcome we're going to need to construct it more for a nation. The idea is the legislature still exists but now they vote on bills that defines a national welfare function. It's a bit like say GDP at the moment, say the Bureau of Labor Statistics defines GDP and then it oversees the measurement of GDP. Of course many scholars often look at GDP numbers and say that the countries with higher numbers are better, and try to recommend policies that would increase your GDP. Well, now we’re going to authorize this same sort of agency to estimate number like GDP except we’re going to tell them to put more things in the number. Bills before Congress would say, “Count more trees, and count leisure, and count international reputation.” They would just make a bigger formula that included all the stuff they cared about in this measure of national welfare. But now there would be assets, financial assets that pay out in units of national welfare. If national welfare ends up being 12.9 then it pays out $12.9 or some other financial unit. Now we can then bet on national welfare. But more importantly we can bet on national welfare conditional on whether a particular bill passes. Then for each bill we'd have these two prices, the price of national welfare if the bill passes and the price if it doesn’t, and then the difference between those two prices is a direct advice about whether or not to pass that bill. We could set that on the side and just have it be giving advice to a legislature, or we could put it directly in charge and just say, “When the market approves of it by having a higher price then that's just as if the legislature had passed it and it just becomes law.” Richard: To just make sure we’re clear let’s say we’re debating Obamacare. Then we would have to first have sort of an aggregate measure right? We’d say, “What's GDP going to be?” Maybe give that like 40% of the calculation. What’s the human life expectancy in the US going to be in 10 years or whatever. Then you would just do this for a bunch of different things. Then you would just have a market, basically say, “Okay. If Obamacare passes it's going to be X, and then if Obamacare doesn't pass it's going to be Y,” right? Robin: Right. Richard: And then… Robin: This national welfare function, we don't have to redefine it for each new bill. It's just the standard welfare function that we have for all the bills we consider. Then sometimes we'll change the welfare function and then we're changing our metric of consideration. But basically we might have say two slots of day where a new bill is considered by this process, or might even have say 10 slots a day. At each slot we might even have an auction to decide who gets to put their bill up during that slot. Then during that hour say, or half day, the market decides whether that bill passes. Then we go on to the next bill, and the next half day. Again the national welfare measure would just be the same measure that we had decided on months ago. Richard: Yeah. Okay. You don't need the ascent of Congress to do this? Robin: Right. If you want to just make it be advisory you would just need the legal permission to create these markets, and then we can just sit on the side and we could track say, when the Congress passed a bill versus didn't pass a bill did it follow this market advice, and see the net effect of these things. But it would be better for many reasons if it was just more directly in charge. Richard: Yeah. Robin: We already have a democratic system where there are often experts who know the right thing about bills and they tell each other the right things. The public never hears that and so politicians just ignore it. The question would be if this was just on the side as an advisory thing would the public pay any attention? Richard: Yeah. How serious are the regulatory barriers? I mean if you had enough money could you do this for the things that Congress is debating right now? Robin: Well, I wouldn't do this as the first thing. Again, this would inspire you as an end point that you could eventually get to, but a shorter term project would be say in a presidential election you've got the Democrat or the Republican who might be president. We could just estimate some outcomes for the nation conditional on whether the next president is Democrat or Republican right? We could have GDP. We could have life span. We could have war deaths. We could have all sorts of numbers and that would be a straightforward thing to do every presidential election. We could just be estimating the consequences of who we elect. We really haven't done that before. Richard: Is that the best way to do it or is that going to pose difficulties? Because if the market comes back and it says Democrats are unquestionably better for the country than Republicans or vice versa that’ll poison the idea of having markets with half the country wouldn’t it? Robin: Well, you will want to collect a track record over a longer time. My overall plan is that I want these things to happen in small organizations to get track records there and then slowly work their way up to bigger things. We don't want the only main trials to be national level politics. That doesn’t make sense because you don’t even really get enough data there. You want a lot of smaller decisions where you get a lot of data and where you can show that this is just working well. Think of it like... I’m old enough to remember a time when the government started to use computers for things. They did that because the private sector was using computers for things and people said, “Hey. Why isn't the DMV using computers if the private sector is?” They got kind of embarrassed and they decided they would try to use computers right? Because it was just obvious that elsewhere this was a pretty good idea. That's how you want to do innovation ideally is you just want to have lots of people using it because it just seems to work. Then eventually the government is shamed into doing it too. Richard: Yeah. Do you see opportunities out there besides the CEO markets? What else could be promising places to do this? Robin: This mechanism really is quite general and it can apply to a very wide range of problems. I would basically mainly be opportunistic about where there's a group of people who are willing to try it there. But just to whet your appetite we can go over a lot of options here. Most organizations hire people regularly. Each time they have a job opening they usually interview several people for each job. When they hire them for that job they're hoping for certain outcomes. Usually they have some internal process that rates how well that employee is. They could in two or five years have a rating for that new employee of how well they did. It would be straightforward then to have markets on each candidate for a particular job position saying, "What will be the rating of this employee if we hired them in, say two or five years?" That could just be a general process every time you had a candidate for a job opening. Of course every time you got a project with a deadline you should have a market on whether you'll make the deadline. You could even have that market on whether you make the deadline give you that probability conditional on changes you might make to the project, i.e. pull back on the requirements. Add resources. Those are all sort of obvious... Change who's in charge of the project. Those are all obvious things you might do to see if you can make a deadline. Students who are high school students applying to college could have markets saying if they chose college X, what will their outcomes be say after they... In five years, or if they chose college Y. The markets could tell them which college to pick. Or on the other side of the equation the colleges could have markets in the student applicants saying, "If we accepted this applicant how well would they do after four years here in our program," say. Richard: Who would be betting on, for example the individual kids going to one college or the other? Their friends and family or how does it [work? Robin: Well, so for all of these markets there's a key question of who do you allow to participate? One of the issues there is that whoever you allow to participate gets to see the information and the market prices. They're also the people you want to reveal information to so they could be better informed at making choices. If you had a student who was willing to let the world see their test scores, and their application essay, and even some description of their priorities or whatever, maybe personal information, then you open that market to the public. Then people could browse that material and make a guess about that particular person. There's a trade off though. If they don't want to reveal as much information about them then they don't have to, but then fewer people in the market will be able to make a good judgment and they will just be degrading the quality of their estimate as a cost of keeping some privacy. You know that's completely reasonable to do but you just want to make that trade off. Another application that would probably be even more disruptive is when you're thinking of marrying someone and you ask the markets, “How would our marriage go if we get married?” Or you could even think of dating particular people and ask, “How will it go if I date this person?” Those are things of course you would mostly want to be asking people who knew you somewhat better, but the whole point of these markets is you don't have to decide who's good at answering questions. You just open it up and you let them decide. Richard: I think in that case in particular there’s such an informational asymmetry between you as an individual and everyone else in the world, that if there's one place where a betting market is made that you can not improve on just people making their own decisions about the marriage, and dating, and things like that. Robin: Now other people who were in that market would want to know if you were betting in it too. There's a general phenomena in these markets where people should be wary of betting against people who know a lot more than they do. This is, for example, one of the rationales for limitations on insider trading and stock markets. There are many reasonable choices to make there. You could tell the world, "Well, I'm going to be betting in this market on whether my marriage works but you're welcome to bet too." They might think, "Well, I don't know as much as you do. I'm not going to touch that." In order to get them to bet you might say, "Well, I'm not going to bet on that and neither is anybody in my family," right? You could just set a limit on who's going to be allowed as a way to entice people farther away to participate. Similarly a company who has a stock market on that company, if they could choose to allow insiders then they'd have a choice. If we allow insider trading then people who are not insiders will know they might be trading against insiders and then that might put them off from trading on that stock. Or on the other hand if we allow... If you prevent the insiders from trading we will entice more outsiders to trade. On the other hand we'll lose the information those insiders would have given had they been allowed to trade. Richard: Yeah. That makes me think. Do you have an opinion on laws against insider trading? Do you think that they're generally good or bad? Robin: Well, it seems to me that it's the company that has the cost, so it's not clear to me why anybody else should be having a say. Whoever owns the company is making the trade off in whether to allow insider trading. Now, of course if the company is not being run in the interest of those investors then we have to worry about making good choices about insider trading, but then we have to worry about making a good choice about everything the company does. That's what we were talking about before when companies were not run for the maximizing profits then the investors have to worry about what they are being run for, and whether they're going to be basically stolen from the people who are managing things. But insider trading is one way they could be stolen from. But there's 1,000 others. Richard: Yeah. One place where this might really work is I think sports. This is something that you could get a lot of people betting on because people love arguing about sports. You could have a thing where you have the NFL or NBA draft and people always debate should you draft this player, or that player? You could have markets easily based on how many wins… Robin: Sure. I just happened to have a conversation with someone on that a few hours ago, but it's still an idea that's going to happen some day. When people say betting on a football game today, you’re betting on who's going to win the game and say by how many points, but you might have more fun betting on each play. That is not only betting on what the play will be and how it will go out but recommending on the play. You could say, “If we pass this play how many yards on average will we get? If we run this play how many yards will we get, or what’s the chance of making a first down?” You could bet on the consequence for each play. Similarly in a basketball game you could bet on taking out a player, putting a player in. In a automobile race you could bet about when you make a pit stop, when you don't. There's all these choices in games and I think people would find it more engaging to bet on recommendations for choices in the game. Richard: Yeah. Yeah. You can already with the sports betting. If you go to the websites you can bet for example not just on the game. I don't know if you can do conditional bets. I have never seen that. Robin: Right. I’ve never seen conditional bets on choices. Richard: Yeah. Robin: That's the key thing here, the choice of a player or choice by a coach. Richard: I've seen stuff like who will win the tip off in basketball, and who's going to win the coin toss in a football game? Who's going to win first quarter? Robin: I once looked onto doing this for war college war games. As you may know many war colleges have war games where they put teams on different sides and give them various equipment in a simulated war. They have them go to war. You could imagine, well letting everybody else who’s watching the war game give advice about particular strategies in the war game. That seemed plausible to me but then when I talked to people at war colleges I found that most of these war games are kind of fake. Richard: Yeah. Robin: They have a predetermined outcome that’s some lesson they want to tell, and so they aren't really letting it be open to winning one side or the other. Richard: No, that's funny because you'll see headlines every now and then that'll say, “Oh, my God. The US loses to China in a war game,” and yeah I always thought that that’s… Robin: I’m sure there probably are real war games somewhere. They just aren't at the war colleges. That's where I was thinking I could convince somebody to try this sort of thing. Richard: Yeah. Have you had any partial successes? Are there projects that are getting off the ground that you are excited about? Have people taken up your ideas anywhere? Robin: Well, there's been a whole pile of work in blockchain where people have created prediction markets on platforms and tools on various blockchain systems. Unfortunately most of that work has been at a low level of tools and platforms so they haven't really gotten very close to the applications. Blockchain people are just mostly software people and algorithm people. They're not so much business people who work with particular clients. They just haven't been very eager to get their hands dirty working with particular customers who might want to do markets and particular things. But they've still been collecting all these tools and so hopefully some day somebody will use all those tools to connect to the customers. Richard: What is the advantage of the blockchain? What is the difference between a blockchain say market versus just something like PredictIt? Robin: Well, that's an excellent question. Initially the story was that blockchain was out of control, that it couldn't be regulated so you could set up a system on a blockchain. If the regulators didn't like it they didn't have anybody to go to stop it. The blockchain just kept going regardless of who didn't like it. That was a big selling point. People said, “Well, look at all this financial innovation we can do because we are free from existing regulations on the blockchain.” That's what they said, and then a lot of companies formed on this basis. But these companies didn't take personal strategies to match that rhetoric. You would think if your plan was to put a product on the blockchain and that you were going to say nanny nanny to the regulators because, “You can’t get me,” you wouldn’t have a big public presence with the headquarters, and your picture in the magazines, and show up in person at conferences right? Because… Richard: Yeah. Sure. Robin: ...well, that makes you more obviously a target right? That's what they did though, and then they sort of back pedaled and said later, “Oh, we're following all the regulations.” But you know people don’t really believe that. It's been this big question, to what extent will governments crack down on these blockchain things that at least from the government regulators point of view are not following their rules? Richard: Yeah. Do you have in mind the Coinbase news that had come out the last few days, or was it today or yesterday that- Robin: This is just a continuing issue. I don't have any particular recent event in mind but there are lots of stories about regulators thinking of doing a lot more regulating and cracking down more. This is a big question about blockchain is how far will they crack down, and what will be the consequences? Of course people say, “Well, in principle Bitcoin can keep chugging along even if they do crack down,” and no doubt that's true to some degree. But the question of how much activity there'll be is still somewhat open. You could have it chugging along with a far lower activity because a lot of people have been discouraged. Richard: Well, yeah. Just for the listener we're talking now on September 8th, 2021 so who knows when people will be listening to this. There's been just news in the last few days about Coinbase, and the FCC, and I don't know all the details but it's something like that… Robin: In the last few months China had this big policy of saying, “No more mining here.” Richard: Yeah. Exactly. Robin: There was a big drop I believe in prices right at that point reflecting the fact that people then realized there'd be a lot less stuff happening in China. Richard: Yeah… that wasn't reflected in the fact that Bitcoin has been doing pretty well recently right? It was apparently not fatal, or not that bad for Bitcoin right? Robin: The volatility of these prices is so large that I wouldn't draw much of any inferences from the price movements. It's just wild. Richard: Yeah, but the price for Bitcoin has been doing well right? Isn't that an indication that whatever the Chinese did it wasn't hurtful to the longterm prospects of cryptocurrency? Robin: Well, the volatility of these cryptocurrencies is just really large, so that makes it hard to draw many connections between particular events and what's happening with it. That's an issue about these conditional markets. People have noted that if you have a stock market sequence and then you have events you can try to correlate events in the stock market sequence in order to untangle conditional estimates. For example people have tried to do that with betting markets on elections in the stock market in order to say which candidate is better for the stocks by looking at the correlation between those prices. It's possible to do but the price movements are noisy and so there's a lot of room for arguing there. Just the direct conditional markets are a much clearer signal than these correlations in prices. Richard: Yeah, there's noisy but there are a lot of elections right? I mean you could even do things like in places that are... You have all the national elections right every two years, and then you have even local elections when you have mayoral races. I guess there's not a lot of… Robin: Right. You just don't have betting markets in all those races. Richard: Yeah, but you have corporations that are located there for example- Robin: Sure. Richard: ... or industries there. It seems like you... Anecdotally it seems that... I remember. Do you remember Bernie Sanders during the primaries? He won some primary and then he said, “Oh, the...” Or he lost a primary. He lost and then he said... I think he lost a primary and then the market went up. Then his argument was, “Look. These billionaires are so bad.” Robin: “I’m bad for business and that's the way I want to be.” Richard: Yeah. He was proud of this. Given the political culture it was the other way around. He might have won and it went down. I don't remember. I think he lost it though. Robin: A standard story in finance for a long time has been we've got thousands of market prices in the financial world, and there's all these events that happen in the world so in some sense there's really all this information embodied in all these financial market prices, especially if they fluctuate every minute or so. In principle the answer to all your questions is somewhere out in this vast cloud of financial market prices. That may well be true. It's just not at all transparent. You'd like a clearer answer. A thing that betting markets can do is give you a more direct, clearer answer even if in some sense that answer was already implicit in all the other prices. Richard: Yeah. I think transparency is key because if someone is doing this research on the effects of stocks in the market of election outcomes I would think they’re probably on Wall Street. They’re probably not in political sciences departments. Would that be your intuition too? Robin: I mean they're in both places, but again you know there's so much dispute, I mean there are so many interested parties that with statistical analysis it's just possible to do it so many different ways to get the answer you want. I'm sure if you're in the know you could know who was playing those games and who's not, but the rest of us from the outside find it harder to tell. Richard: Yeah. But your idea of incentives and people getting things right I think would give you an intuition that people playing the stock market are doing better than political scientists, or you don't have that intuition? Robin: I mean it’s definitely true that there's a lot of very smart people playing stock markets and financial markets, and that a lot of them make money. But they mostly make money from the other people trading in those markets which has to be a warning against ordinary people trying to go out and speculate on these things. That would be my biggest advice is if you’re going to play the stock market you should be part of one of these organizations who really knows what they're doing. Because if you go out and just try to bet against them most likely you're going to be on the other side of their trades and losing. Richard: Yeah. Okay, yeah. This is all interesting. It seems like you’re saying it a little bit differently because... Two different things. Because you're saying that you want to start big with the government because it's high status and you want to start from there, but you're also saying we could start somewhere, maybe sports leagues or something. Do you see the big thinking as a way to incentivize people and just get people excited about this stuff? But do you think practicality people have to start a little bit smaller? Robin: Definitely just pointing to the big applications can inspire people even if you’re not going to do them first. Making that connection to people can make them more interested. This is also true for many kinds of innovation. Most kinds of startups or companies you'll have each person doing a pretty small think, but you'll want to tell them about how that's connected to the big project of the organization. That makes them more interested and motivated to be part of the whole project right? I definitely... For the purpose of collecting data and getting solid progress I'd rather do small things first. On the other hand I do think there's this interesting status strategy of starting from the top down. I don't know if you remember the movie The Social Network which is about the early days of Facebook. The story was there were other social networks before Facebook, but they started with average people and then had an average pool of people you could connect to which wasn't nearly as tempting as Facebook because it started at the very most prestigious place, Harvard, and slowly it worked its way down the status hierarchy adding Yale or Princeton. Then at each point as they expanded it people were eager to join because they were eager to associate with these higher status people. The general lesson here is it’s often if there’s a status barrier to doing something it’s easier to start at the top and work your way down. I think firing the CEO is a example of starting at that top. If we think about all the different decisions companies make it hard to find a more prestigious and important decision than firing the CEO. If you could just directly legitimize using speculative markets to make that decision you would have indirectly legitimized lots of other decisions, because people would say, “Well, if you can use that to fire the CEO you could use it to fire the CFO,” right, and CIO? Richard: Yeah. Robin: Then maybe to regional manager, and maybe to pick an ad agency right? You’d work your way down the less prestigious decisions but each one of them you could have said, “Well, as long as you’re willing to use it over there why not here?” Richard: Yeah. You mentioned these things backfiring, so for that specific example, The Social Network, I mean if you’re in politics today and you say an idea came from Harvard that’s usually I think a negative signal. I think most people say that’s bad, or at least they pretend to think that. It could have the opposite effect I guess. If betting markets become something that people in Washington do and they’re a little bit too complicated for normal people to understand there could be a backlash. Do you worry about that? Robin: Yeah. Let’s talk about the public perception of betting markets and what sort of attitudes there are to them, and issues with public reaction. I was involved in a publicity fiasco in 2003 when I was part of a DARPA project where we had a research project set up to create betting markets on geopolitical events in the Middle East. Then on a Monday morning two senators had a press conference where they declared that this project wasn’t going to be betting on death, betting on terrorist attacks, and that was terrible. Then by the very next morning after that the secretary of defense in front of Congress declared the project dead. In those 24 hours they never asked us if the accusations were correct. They didn’t need to because it was such a tiny project. Why bother to even think about defending it? But that shows that many people have some mental rules about, they don’t think you should be betting on death. That’s just not appropriate. It doesn’t matter why you might be doing that right? People have some things they might be uncomfortable with betting on and that’s a thing you should stay away from is betting on death, say. But you’ll notice that most of the business press tends to report news in terms of financial market price movements, and they don’t tend to question those movements. They try to explain them but they don’t question them. If the price of IBM goes up the reporters don’t say, “Well, that was a mistake. It should have gone down.” They might say it went up because of this or because of that, but that’s most accepting the prices as good estimates and then trying to explain them. Now sometimes people will tentatively say, “Well, maybe these things are too high there or too low here.” But that says that in the business press at least people do defer to financial market prices as sources of information. Then the potential that could apply elsewhere in society there is a lot of deference given to financial market prices in a wide range of contexts. Richard: Yeah. Yeah. I guess it depends on how sophisticated your audience is. It’s funny. You mentioned the people don’t like death markets. There was at PredictIt... There’s all those markets, will Bashar al-Assad or will Kim Jong-un be in office by this date? There was one on Kim Jong-un last year. That’s basically, will he be still the leader of North Korea by the end of 2020? It’s basically a death market because there’s not much chance of him getting overthrown, or voted out, or anything. There were some rumors about him having bad health. He was out of the public eye for a while. There were rumors that he was dead in the press. The market got down to something like 50/50. I remember I bet on this. I bet that he would actually stay in office. He did, and Kim Jong-un- Robin: Well, we have a more dramatic example of that in the US presidential betting markets. You might know the chance of Biden at the moment is like 20% being the next president- Richard: Yeah. Robin: ... which the chance of Trump is 30% right? But Biden is the president right now and Trump lost the last election, so why would the Biden odds be so low? Well, the story is he might die, or become obviously- Richard: Yeah, I think people also think- Robin: ... incompetent and then not a candidate. Richard: Yeah. I think it’s some combination of... You know it’s funny because the market has been underestimating Biden for a really long time, or at least in my opinion underestimating him, or betting against the market. I’ve been winning, but yeah even when he basically wrapped up the nomination it gave him a 70% chance of being the nominee which I thought was ridiculous. It also always overestimated the chances I thought of Trump dropping dead, not just when he had COVID because there was that brief period where it looked like he could actually die. He was in the hospital… Robin: Let’s just pause and notice. It’s quite possible to look at these prices and say, “Well, that doesn’t look right,” just like you can read a newspaper article and say, “That doesn’t sound right,” or any other analysis anywhere else right? Why am I recommending these market prices compared to anything else? Well, first of all there is this track record they do better, but there’s this other argument which says, “Okay. If you read the newspaper article and you think it’s wrong what can you do about that?” You can just complain. If you look at the betting market price and you think it’s wrong- Richard: Yeah, exactly. Robin: ... you can make money going, betting against it and fixing those prices. That’s the engine that makes them more accurate is all these people that can be enticed and invited to come fix the problems. Richard: Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. I bet on Biden not dying, and Trump not dying, and both of them making it to election day. Yeah. I made money off of that. [Laughs] Robin: There you go. I’m not going to certainly argue about that no one could ever find a mistake in these things. The question is when you can find a mistake in things which institution gives you the best opportunities to fix it? Richard: Yeah. And you can compare the betting markets to, just like punditry, because when I listened to pundits they never gave Biden a chance either so it’s not like the pundits were all saying it’s going to be Biden. I remember most people were talking… Robin: Let me at this point admit what I would say is the biggest problem with futarchy and with some of these other decision markets, which is that they make hypocrisy harder, which is actually a problem. You might think, “Well, hypocrisy is a bad thing. Making it harder is good right?” Well, let’s walk through that. At the moment, say ordinary people can claim to love trees and they just care a lot about trees. Trees real estate wonderful and they certainly wouldn’t want to have fewer trees. But then they elect politicians who have to make choices about trees versus other things. Those politicians can probably read the public and say, “Well, they say they like trees but they don’t really like trees that much, so I’m not actually going to go save some trees by interfering with something else.” Then if the public ever finds out that somehow not everything was being done to save trees, the public can complain and say, “That damn politician! They’re corrupt! They were bought out and I sure hate them. Let’s throw them out of office,”right? Because the politician is allowing the public to be hypocritical, to pretend they care more about trees than they do. This happens all through the political system. For example we have laws against prostitution that we don’t enforce very well, which allows a lot of prostitution so people can have prostitution and then pretend they’re against it. Same thing with drug laws. A lot of our laws are in some sense to allow the public to pretend to have certain positions that they don’t really have. The prediction markets, the futarchy decision markets don’t make that so easy. That is if in the national welfare definition you put a high weight on trees, then the speculators are actually going to approve the policies that do get you more trees. If that’s not what you wanted then you won’t be happy. Richard: Yeah. But I mean there’s such a step removed when you’re talking about voters and what they want right? They want trees… Robin: But I think it’s... Even when we talked about the example of hiring people. You have a couple of job candidates and you want to hire the best one for the company supposedly right? Well, I think actually when a person volunteers to be in charge of a hiring committee they don’t actually intend to pick the best person for the company. They intend to pick the best person for their coalition in the company. Forcing these metrics of who is best for the company would interfere with their plan to pick someone who is decent for the company but even better for their coalition. That’s just the sort of thing that happens in many organizations. You would be uncomfortable setting up this process that didn’t give you the flexibility to pretend to do A while really doing B. Richard: Yeah. Changing gears a little bit do you think that perhaps a foreign country, perhaps some kind of dictatorship might be more amenable to these kind of things? Because think of it this way. They’re often looking for a sense of legitimacy, a reason for status that is not based on the dominant culture which says you need elections, and you need democracy, and you need popular legitimacy. Robin: I think to answer this we have to realize that there is a world elite culture. This was very striking to me at the beginning of the pandemic a year and a half ago. At the beginning of the pandemic the usual public health experts took their usual positions say against masks, and against travel restrictions, and things like that. Then this looked like an important thing and all the sudden elites everywhere started talking a lot about the pandemic and discussing what they thought was the right thing to do, and they decided something else. They came up with a different plan with lock downs, and masks, and things like that. Once the elites had decided on that all the public health experts caved and said, “Oh, yeah. Yeah. That’s what we should do.” Not just in the United States or Britain. All around the world. Remarkably the policies adopted around the world have not varied that much from what the elites together around the world recommended. If you looked in other areas of policy like nuclear energy, or electromagnetic spectrum, drug regulation, policies around the world don’t actually vary that much. There is some sort of world culture that talks and decides what the right thing to do is. Then everybody does it. There really aren’t very many exceptions. A remarkable thing was that early in the pandemic many of us wanted there to be challenge trials where we would test vaccines quickly and effectively, or even test something like the regulation, and basically nowhere in the world did they allow challenge trials. Only say recently in Britain have there been the first challenge trials, because just medical experts everywhere. You might think, “Why didn’t some dictator somewhere want to be a hero by defying the world medical ethics experts and doing it different?” None did, right? That really suggests that dictators around the world more crave the approval of the world elites in doing things the way the world elites want to, and their political power at home is more strengthened by appearing to follow along with what the world elites say. Richard: Yeah. Political science, they call this a logic of appropriateness, and this is what guides government behavior. Although China sort of did that. I mean what China did was go much harder on lockdowns and much harder on mass testing than other people. Robin: Right. Richard: That was a limited extent but they didn’t do human challenge trials to my knowledge. But they did do things that were different… Robin: It’s important to notice there is variation in regulation of the world, but it’s also important to notice how limited it is. Richard: Yeah. It’s within a narrow range. That’s true, yeah. You see this on social issues. You see like Black Lives Matter protests in New Zealand, and you see LGBT flags. All the countries in the world decided that gay rights was important at pretty much the exact same time. Robin: This was really a problem for large social innovation. I’ve really over my life thought about lots of big ways we can make big changes to a lot of social institutions, but in a world like this where everybody wants to do what everybody else is doing it’s really hard to get anybody to try any big changes. Richard: Is an answer to this perhaps geopolitical tension? If the US and China become best friends, maybe they converge, if they hate each other maybe they do completely different things? Could this be a hope that you have international tensions and you have these blocks, and then at least people do different things? Robin: I don’t know, but a lot of people have mentioned recently how badly say the US Military managed in Afghanistan for several decades. They compare that interestingly to how flexible the US Military was in World War II after a bunch of big losses early on. The remarkable thing, the US Military at the beginning of World War II was not very well run and not very well organized. They had lousy suppliers and things. Then they made a bunch of big losses early on. Then they thought it was important enough not to keep doing that so that they fired people and fired suppliers. They now put performance as a priority because it was a big war. Apparently that’s the kind of thing it seems to require. But the pandemic apparently wasn’t such a thing right? Richard: Yeah. Robin: The pandemic was not a big enough crisis that we fired people who did badly on it. Neither was Afghanistan. We’re in a world where we have these big things we do wrong but they somehow just aren’t bad enough to really scare us into trying different things. The question is where will we ever see some nation or big organization that’s scared enough about losing to be willing to roll the dice and try some big changes? Richard: When you look at the American Military established under World War II I mean the military establishment was a new thing. You were building basically something from scratch. Now you have all these vested interests. You know it’s funny. The places, the countries with the most US Military… the most military personnel in the world are actually Italy, Germany, Japan, and South Korea right? Robin: Those are risky, dangerous spots. You’d want troops there wouldn’t you? Richard: Yeah. Well, maybe but if you notice they have something in common. Those are the Axis powers and the Korean War right? Robin: Right. Richard: Basically they’re the exact same place they were in 1945 to 1950 and so- Robin: Hysteresis right? Enormous path dependence? Richard: Yeah, exactly. Enormous dependence. Yeah, Italy. Is that obvious? The most dangerous place in the world. Maybe, maybe not. Robin: No, and it’s not remotely obviously the most dangerous place in the world. Richard: Yeah. Do you look around the world, and right now do you see variation in the extent to which countries are willing to not only take risks but take risks specifically along the path that you suggest? There was an article in The Economist earlier this year. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but the UK, the intelligence agencies have a prediction market but it’s called Cosmic Bazaar. I actually googled it and I couldn’t find it. If you can’t find it on the first page of Google then that’s not a good sign. Robin: Right. The US intelligence agency has also had an internal prediction market going for a while. They’ve had this interesting way they handle it politically. Inside the CIA the coin of the realm is reports, or analysis. Somebody writes a report that analyzes a particular place like Italy say, and summarizes the key strategic situation there, and the key intelligence situation. There are these betting markets that exist where people can bet and forecast on these things. But the rule is they don’t cite the betting market in their reports. The market doesn’t get credit for influencing the reports, although it probably does influence the reports. That limits the degree to which it gets budget or attention because why bother to bet in the market if you’re not going to get credit there? Richard: Yeah. Yeah. There is a paper coming from the intelligence agencies that compared super forecasters and people who had proven some track record versus people in the intelligence community with access to classified information. Phil Tetlock showed me this paper. Yeah. You could probably guess what happened. The intelligence community lost to the people with the track record of forecasting. You could see why the intelligence community might not want to hype up this result. It seems like there is a lot of data out there- Robin: Right. Clearly the intelligence community is basically saying, “Yes, we know we could get more accurate estimates from that but we don’t want them. We like our current system,” right? If they were scared that might turn out different right? Richard: If they were scared of China, yeah, taking… Robin: Right. Some external threat. The same thing was true about my betting market publicity fiasco in 2003. This was soon after 9/11 and just two years later. People looked at the betting markets and said, “Oh, you’re betting on death. That’s terrible. You have to shut them down.” If they were really scared of terror attacks, if they were actually feeling a large degree of threat they would have said, "To heck with this rule against betting on death. Let’s turn on these markets. Let’s find out where the attacks are going to be so we can stop them." Richard: They say Bin Laden is just going to put all his money in the market and then attack? Robin: Well, that was crazy because these were relativity thin markets, and they have a lot of money at stake. Basically a fact that people don’t know about the markets is that many people criticize by saying, “Well, somebody will try to manipulate the markets by betting on one side not because they know better, but because they’re willing to lose money in order to distort the market price.” That is true. There are people willing to manipulate markets, but that actually makes the prices more accurate. For example in the fire the CEO market you say, “Well, the CEO wants to keep his job, so he will bet in these markets in order to make himself look like the price will be higher if he stays, and lower if he leaves.” Yes he would have an incentive to do that, but when other traders know that somebody will be trying to manipulate in the market they know to increase their trading and their efforts and that compensates, and actually on net makes the prices more accurate. That’s something we see in theory and we’ve seen in the lab, and we’ve seen in the field. These markets are robust to attempts to manipulate. In fact people who want to manipulate them make the prices more accurate. Richard: Yeah. Do you think that one way to think we should do is raise the status of thinking about these things, and thinking about betting markets? Because it seems like there is data out there. I mean you could go onto the stock market. We’ve talked about predicted. You can go back to elections. You can calculate some kind of conditional probabilities. Do you think a good thing could be just have more economists just interested in these questions, and looking at data, and comparing studies? Robin: It couldn’t be bad, but the question is just how much hope should you have? That’s a key question about a lot of institutional choices. Honestly if you just look at institutional issues in the United States or other countries and you ask which kinds of choices do people get really excited about, and emotional, and interested in, if you tell them about a policy change that would just benefit most everybody they yawn and can’t be bothered to pay attention. They would just lose interest right? If you tell them about a policy change that will help their side and hurt the other side ooh, they just love that. People are really eager to fight in a battle. A lot of the topics that energize them are the topics that represent a conflict between one group and another group. That means institutional changes are just boring because even if you can find out a better institution it just doesn’t map onto their side versus the other side. Richard: Yeah. Maybe that gives me an idea for an investment idea. You see these things in the conservative press. They’re talking about some corporation has gone woke right? They have a Critical Race Theory or trading in Coca-Cola or whatever. Basically you could have some kind of mutual fund that just shorts the wokest companies, whoever could short whoever Fox News happens to be complaining about at the time- Robin: Right. And that would be a way in which you are taking a side. Then that would be more energizing to people. People would just like to- Richard: Right. Or you could invest- Robin: ... take a side. Richard: You could invest in those corporations. Right. Robin: Right. Richard: Exactly. Then eventually you would learn if this thing lost money year after year you’d learn something… Robin: Sure. And in fact ordinary people would be more interested in betting on the stock market if they could simultaneously be taking a political side with their stock market bets, which is… Richard: But they can. Yeah. Right now we have all these outrages over some corporation is doing this or that, so you’d figure... I wonder if that’s actually inspiring more people to get into the stock market? It’s hard to tell with Robinhood expanding, making it easier. But you could imagine some entrepreneurs doing that right? You could imagine somebody setting something up and advertising to people, “ We’re going to short all the woke corporations.” You could imagine them doing well. Robin: Right. The fundamental problem is how do you create, or find a created community that just cares about overall benefit of a nation, or a company, or things like that? Unfortunately one of the main ways that’s ever happened is war. We talked about World War II a bit before. There’s a literature that suggests that war has been one of the main engineers of innovation for the last 10,000 years which is a terrible fact because it means if you want more innovation you’ll have to have more war. War is just terrible thing. Richard: Yeah. Robin: But all this time of peace and prosperity we’ve had for a while here, we also do seem to see a degradation in our interest in coming together for overall collective benefit, and more focus on internal divisions, and more focus on just doing whatever helps us in these little local battles and not caring very much about the overall nation because we’re assuming that’s okay. Richard: Yeah. Well, you see nationalism manifest itself at say soccer games, like Germany and France are not fighting wars but they’ll go to soccer games. There’s this hooligan culture in Europe where people really, really get into it. Robin: Right. But would they be willing to change some key national policy in order to make sure they could win more soccer games? Richard: I think it would have to be... I think the class of the people who makes the policy is different from the soccer hooligans right? It would just be a matter of the elites having some kind of national pride. It doesn’t even have to be national. Could it be just a class pride, or a pride in background, you know these aristocrats? Before there was mass nationalism there was war right? There was these aristocrats and they had their own value system. They had their codes of conduct. Robin: Well, I mean the key thing would be say if the elites of Romania for something want Romania to look better in the world’s eye and try to make Romania be run better overall, that could be an energy that would focus on overall quality of Romania as opposed to the left elites in Romania fighting the right elites in Romania right, and being in a battle of taking down the other side. Richard: Yeah. It sounds like what’s really dangerous is there’s this global elite culture where it’s not just public health. It’s like on social issues, on just... Robin: Right. They have strong consensus in you just have to follow the global elites to be part of them. There’s not so much competition within those global elites in that sense for doing things effectively. Richard: Yeah. The competition is just the less well off people in their own countries- Robin: If you think of say, Elon Musk say, right, if the global elites go, “Tsk, tsk Elon Musk,”and say, “Well, he’s not doing it right. He needs to follow these regulations right,” and then Elon Musk is actually making things better, and making a better internet and a better space industry or whatever, well does Elon Musk... If he wins does that change the elites to be more supporting him, or do they just get more mad that he defied them and he seems to be winning? Richard: Yeah. What do you think about the potential? There’s a lot of people in Silicon Valley people and the crypto world, people like my friend Balaji Srinivasan and Mark Andreessen, and people like this who really take a dim view of the Davos set, the New York Times read in public. I don’t know if they see themselves this way. I’m not speaking for anybody, but that could potentially be a kind of counter elite right? Robin: And the danger is that if the regular elites see this defiant group of tech elites winning against them that makes them really mad and wanting to take them down. Richard: Well, that’s the risk of competition right? The good side, or the more productive side could lose, right? But if we’re thinking about how to have competition and how to... If we’re not going to have wars, if we’re not going start wars then… Robin: Right. If we can have a fair competition then it would be good if different parts of the world, if the European say tech people said, “Well, we seem to be losing against those people. How could we organize ourselves better,” if the different parts of the world fear competition and then as a result try to find more effective ways to organize themselves that’s great. That’s exactly what we want. Richard: Yeah. Robin: But they need to fear it enough to actually be willing to make big changes. The prediction market stuff we’re talking about is off actually relatively big, destructive changes that even tech companies have not been willing to do. Richard: Right. Are you involved in any projects at the moment? You talked about the post 9/11, the DARPA grant. Is there anything similar going on now? Robin: I’ve been advising a number of companies over the years but I haven’t seen big trials of the sort I’d really like to be part of. But I keep searching. Richard: If you had enough of an investment, say somebody if they were some donor who wanted to help you do it would it be a big help or is there some… Robin: Oh, sure. Of course it could be a big help. There’s two paths to go. One is do this fire the CEO market in which case you’d have to go offshore and just defy regulators to set something up right? With enough money you could do that but you’d have to have a funder who was willing to be associated with something like that. The other approach is you go within organizations and you fund these small scale trials within organizations. Then what you need is both money and an organization willing to put up with the disruption. Let me just tell you a story about deadlines. One of the most successful applications of this over the years has been deadlines. That is quite often people have a project, and they have a deadline, and they have these regular project meetings. They get together and they all tell themselves, “We’re on track. We’re going to make the deadline.” Then they open a betting market and all the sudden the prices drop below 5% that say, “No way. You’re not going to make this deadline.” Of course the market’s right. That really bothers the people running the project who don’t want to continue it. You might ask, “Well, don’t they want to know if their project is going to make the deadline?” That’s what I want to explain now. If you have a project with a deadline one of the main things you ask yourself is, “If I fail to make this deadline what will my excuse be?” I want to have a good excuse if I fail to make the deadline. Everyone’s favorite excuse is the following. “We were going along just fine and then at the last minute some weird thing came out of left field and knocked us flat. It’ll never happen again. It’s so weird. It’s so rare. There’s no point in keeping track of this thing or holding anybody responsible. We should just move on.” Now that story is interfered with if you have a betting market that said all along you’re not going to make this deadline. The story had to be, “We were going along fine and then at the last minute.” That’s why you have all these project meetings where everybody says, “We’re going along fine.” Apparently project managers would rather have a better excuse if they fail than have better warnings about failing the project. Richard: Yeah. That makes sense, but that’s one path is just to get corporations to act in their own interest and you might be able to do that. Robin: Right. Actually that is the most promising path. But it would help to have other people spur them on by funding these trials that could get them to overcome the reluctance to do these disruptive things. Richard: Yeah. I could see the barriers, but it doesn’t sound like this should be the most difficult thing in the world. You just have to have somebody out there… Robin: But I think if you look at the history of financial innovation and social innovation in general a lot of social innovations were adopted and changed long after they were possible. Richard: Yeah. Right. Robin: For example like life insurance or commodity markets, those were possible in the ancient world. They’ve been possible all through history but they didn’t really take off until say the late 1800s. That’s because it just takes a while for people to be willing to try things. Richard: Yeah. Although I don’t think technology is that independent. You have greater wealth. You have greater bookkeeping. Robin: Sure. As society gets richer then we just have more room for lots of kinds of experiments, and as more just random ways in which something might get tried. Richard: Especially, yeah it makes sense a lot of this is on software. Yeah. The cost of computing and all that is going down. Yeah. On that note are you optimistic about, maybe not in the immediate future but some day, futarchy in the long run… Robin: I’m definitely optimistic in the long run. The fundamental stance to say is when you think of technology you think about gadgets, and materials, and maybe software, but social technology is also technology. We also have technologies, how we run meetings, how we organize firms, how we compensate salespeople, how we vote. That’s all technology too. We’ve been innovating in that technology as well as the physical technology, but we just have different incentives and dynamics in the social innovation because people can’t own it as much and so they don’t create startups to sell it as often. We have a lot more of these psychological barriers to the social innovation. If you’re in a company that has physical technology and somebody suggests making a new material you can probably make that new material leave your organizational structure alone. It doesn’t threaten who’s in charge of which divisions so much. But if you have social innovation it goes to the heart of who’s doing what, and who’s in charge of what. That’s a lot more threatening. Richard: Yeah. This has been a great conversation. It’s fascinating. If there’s anybody who’s out there who’s listening to this who wants to help, who wants to advance the cause of futarchy… Robin: You know where to find us. Richard: They can just log onto Twitter, email you. Robin: Absolutely. Richard: Okay. It’s been a pleasure Robin. Great talking to you. Robin: Great talking to you.
the promise of smart contracts for beneficial goals.
From this, what we can surmise is that futarchy is likely to work well for large-scale decisions, but much less well for finer-grained tasks. Hence, a hybrid system may work better, where a futarchy decides on a
An Introduction to Futarchy Vitalik Buterin Research & Development https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/08/21/introduction-futarchy/ One of the more interesting long-term practical benefits of the technology and concept behind decentralized autonomous organizations is that DAOs allow us to very quickly prototype and experiment with an aspect of our social interactions that is so far arguably falling behind our rapid advancements in information and social technology elsewhere: organizational governance. Although our modern communications technology is drastically augmenting individuals’ naturally limited ability to both interact and gather and process information, the governance processes we have today are still dependent on what may now be seen as centralized crutches and arbitrary distinctions such as “member”, “employee”, “customer” and “investor” - features that were arguably originally necessary because of the inherent difficulties of managing large numbers of people up to this point, but perhaps no longer. Now, it may be possible to create systems that are more fluid and generalized that take advantage of the full power law curve of people’s ability and desire to contribute. There are a number of new governance models that try to take advantage of our new tools to improve transparency and efficiency, including liquid democracy and holacracy; the one that I will discuss and dissect today is futarchy. The idea behind futarchy was originally proposed by economist Robin Hanson as a futuristic form of government, following the slogan: vote values, but bet beliefs. Under this system, individuals would vote not on whether or not to implement particular policies, but rather on a metric to determine how well their country (or charity or company) is doing, and then prediction markets would be used to pick the policies that best optimize the metric. Given a proposal to approve or reject, two prediction markets would be created each containing one asset, one market corresponding to acceptance of the measure and one to rejection. If the proposal is accepted, then all trades on the rejection market would be reverted, but on the acceptance market after some time everyone would be paid some amount per token based on the futarchy’s chosen success metric, and vice versa if the proposal is rejected. The market is allowed to run for some time, and then at the end the policy with the higher average token price is chosen. Our interest in futarchy, as explained above, is in a slightly different form and use case of futarchy, governing decentralized autonomous organizations and cryptographic protocols; however, I am presenting the use of futarchy in a national government first because it is a more familiar context. So to see how futarchy works, let’s go through an example. Suppose that the success metric chosen is GDP in trillions of dollars, with a time delay of ten years, and there exists a proposed policy: “bail out the banks”. Two assets are released, each of which promises to pay $1 per token per trillion dollars of GDP after ten years. The markets might be allowed to run for two weeks, during which the “yes” token fetches an average price of $24.94 (meaning that the market thinks that the GDP after ten years will be $24.94 trillion) and the “no” token fetches an average price of $26.20. The banks are not bailed out. All trades on the “yes” market are reverted, and after ten years everyone holding the asset on the “no” market gets $26.20 apiece. Typically, the assets in a futarchy are zero-supply assets, similar to Ripple IOUs or BitAssets. This means that the only way the tokens can be created is through a derivatives market; individuals can place orders to buy or sell tokens, and if two orders match the tokens are transferred from the buyer to the seller in exchange for USD. It’s possible to sell tokens even if you do not have them; the only requirement in that case is that the seller must put down some amount of collateral to cover the eventual negative reward. An important consequence of the zero-supply property is that because the positive and negative quantities, and therefore rewards cancel each other out, barring communication and consensus costs the market is actually free to operate. The Argument For Futarchy has become a controversial subject since the idea was originally proposed. The theoretical benefits are numerous. First of all, futarchy fixes the “voter apathy” and “rational irrationality” problem in democracy, where individuals do not have enough incentive to even learn about potentially harmful policies because the probability that their vote will have an effect is insignificant (estimated at 1 in 10 million for a US government national election); in futarchy, if you have or obtain information that others do not have, you can personally substantially profit from it, and if you are wrong you lose money. Essentially, you are literally putting your money where your mouth is. Second, over time the market has an evolutionary pressure to get better; the individuals who are bad at predicting the outcome of policies will lose money, and so their influence on the market will decrease, whereas the individuals who are good at predicting the outcome of policies will see their money and influence on the market increase. Note that this is essentially the exact same mechanic through which economists argue that traditional capitalism works at optimizing the production of private goods, except in this case it also applies to common and public goods. Third, one could argue that futarchy reduces potentially irrational social influences to the governance process. It is a well-known fact that, at least in the 20th century, the taller presidential candidate has been much more likely to win the election (interestingly, the opposite bias existed pre-1920; a possible hypothesis is that the switchover was caused by the contemporaneous rise of television), and there is the well-known story about voters picking George Bush because he was the president “they would rather have a beer with”. In futarchy, the participatory governance process will perhaps encourage focusing more purely on proposals rather than personalities, and the primary activity is the most introverted and unsocial affair imaginable: poring over models, statistical analyses and trading charts. A market you would rather have a beer with The system also elegantly combines public participation and professional analysis. Many people decry democracy as a descent to mediocrity and demagoguery, and prefer decisions to be made by skilled technocratic experts. Futarchy, if it works, allows individual experts and even entire analysis firms to make individual investigations and analyses, incorporate their findings into the decision by buying and selling on the market, and make a profit from the differential in information between themselves and the public - sort of like an information-theoretic hydroelectric dam or osmosis-based power plant. But unlike more rigidly organized and bureaucratic technocracies with a sharp distinction between member and non-member, futarchies allow anyone to participate, set up their own analysis firm, and if their analyses are successful eventually rise to the top - exactly the kind of generalization and fluidity we are looking for. The Argument Against The opposition to futarchy is most well-summarized in two posts, one by Mencius Moldbug and the other by Paul Hewitt. Both posts are long, taking up thousands of words, but the general categories of opposition can be summarized as follows: A single powerful entity or coalition wishing to see a particular result can continue buying "yes" tokens on the market and short-selling "no" tokens in order to push the token prices in its favor. Markets in general are known to be volatile, and this happens to a large extent because markets are "self-referential" - ie. they consist largely of people buying because they see others buying, and so they are not good aggregators of actual information. This effect is particularly dangerous because it can be exploited by market manipulation. The estimated effect of a single policy on a global metric is much smaller than the "noise" of uncertainty in what the value of the metric is going to be regardless of the policy being implemented, especially in the long term. This means that the prediction market's results may prove to be wildly uncorrellated to the actual delta that the individual policies will end up having. Human values are complex, and it is hard to compress them into one numerical metric; in fact, there may be just as many disagreements about what the metric should be as there are disagreements about policy now. Additionally, a malicious entity that in current democracy would try to lobby through a harmful policy might instead be able to cheat the futarchy by lobbying in an addition to the metric that is known to very highly correllate with the policy. A prediction market is zero-sum; hence, because participation has guaranteed nonzero communication costs, it is irrational to participate. Thus, participation will end up quite low, so there will not be enough market depth to allow experts and analysis firms to sufficiently profit from the process of gathering information. On the first argument, this video debate between Robin Hanson and Mencius Moldbug, with David Friedman (Milton’s son) later chiming in, is perhaps the best resource. The argument made by Hanson and Friedman is that the presence of an organization doing such a thing successfully would lead to a market where the prices for the “yes” and “no” tokens do not actually reflect the market’s best knowledge, presenting a massive profit-earning opportunity for people to put themselves on the opposite side of the attempted manipulation and thereby move the price back closer to the correct equilibrium. In order to give time for this to happen, the price used in determining which policy to take is taken as an average over some period of time, not at one instant. As long as the market power of people willing to earn a profit by counteracting manipulation exceeds the market power of the manipulator, the honest participants will win and extract a large quantity of funds from the manipulator in the process. Essentially, for Hanson and Friedman, sabotaging a futarchy requires a 51% attack. The most common rebuttal to this argument, made more eloquently by Hewitt, is the “self-referential” property of markets mentioned above. If the price for “trillions of US GDP in ten years if we bail out the banks” starts off $24.94, and the price for “trillions of US GDP in ten years if we don’t bail out the banks” starts off $26.20, but then one day the two cross over to $27.3 for yes and $25.1 for no, would people actually know that the values are off and start making trades to compensate, or would they simply take the new prices as an indicator of what the market thinks and accept or even reinforce them, as is often theorized to happen in speculative bubbles? Self-reference There is actually one reason to be optimistic here. Traditional markets may perhaps be often self-referential, and cryptocurrency markets especially so because they have no intrinsic value (ie. the only source of their value is their value), but the self-reference happens in part for a different reason than simply investors following each other like lemmings. The mechanism is as follows. Suppose that a company is interested in raising funds through share issuance, and currently has a million shares valued at $400, so a market cap of $400 million; it is willing to dilute its holders with a 10% expansion. Thus, it can raise $40 million. The market cap of the company is supposed to target the total amount of dividends that the company will ever pay out, with future dividends appropriately discounted by some interest rate; hence, if the price is stable, it means that the market expects the company to eventually release the equivalent of $400 million in total dividends in present value. Now, suppose the company’s share price doubles for some reason. The company can now raise $80 million, allowing it to do twice as much. Usually, capital expenditure has diminishing returns, but not always; it may happen that with the extra $40 million capital the company will be able to earn twice as much profit, so the new share price will be perfectly justified - even though the cause of the jump from $400 to $800 may have been manipulation or random noise. Bitcoin has this effect in an especially pronounced way; when the price goes up, all Bitcoin users get richer, allowing them to build more businesses, justifying the higher price level. The lack of intrinsic value for Bitcoin means that the self-referential effect is the only effect having influence on the price. Prediction markets do not have this property at all. Aside from the prediction market itself, there is no plausible mechanism by which the price of the “yes” token on a prediction market will have any impact on the GDP of the US in ten years. Hence, the only effect by which self-reference can happen is the “everyone follows everyone else’s judgement” effect. However, the extent of this effect is debatable; perhaps because of the very recognition that the effect exists, there is now an established culture of smart contrarianism in investment, and politics is certainly an area where people are willing to keep to unorthodox views. Additionally, in a futarchy, the relevant thing is not how high individual prices are, but which one of the two is higher; if you are certain that bailouts are bad, but you see the yes-bailout price is now $2.2 higher for some reason, you know that something is wrong so, in theory, you might be able to pretty reliably profit from that. Absolutes and differentials This is where we get to the crux of the real problem: it’s not clear how you can. Consider a more extreme case than the yes/no bailouts decision: a company using a futarchy to determine how much to pay their CEO. There have been studies suggesting that ultra-high-salary CEOs actually do not improve company performance - in fact, much the opposite. In order to fix this problem, why not use the power of futarchy and the market decide how much value the CEO really provides? Have a prediction market for the company’s performance if the CEO stays on, and if the CEO jumps off, and take the CEO’s salary as a standard percentage of the difference. We can do the same even for lower-ranking executives and if futarchy ends up being magically perfect even the lowliest employee. Now, suppose that you, as an analyst, predict that a company using such a scheme will have a share price of $7.20 in twelve months if the CEO stays on, with a 95% confidence interval of $2.50 (ie. you’re 95% sure the price will be between $4.70 and $9.70). You also predict that the CEO’s benefit to the share price is $0.08; the 95% confidence interval that you have here is from $0.03 to $0.13. This is pretty realistic; generally errors in measuring a variable are proportional to the value of that variable, so the range on the CEO will be much lower. Now suppose that the prediction market has the token price of $7.70 if the CEO stays on and $7.40 if they leave; in short, the market thinks the CEO is a rockstar, but you disagree. But how do you benefit from this? The initial instinct is to buy “no” shares and short-sell “yes” shares. But how many of each? You might think “the same number of each, to balance things out”, but the problem is that the chance the CEO will remain on the job is much higher than 50%. Hence, the “no” trades will probably all be reverted and the “yes” trades will not, so alongside shorting the CEO what you are also doing is taking a much larger risk shorting the company. If you knew the percentage change, then you could balance out the short and long purchases such that on net your exposure to unrelated volatility is zero; however, because you don’t, the risk-to-reward ratio is very high (and even if you did, you would still be exposed to the variance of the company’s global volatility; you just would not be biased in any particular direction). political party every few months and that political party makes decisions. This sounds like giving total control to one party, but it’s not; note that if the market is afraid of one-party control then parties could voluntarily structure themselves to be composed of multiple groups with competing ideologies and the market would prefer such combinations; in fact, we could have a system where politicians sign up as individuals and anyone from the public can submit a combination of politicians to elect into parliament and the market would make a decision over all combinations (although this would have the weakness that it is once again more personality-driven). Futarchy and Protocols and DAOs All of the above was discussing futarchy primarily as a political system for managing government, and to a lesser extent corporations and nonprofits. In government, if we apply futarchy to individual laws, especially ones with relatively small effect like “reduce the duration of patents from 20 years to 18 years”, we run into many of the issues that we described above. Additionally, the fourth argument against futarchy mentioned above, the complexity of values, is a particular sore point, since as described above a substantial portion of political disagreement is precisely in terms of the question of what the correct values are. Between these concerns, and political slowness in general, it seems unlikely that futarchy will be implemented on a national scale any time soon. Indeed, it has not even really been tried for corporations. Now, however, there is an entirely new class of entities for which futarchy might be much better suited, and where it may finally shine: DAOs. To see how futarchy for DAOs might work, let us simply describe how a possible protocol would run on top of Ethereum: Every round, T new DAO-tokens are issued. At the start of a round, anyone has the ability to make a proposal for how those coins should be distributed. We can simplify and say that a "proposal" simply consists of "send money to this address"; the actual plan for how that money would be spent would be communicated on some higher-level channel like a forum, and trust-free proposals could be made by sending to a contract. Suppose that n such proposals, P[1] ... P[n], are made. The DAO generates n pairs of assets, R[i] and S[i], and randomly distributes the T units of each type of token in some fashion (eg. to miners, to DAO token holders, according to a formula itself determined through prior futarchy, etc). The DAO also provides n markets, where market M[i] allows trade between R[i] and S[i]. The DAO watches the average price of S[i] denominated in R[i] for all markets, and lets the markets run for b blocks (eg. 2 weeks). At the end of the period, if market M[k] has the highest average price, then policy P[k] is chosen, and the next period begins. At that point, tokens R[j] and S[j] for j != k become worthless. Token R[k] is worth m units of some external reference asset (eg. ETH for a futarchy on top of Ethereum), and token S[k] is worth z DAO tokens, where a good value for z might be 0.1 and m self-adjusts to keep expenditures reasonable. Note that for this to work the DAO would need to also sell its own tokens for the external reference asset, requiring another allocation; perhaps m should be targeted so the token expenditure to purchase the required ether is zT. Essentially, what this protocol is doing is implementing a futarchy which is trying to optimize for the token’s price. Now, let’s look at some of the differences between this kind of futarchy and futarchy-for-government. First, the futarchy here is making only a very limited kind of decision: to whom to assign the T tokens that are generated in each round. This alone makes the futarchy here much “safer”. A futarchy-as-government, especially if unrestrained, has the potential to run into serious unexpected issues when combined with the fragility-of-value problem: suppose that we agree that GDP per capita, perhaps even with some offsets for health and environment, is the best value function to have. In that case, a policy that kills off the 99.9% of the population that are not super-rich would win. If we pick plain GDP, then a policy might win that extremely heavily subsidizes individuals and businesses from outside relocating themselves to be inside the country, perhaps using a 99% one-time capital tax to pay for a subsidy. Of course, in reality, futarchies would patch the value function and make a new bill to reverse the original bill before implementing any such obvious egregious cases, but if such reversions become too commonplace then the futarchy essentially degrades into being a traditional democracy. Here, the worst that could happen is for all the N tokens in a particular round to go to someone who will squander them. Second, note the different mechanism for how the markets work. In traditional futarchy, we have a zero-total-supply asset that is traded into existence on a derivatives market, and trades on the losing market are reverted. Here, we issue positive-supply assets, and the way that trades are reverted is that the entire issuance process is essentially reverted; both assets on all losing markets become worth zero. The biggest difference here is the question of whether or not people will participate. Let us go back to the earlier criticism of futarchy, that it is irrational to participate because it is a zero-sum game. This is somewhat of a paradox. If you have some inside information, then you might think that it is rational to participate, because you know something that other people don’t and thus your expectation of the eventual settlement price of the assets is different from the market’s; hence, you should be able to profit from the difference. On the other hand, if everyone thinks this way, then even some people with inside information will lose out; hence, the correct criterion for participating is something like “you should participate if you think you have better inside information than everyone else participating”. But if everyone thinks this way then the equilibrium will be that no one participates. Here, things work differently. People participate by default, and it’s harder to say what not participating is. You could cash out your R[i] and S[i] coins in exchange for DAO tokens, but then if there’s a desire to do that then R[i] and S[i] would be undervalued and there would be an incentive to buy both of them. Holding only R[i] is also not non-participating; it’s actually an expression of being bearish on the merits of policy P[i]; same with holding only S[i]. In fact, the closest thing to a “default” strategy is holding whatever R[i] and S[i] you get; we can model this prediction market as a zero-supply market plus this extra initial allocation, so in that sense the “just hold” approach is a default. However, we can argue that the barrier to participation is much lower, so participation will increase. Also note that the optimization objective is simpler; the futarchy is not trying to mediate the rules of an entire government, it is simply trying to maximize the value of its own token by allocating a spending budget. Figuring out more interesting optimization objectives, perhaps ones that penalize common harmful acts done by existing corporate entities, is an unsolved challenge but a very important one; at that point, the measurement and metric manipulation issues might once again become more important. Finally, the actual day-to-day governance of the futarchy actually does follow a hybrid model; the disbursements are made once per epoch, but the management of the funds within that time can be left to individuals, centralized organizations, blockchain-based organizations or potentially other DAOs. Thus, we can expect the differences in expected token value between the proposals to be large, so the futarchy actually will be fairly effective - or at least more effective than the current preferred approach of “five developers decide”. Why? So what are the practical benefits of adopting such a scheme? What is wrong with simply having blockchain-based organizations that follow more traditional models of governance, or even more democratic ones? Since most readers of this blog are already cryptocurrency advocates, we can simply say that the reason why this is the case is the same reason why we are interested in using cryptographic protocols instead of centrally managed systems - cryptographic protocols have a much lower need for trusting central authorities (if you are not inclined to distrust central authorities, the argument can be more accurately rephrased as “cryptographic protocols can more easily generalize to gain the efficiency, equity and informational benefits of being more participatory and inclusive without leading to the consequence that you end up trusting unknown individuals”). As far as social consequences go, this simple version of futarchy is far from utopia, as it is still fairly similar to a profit-maximizing corporation; however, the two important improvements that it does make are (1) making it harder for executives managing the funds to cheat both the organization and society for their short-term interest, and (2) making governance radically open and transparent. However, up until now, one of the major sore points for a cryptographic protocol is how the protocol can fund and govern itself; the primary solution, a centralized organization with a one-time token issuance and presale, is basically a hack that generates initial funding and initial governance at the cost of initial centralization. Token sales, including our own Ethereum ether sale, have been a controversial topic, to a large extent because they introduce this blemish of centralization into what is otherwise a pure and decentralized cryptosystem; however, if a new protocol starts off issuing itself as a futarchy from day one, then that protocol can achieve incentivization without centralization - one of the key breakthroughs in economics that make the cryptocurrency space in general worth watching. Some may argue that inflationary token systems are undesirable and that dilution is bad; however, an important point is that, if futarchy works, this scheme is guaranteed to be at least as effective as a fixed-supply currency, and in the presence of a nonzero quantity of potentially satisfiable public goods it will be strictly superior. The argument is simple: it is always possible to come up with a proposal that sends the funds to an unspendable address, so any proposal that wins would have to win against that baseline as well. So what are the first protocols that we will see using futarchy? Theoretically, any of the higher-level protocols that have their own coin (eg. SWARM, StorJ, Maidsafe), but without their own blockchain, could benefit from futarchy on top of Ethereum. All that they would need to do is implement the futarchy in code (something which I have started to do already), add a pretty user interface for the markets, and set it going. Although technically every single futarchy that starts off will be exactly the same, futarchy is Schelling-point-dependent; if you create a website around one particular futarchy, label it “decentralized insurance”, and gather a community around that idea, then it will be more likely that that particular futarchy succeeds if it actually follows through on the promise of decentralized insurance, and so the market will favor proposals that actually have something to do with that particular line of development. If you are building a protocol that will have a blockchain but does not yet, then you can use futarchy to manage a “protoshare” that will eventually be converted over; and if you are building a protocol with a blockchain from the start you can always include futarchy right into the core blockchain code itself; the only change will be that you will need to find something to replace the use of a “reference asset” (eg. 264 hashes may work as a trust-free economic unit of account). Of course, even in this form futarchy cannot be guaranteed to work; it is only an experiment, and may well prove inferior to other mechanisms like liquid democracy - or hybrid solutions may be best. But experiments are what cryptocurrency is all about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannicide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn15H__1FOk Death Row Democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gggSgPUYGtc PolyMarket https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_T1i6nt2Nc Govts: The Inventors and early Adopters https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/bitcoin-funded-assassination-market-websit... https://www.c-span.org/video/?326485-1/jamie-bartlett-the-dark-net https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfioIm2CFzo Carl Miller on Power https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uBDee2tKAY Bitcoin Dangerous https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/07/25/the-first-augur-assassination-ma... https://cryptocoin.news/news/blockchain-news/betting-on-death-augur-assassin... https://www.leadingtrader.com/11/killing-kennedy-how-the-market-reacted-to-j... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sinsp0uLsS8 Vice: How to hire a hitman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbGypiDik2E Sanjuro's Assassination Market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I__B53SXt8c Body Count - Murder 4 Hire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhJRbLAuoyk How to hire a hitman, for real :)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/konanykhin “ I promise to pay $1,000,000 to the officer(s) who, complying with their constitutional duty, arrest(s) Putin as a war criminal under Russian and international laws. Putin is not the Russian president as he came to power as the result of a special operation of blowing up apartment buildings in Russia, then violated the Constitution by eliminating free elections and murdering his opponents. As an ethnic Russian and a Russia citizen, I see it as my moral duty to facilitate the denazification of Russia. I will continue my assistance to Ukraine in its heroic efforts to withstand the onslaught of Putin's Orda. ”
US Sen Graham calls for Putin Assassination... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/3/lindsey-graham-calls-vladimi...
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:41 PM, grarpamp<grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:US Sen Graham calls for Putin Assassination... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/3/lindsey-graham-calls-vladimi... I'm glad, almost exactly 27 years after the Part 1 of my Assassination Politics essay publicationhttps://cryptome.org/ap.htm on the Cypherpunks email list (Feb 14, 1995, but the archive for 1995 has since been forged to conceal nearly all reference to it) that people are finally awakening to the extreme advantages of killing a few hundred to a few thousand politicians around the world, rather than millions of ordinary people in a nuclear war. I hope this realization is not too late, for the latter group. What Senator Graham, and perhaps all other politicians, do not realize is that my AP solution, however effective it was going to be, was never going to be pain-free: It will get rid of all politicians, either by forced resignation or far worse. Jim Bell
Maybe I should take back part of what I said. Both Congressional Democrats and Republicans may understand the implications of applying AP: sure, it will kill Putin, they realize, but it will also end up killing dozens of them, but also hundreds or 1000's of other American politicians. THAT is the real reason AP hasn't yet been implemented. Jim Bell On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:22 PM, jim bell<jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:41 PM, grarpamp<grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:US Sen Graham calls for Putin Assassination... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/3/lindsey-graham-calls-vladimi... I'm glad, almost exactly 27 years after the Part 1 of my Assassination Politics essay publicationhttps://cryptome.org/ap.htm on the Cypherpunks email list (Feb 14, 1995, but the archive for 1995 has since been forged to conceal nearly all reference to it) that people are finally awakening to the extreme advantages of killing a few hundred to a few thousand politicians around the world, rather than millions of ordinary people in a nuclear war. I hope this realization is not too late, for the latter group. What Senator Graham, and perhaps all other politicians, do not realize is that my AP solution, however effective it was going to be, was never going to be pain-free: It will get rid of all politicians, either by forced resignation or far worse. Jim Bell
On various dates, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, Sukumaran's essay is by far the most competent treatment of my Assassination Politics idea and essay.
All in all, the public's handling of my AP essay has been atrociously incompetent. For people who claim they love freedom and hate tyranny, I've described the solution. People have had 26 years to disprove or just cast doubt on AP, and nobody has accomplished that.
AP will work, when tried.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/3/lindsey-graham-calls-vladimi...
I'm glad, almost exactly 27 years after the Part 1 of my Assassination Politics essay publication https://cryptome.org/ap.htm that people are finally awakening to the extreme advantages of killing a few hundred to a few thousand politicians around the world, rather than millions of ordinary people in a nuclear war. I hope this realization is not too late, for the latter group.
Given recent global rumblings of nuclear use, new wars killing millions and more of innocent civilians, calls for assassination of "war criminal" leaders of various countries, inherent brutal authoritarian force of legacy GovPol models, etc, many areas might have some relevance... Perhaps Jim and others should begin making appearances on podcasts, having conversations on Youtube, Odysee, and other video channels. 27 years later, the internet now does support realtime video medium, and it has become a widespread de-facto way for millions of people to discuss and share topics. Jim and others could explain their systems, answer those who have questions, cover how General Prediction Markets could be used in peaceful voluntary societies to do things such as building roads, space travel, medicine, defence, crowdfunding, and many other things in freedom preserving non authoritarian and efficient ways. Jim and the other early debaters advocates and detractors won't be around forever, and AP and Prediction Markets in general certainly will end up being debated, and perhaps even implemented, by others in the future. Thus it might seem important for the world to have their current thoughts on such things, even if only noted as history for the future's reference, by way of making and joining podcasts today. To the extent Jim and the others are up for it, people could begin by listing and suggesting potential podcasts to join, and or by making mutual introductions and inviting them to do podcast conversations. If cypherpunks claim that their Prediction Markets and other ideas could solve some of the world's hard problems, perhaps they should start actually getting out in the larger real and podcast world and talking about them so that more people can see, study, debate, improve, etc. Because as it is now, half the world has still never heard of cypherpunk's cryptocurrency, and roughly 0% have ever heard of Prediction Markets or Libertarian or anything else. But 100% are now hearing many global politicians threatening total destruction of the world as we know it. The only way to acheive a more free and peaceful world is for cypherpunks and others to get out there and discuss it.
If cypherpunks claim that their Prediction Markets and other ideas could solve some of the world's hard problems...
On 7/10/22, professor rat <pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Looking for Proactive Kill-Switch company ... I'm hoping just before - or around - CYPHERPUNK 2027
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market It's been known likely since before the genesis of cryptocurrency, and certainly thereafter, for at least a decade now, including since Sanjuro, and since the debate over Augur's moderators ability to cancel awards over "unconscionable" markets, and since many more now public examples... that any crypto that can send a message along with the bid transaction (such as lots of Ethereum ERC-20, and Craig Wright's BSV, and more) could be used for Assassination Politics, or any Prediction Market in general. In fact, games on outcomes have been running over trivial questions such as the weather, sports, and elections for a while now on some PM platforms. The Rat... apparently too tech-dumb, coward, cop, or fake to run his own game, thus his grandstanding 2027 style posts. And his failure to properly thread posts is just as immature, and just as non-productive to the game he claims to sling. Anyhow... like the cryptocurrencies they rely on, Prediction Markets will change the world for the better. See a pothole in the road? Put up a market to get it fixed, bidders will concur, predictors will fix it to spec, no Government needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-causes-and-impact-of-political-assassinations/ https://ctc.westpoint.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Sentinel-January-2015-v... The Causes and Impact of Political Assassinations January 2015, Volume 8, Issue 1 Authors: Arie Perliger Categories: Terror Behavior , Weapons and Tactics , Individual Terrorist Actors PDF Political assassinations have been part of social reality since the emergence of communal social frameworks, as the leaders of tribes, villages, and other types of communities constantly needed to defend their privileged status. In the ancient world assassination featured prominently in the rise and fall of some of the greatest empires. While many people are familiar with the military victories of Alexander the Great, few today recall that his ascendance to power was facilitated by the assassination of his father (an innovative and talented politician in his own right), who was struck down by a bodyguard as he was entering a theater to attend his daughter’s marriage celebrations. In a somewhat more famous incident, Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BCE by Roman senators who increasingly feared that Caesar would revoke their privileges. In modern times, political assassinations continue to play an important role in political and social processes and, in some cases, have a dramatic effect. For example, many argue that the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin in 1995 was a major reason for the collapse of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.1 It is also difficult to deny the impact of the assassinations of figures such as Martin Luther King or Benazir Bhutto on the success of their political movements/parties following their deaths. Thus, it is not surprising that Appleton argues, “The impact of assassinations on America and the World is incalculable,”2 and that Americans cite the assassination of John F. Kennedy as the crime that has had the greatest impact on American society in the last 100 years.3 Nonetheless, despite the apparently significant influence of political assassinations on political and social realities, this particular manifestation of political action is understudied and, as a result, poorly understood. This article is a summary of a broader study that will be published later by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) and aims to improve our understanding of the causes and implications of political assassinations. It makes use of an original and comprehensive worldwide data set of political assassinations between 1945 and 2013. The findings illustrate the trends that characterize the phenomenon and challenge some of the existing conventions about political assassinations and their impact. Data and Rationale In order to investigate the causes and implications of political assassinations, the CTC constructed a data set that includes political assassinations worldwide from 1946 to early 2013. After defining political assassinations as “an action that directly or indirectly leads to the death of an intentionally targeted individual who is active in the political sphere, in order to promote or prevent specific policies, values, practices or norms pertaining to the collective,” the CTC consulted a variety of resources, including relevant academic books and articles, media sources (especially LexisNexis and The New York Times archive), and online resources, to identify 758 attacks by 920 perpetrators that resulted in the death of 954 individuals. (Some attacks led to the death of multiple political leaders; however, the death of “bystanders” is not included in this number.) This study is guided by the rationale that the logic of political assassinations is different from that of other manifestations of political violence. Hence, it is important to understand the unique factors that may encourage or discourage violent groups or individuals from engaging in political assassinations. Moreover, it seems reasonable to assume that these factors vary among different types of assassinations because in most cases the characteristics of the targeted individual shape the nature and objectives of the assassination. Indeed, this study establishes that different processes trigger different types of assassinations and that different types of assassinations generate distinct effects on the political and social arenas. General Observations Although the first two decades after World War II were characterized by a limited number of political assassinations, the number of such attacks has risen dramatically since the early 1970s. This is reflective of the emergence of a new wave of terrorist groups, radical and universal ideologies operating on a global scale, and a growing willingness by oppressive regimes to use assassinations as a tool in their treatment of political opposition. Indeed, while most assassinations of government officials were perpetrated by sub-state violent groups, most assassinations of opposition leaders were initiated by ruling political elites or their proxies. This important observation supports the notion that a growing number of terrorist groups see assassinations as a legitimate and effective tool, and that one of the major obstacles for democratization is the vulnerability of political opposition. Additionally, our data indicates that assassinations are not limited to specific regions or specific time frames. In fact, the opposite is true. Both regions that are considered politically stable and economically prosperous, such as Western Europe, as well as regions that are considered politically unstable, more prone to political violence, and economically weak, such as sub-Saharan Africa, have experienced similar levels of political assassinations. In some regions, however, political assassinations have become dominant only in the last couple of decades. In South Asia, for example, 76 percent of the assassinations have been perpetrated since the mid-1980s, possibly a consequence of the growing instability in the region during and after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And more than 85 percent of assassinations in Eastern Europe were perpetrated after 1995 with the start of the transition to democracy in most Eastern European countries, a process that in many cases was accompanied by growing ethnic tensions and political instability. In terms of targets, the data indicates that most assassinations target heads of state (17 percent), opposition leaders (who are not part of the executive or legislative branch) (18 percent), and members of parliament (21 percent). In rarer instances the targets are ministers (14 percent), diplomats (10 percent), local politicians such as governors or mayors (5 percent), and vice head of states (3 percent). Causes of Assassinations The research findings indicate that, in general, political assassinations are more probable in countries that suffer from a combination of restrictions on political competition and strong polarization and fragmentation. More specifically, states that lack consensual political ethos and homogeneous populations (in terms of the national and ethnic landscape) and include politically deprived groups will face a decline in the legitimacy of the political leadership and the political system and an increase in the likelihood of direct attacks against political leaders. One of the most glaring examples of such a dynamic may be found in Sri Lanka, where the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a group that represents the deprived Tamil minority, organized a bloody campaign of political assassinations against the political leadership of the state and the Sinhalese majority from the early 1980s until approximately 2009. And since these issues tend to be present mainly in times of electoral processes or of actual violent strife, one should not be surprised that our findings indicate that election periods or periods characterized by a general increase in domestic violence are moments when a country is more susceptible to political assassinations. Another interesting finding is that the territorial fragmentation of a country is correlated with an increase in the number of assassinations. When a government loses control over some parts of a country to opposition groups, both sides are more willing to use assassinations to enhance their influence and to consolidate their status as the sole legitimate rulers of the polity. When looking specifically at the facilitators of assassinations of heads of state, we can identify some unique trends. To begin with, the polities most susceptible to assassinations against the head of state are authoritarian polities that lack clear succession rules and in which the leader enjoys significant political power. This is true even more so in polities that also include oppressed minorities and high levels of political polarization. Therefore, non-democratic political environments that feature leaders who are able to garner significant power and in which the state lacks efficient mechanisms for leadership change following an assassination, provide more prospects for success in advancing political changes via political assassination. This stands in contrast to democratic systems, in which it is clear that the elimination of the head of state will have only a limited, long-term impact on the socio-political order. Although heads of state represent what could be considered the crown jewel of political assassinations, lower-ranking political figures also face this threat. In this study, we specifically examined attacks against legislators and vice heads of state. Attacks against the latter are fairly rare and are usually intended to promote highly specific policy changes (related to areas under the responsibility of the vice head of state) or to prevent the vice head of state from inheriting the head of state position. Legislators, on the other hand, are most often victims of civil wars or similar violent domestic clashes in developing countries; in democracies they are almost never targeted. To illustrate, no less than 34 Iranian legislators were assassinated in 1981, when the new revolutionary regime was consolidating its control over the country. Hence, assassinations of legislators are almost always a result of national-level conflicts rather than local ones, contrary to what some may suspect. Lastly, legislators’ assassinations are rarely perpetrated to promote specific policies or to gain access to the political process. In other words, the assassination of legislators should be considered more as acts of protest against an existing political order than political actions that are intended to promote specific political goals. One of the unique features of this study, among others, is its focus on assassinations of political figures who are not part of governing platforms. Unlike other types of assassinations, the state is typically a major actor in the assassination in these cases. Consequently, it should not surprise us that opposition leaders are more likely to be targeted in authoritarian systems or in weak democracies, as the political environment in these types of regimes provides a space for the emergence of an opposition while also providing the ruling elites tools and legitimacy for oppressive measures against a “successful” opposition (e.g. Pakistan as well as many Latin American countries). It is also clear that opposition leaders are more vulnerable during violent domestic conflicts, when the number of opportunities, and maybe also the legitimacy, to act against them are on the rise. Impact of Political Assassinations The study provides several important insights regarding the impact of political assassinations. In general, political assassinations seem to intensify prospects of a state’s fragmentation and undermine its democratic nature. The latter is usually manifested in a decline in political participation and a disproportionate increase in the strength of the executive branch. When we looked specifically at different types of assassinations, we were able to find significant variations among them. For example, assassinations of heads of state tend to generate a decline in the democratic nature of a polity and an increase in domestic violence and instability as well as economic prosperity. The latter may sound counterintuitive but could reflect the rise of a more open economic system after the elimination of authoritarian ruler. The assassination of opposition leaders has a limited impact on the nature of a political system, but has the potential to lead to an increase in overall unrest and domestic violence. And assassinations of legislators are often followed by public unrest (illustrated by growing anti-government demonstrations) and by a decline in the legitimacy of the government. Policy Implications This study illustrates that most polities experienced political assassinations at some point in their history. Thus, our ability to improve our understanding of political processes must also include a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of political assassinations. But how can the findings presented in this study help us to understand the potential role of policymakers in the occurrence or prevention of political assassinations? To begin with, it is evident that governments can promote political and social conditions that may decrease the prospects of political assassinations. For example, while governments in polarized societies sometimes have the tendency to restrict political participation in order to prevent further escalation in intrastate communal relations, our findings indicate that this action will actually increase the probability of political assassinations. Moreover, in order for electoral processes to become a viable tool for promoting a productive and peaceful political environment, it is clear that they are more effective after ensuring the most intense political grievances have been addressed. Otherwise, electoral competition has the potential to instigate further violence, including the assassinations of political figures. The shaping of stable and regulated succession mechanisms is also highly important, especially in countries that are struggling to construct stable democratic institutions. Interestingly, it seems that while theories of democratization have for a long time prescribed the creation of institutions as a first step to ensure wide representation, followed by stable routines and protocols, the opposite order may be more effective for the promotion of stability and eventually a liberal-democratic environment. The findings also indicate that more attention needs to be given to the safety of the political leaders during instances of violent domestic clashes or transitions to democracy. Opposition leaders are most vulnerable in the early stages of democratization, so the effort to facilitate a democratic environment must also include the creation of mechanisms to ensure the safety of opposition leaders. This in turn will enhance the legitimacy of political participation, reduce polarization, and enhance political stability. Moreover, although civilian victims naturally attract most of the public attention during a civil war, this study highlights the need to evaluate how harm to political figures may be prevented, as this has significant potential to lead to further escalation of a conflict, especially when the assassinated figures are heads of state or opposition leaders. Lastly, the findings also provide several practical insights for law enforcement. More than half of the assassins (51.3 percent) had been involved in criminal activities prior to the assassination. This may indicate that a group usually prefers one of its veteran members to perform an assassination, probably because of the high stakes involved in these kinds of operations and the relatively high level of operational knowledge necessary to conduct them. In one extreme example, the leader of the Bangladeshi branch of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HuJI), Mufti Abdul Hannan, was revealed to have participated actively in the attempted assassination of Sheikh Hasina, the leader of an opposition party in Bangladesh and the former Bangladesh prime minister, in August 2004. Also, because of the particular risks involved in these kinds of operations, groups may prefer to expose members who are already known to law enforcement agencies to conduct an assassination rather than exposing members who are still unknown to law enforcement bodies. (However, this may be problematic since the veteran members are often at higher risk of being under surveillance). Conclusion The dearth of research on political assassination represents a crucial oversight, especially considering the frequency of the phenomenon and its implications. Our study highlights the major theoretical and policy implications of assassinations and identifies some promising directions for further research, with the hope that this unique type of political violence will be better understood in the future. Dr. Arie Perliger is the Class of 1977 Director of Terrorism Studies at the Combating Terrorism Center and Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. [1] President Bill Clinton, the main sponsor of the Oslo peace process, speculated that if Rabin had not been assassinated, peace would have been achieved in three years. See Atilla Shumfalbi, “Bill Clinton: If Rabin Would Have Not Been Assassinated There Would Be Peace Today,” YNET News, September 14, 2009: www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3805013,00.html [Hebrew] [2] Sheldon Appleton, “Trends: Assassinations,” Public Opinion Quarterly 64:4 (Winter 2000): pp. 495–522. [3] Zaryab Iqbal and Christopher Zorn, “The Political Consequences of Assassination,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52:3 (June 2008): pp. 385–400. Related Articles July 19, 2022 The Relentless Terrorist: A Profile of Muaz al-Fizani Matteo Pugliese Real or Imagined: Evidence Concerning the Mental Health-Terrorism Nexus from Australian Terrorism Trials Rodger Shanahan The Buffalo Attack: The Cumulative Momentum of Far-Right Terror Amarnath Amarasingam, Marc-André Argentino, Graham Macklin May 26, 2022 Going Viral: Implications of COVID-19 for Bioterrorism Gary A. Ackerman, Zachary Kallenborn, Philipp C. Bleek April 27, 2022 The Urgent Need for an Overhaul of Global Biorisk Management Filippa Lentzos, Gregory D. Koblentz, Joseph Rodgers A View from the CT Foxhole: Lawrence Kerr, Former Director, Office of Pandemics and Emerging Threats, Office of Global Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Paul Cruickshank, Don Rassler, Kristina Hummel A New Age of Bioterror: Anticipating Exploitation of Tunable Viral Agents Stephen Hummel, F. John Burpo, Jeremy Hershfield, Andrew Kick, Kevin J. O’Donovan, Jason Barnhill April 21, 2022 Iran Entangled: Iran and Hezbollah’s Support to Proxies Operating in Syria Nakissa Jahanbani, Suzanne Weedon Levy
https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-Politics-Murder-Linda-Laucella/dp/15656... Assassination: The Politics of Murder - May 1, 1998 Documents the political assassinations that have changed the course of history, looking at the victims, their assassins and their motives, the political climate, conspiracy theories, and the aftermath. https://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AP.pdf "Assassination Politics": I speculated on the question of whether an organization could be set up to legally announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or appointees.
https://medium.com/chainrift-research/dark-markets-jim-bells-assassination-p... https://twitter.com/AugurProject/status/1021631296265768960 https://ipfs.augur.casino/ipfs/QmYaHYKE3ozoJrXCksETCEnAoyUmXY4o3qarE9oZmXfMbc/?augur_node=wss%3a%2f%2faugur-node.augur.casinoðereum_node_ws=wss%3a%2f%2fgethnode.com%2fws#/markets?category=TECH&tags=ELON%20MUSK https://ipfs.augur.casino/ipfs/QmYaHYKE3ozoJrXCksETCEnAoyUmXY4o3qarE9oZmXfMbc/?augur_node=wss%3a%2f%2faugur-node.augur.casinoðereum_node_ws=wss%3a%2f%2fgethnode.com%2fws#/markets?category=TECH&tags=AWS.~_SMARTPHONE.~_PHONES Matt ฿ http://www.itsmattbit.ch/ Bitcoin, privacy and cypherpunk stuff Dec 18, 2018 · 4 min read Dark Markets: Jim Bell’s Assassination Politics Anonymity and private communications online have opened up a myriad of ways for individuals to communicate and transact in cyberspace, in ways that thwart surveillance. This series of articles will explore some of the notable proposals (and iterations) of digital marketplaces furthering crypto-anarchic agendas. First up: the prediction markets for betting on the lives of individuals. Even to hardline crypto-anarchists and libertarians, this one is a bit of a stretch – on the surface, it would appear to stand in stark opposition to the non-aggression principle. Jim Bell, however, remains adamant that the ends justify the means insofar as government employees/politicians are concerned, as he explains in depth in his 90s essay entitled Assassination Politics. According to Bell: In receiving [a paycheck of stolen tax money] and in his various acts, [the government employee] violates the “Non-aggression Principle” (NAP) and thus, presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under libertarian principles. In the essay, the author discusses the harnessing of public-key encryption and digital cash to create a system where anonymous donors could add to a fund, which would be paid out to whoever correctly ‘guessed’ the date of death of an office holder. Note that the term ‘guessed’ here should be interpreted very loosely — the implication is that a $10m kitty might just incentivise someone to ensure that their guess was correct. Do I need to spell it out? Anarchy Through Fear Envisaged by a staunch libertarian, Bell’s hypothetical marketplace had an ulterior political motive: the eradication of any hierarchical governmental structure. He reasoned that, as leader after leader was offed for continuing to “tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter send hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes” (I can’t stress the extent to which he really hates taxes), others would eventually fear assuming office, and government intervention in the lives of individuals would be drastically reduced. From there, everything falls into place – global access to the assassination markets would mean that militaries across the board cease to exist (lack of leaders and lack of funding). You might be wondering how such a system would remain limited to persons involved with the government. I’m not altogether convinced that the ‘ethical underpinnings’ of the society that uses these would make it infeasible for a competitor to simply start taking bets on anyone (though you might struggle in finding people with enough hatred for your neighbour who keeps blaring music at 3am to contribute to the pool that would be paid out in the event of their untimely death). That said, Bell argues that if you wanted to hire a hitman (which is what you’d essentially be doing here, as opposed to crowdfunding one), that’s already possible today. AP Today Bear in mind that this proposal was floated at a time before the magic of blockchain or the advent of decentralisation for the sake of decentralisation (and raising obscene amounts of money for mere mentions of the word). In Bell’s model, a centralised organisation is the ultimate arbiter over which names are added to the system, and therefore has certain ‘moral’ rulebook. If, on the other hand, someone were to create a decentralised prediction market, you’d be firmly in the chaotic code is law domain. Hello! Whilst it runs in a decentralized manner, Augur operates much like traditional prediction markets: users trade contracts with payouts tied to a future event. These contracts are binary, meaning that bets are placed on whether an outcome will or will not occur. Can you see where I’m going with this? You’re by no means limited to attempting to predict the deaths of people here – want to bet on whether Elon Musk is going to cry in a video interview before a certain date? Here you go. When Apple will release a folding iPhone? Right here. That’s not to say deaths haven’t been predicted – bets on terrorist attacks, mass murders and assassinations of prominent politicians are all there, too. It’s trivial to set them up, though liquidity is still lacking. Not so trivial is shutting them down – the Forecast Foundation burned the escape hatch some months back, effectively removing its central point of failure. While Bell’s Assassination Markets are abhorrent to most, they’re a textbook example of the markets that will crop up as the result of anonymising technologies and in the absence of legal obstruction. It’s perhaps too early to tell whether decentralised prediction markets will live up to this notorious potential (there’s still some kinks to iron out where oracles are concerned), though it certainly appears that the proverbial table is being set as we speak.
https://www.karmak.org/archive/2003/01/assassination.htm Assassination Politics & Jim Bell To view Assassination Politics � Crypto-Convict Won't Recant
From Wired Online
by Declan McCullagh 3:00 a.m. Apr. 14, 2000 PDT Before Jim Bell went to prison, he suspected that most government officials were corrupt. Three years behind bars later, the self-proclaimed Internet anarchist is sure of it. After Bell, a cypherpunk who the United States government dubbed a techno-terrorist, is released Friday at 10 a.m. PDT, he plans to exact revenge on the system that imprisoned him. "If they continue to work for the government, they deserve it. My suggestion to these people is to quit now and hope for mercy," the 41-year-old Washington state native said in a telephone interview this week from the medium-security federal penitentiary in Phoenix. Bell pleaded guilty to tax evasion in 1997. The retribution he has in mind? Well, it's decidedly not simple thuggery or wild-eyed ranting. Before he was arrested, the MIT graduate even gave his scheme a catchy title: "Assassination Politics." It's an unholy mix of encryption, anonymity, and digital cash to bring about the ultimate annihilation of all forms of government. The system, which Bell spent years talking up online, uses digital cash and anonymity to predict and confirm assassinations. Darkly brooding during his stints in solitary confinement, Bell has honed his idea to a knife-sharp edge, and seems to have shed any remaining scruples in the process. "I once believed it's too bad that there are a lot of people who work for government who are hard-working and honest people who will get hit (by Assassination Politics) and it's a shame," he says. "Well, I don't believe that any more. They are all either crooks or they tolerate crooks or they are aware of crooks among their numbers." That kind of fervid rhetoric comes close to crossing the line, says one former prosecutor. "It's an oblique threat," says Mark Rasch, now a lawyer at Science Applications International Corporation. "Depending on how immediate the threat is or how immediate the incitement is, it could violate federal law." And Assassination Politics? If Bell tries to set it up, will he end up back in Club Fed? "Now you're getting closer to the line that says, 'I will pay you to kill a federal agent.' Even though it's indirect, it has the same effect," Rasch says. U.S. law punishes "any threat to injure the person of another" with a five-year prison sentence. Robb London, the assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, did not immediately return phone calls. It's easy enough to dismiss Assassination Politics as a loony idea invented by a Theodore Kaczynski wannabe and about as likely to occur as Dan Quayle winning a presidential primary. But then why are the feds so worried? Call it sheer self-interest, but the original charges against Bell highlighted the scheme: The IRS accused him of "soliciting others to join in a scheme known as 'Assassination Politics' whereby those who killed IRS employees would be rewarded." IRS inspector Jeff Gordon, who now regularly monitors the cypherpunks mailing list, took it personally, at one point likening Bell to convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Both, Gordon said in 1997, were making "plans to assassinate government employees." Gordon found a second suspect a year later, when he came across an "AP robot" website that claimed to implement Bell's idea and pay winners in e-cash. "'Bot' is a slang term for an automated computer program. I also know that 'e$' and 'eCa$h' are slang terms for electronic or digital cash, which was a major component of Bell's Assassination Politics proposal," the IRS agent said in an affidavit. The investigation eventually led to the conviction of fellow cypherpunk Carl Johnson in April 1999 for threatening federal officials. Both cases have become something of a cause celebre among cypherpunks who are critical of government overreaching; the list, after all, became popular during the heyday of the intrusive White House-backed Clipper Chip. Architect John Young in 1998 nominated Bell for a Chrysler design award for creating an "Information Design for Governmental Accountability." The Laissez Faire City Times has published a copy of Bell's AP essay, calling it "a thought experiment on one of the consequences of the digital society." Not everyone was quite so complimentary. U.S. News and World Report featured Bell as part of a cover story on terrorism. The story said that when agents raided his home, they found "volatile solvents, explosives ingredients, sodium cyanide, nitric acid, and disopropyl fluorophosphate -- one of several ingredients that, if properly mixed, form nerve gas -- all in a residential neighborhood." Bell seems eager to take advantage of his notoriety. He's planning a kind of crypto-convict U.S. tour that will take him through Seattle, New York, Washington, and to his MIT class reunion in Boston in early June. Bell repeatedly claims that he won't break the law himself. "I'm not going to kill them off," he said. "Other people are going to do that. I'm going to promote a system. "There are at least a couple of books I have to write, expounding on the AP concept to explain it to the masses," he says. "I have to update it to reflect that five years have passed and things look dramatically better for the overall concept. "Five years ago, people were saying, 'Wouldn't the government just shut the Internet down if people used it for something like that?' Now people realize that isn't possible," Bell says. For an admitted anti-government activist -- his plea bargain said he owned chemicals that could be used to produce Sarin gas and once stink-bombed the carpet outside an IRS office -- Bell is a remarkably affable one, and has been eager to proselytize even to intelligence community types. Jessica Stern, a senior fellow at Harvard University and a former National Security Council aide, has taken a particular interest in the case. "As a terrorism expert, I think he's a very important example of this new phenomenon of the virtual network. It really poses problems for the government, and he knows that. He's thrilled about it," says Stern, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow who has spent long hours interviewing Bell. "He's really an irritant. He's teasing them, he's defying them. He's trying to get them to overreact. That is what we often see with terrorists. One of their aims is to destabilize regimes, but also to get governments to overreact so they lose credibility with the public," she says. That's entirely plausible, and it makes for some fascinating speculation about what might happen when Bell's a free man. It's clear that the feds are monitoring those who sympathize with Bell: Fellow cypherpunk Tim May saw his address and Social Security Number appear in court documents after questioning the IRS' prosecution. Might the IRS or the Secret Service, which aided an investigation in a related case, try to keep track of Bell? He certainly thinks so, and tells anyone who will listen that the feds have been illegally spying on him. According to a court docket, Bell raised this point repeatedly during an August 1998 sentencing hearing for a probation violation -- to the point that even his attorney told Judge Franklin D. Burgess that a mental health evaluation might be appropriate. The judge agreed. During a recent phone conversation, Bell added that he thought he had been denied "good conduct" time that would have allowed him to be released weeks earlier. And when he is released? Bell plans to do the same thing anyone with a hot tech idea would do: Launch a website. "I may end up starting a dot-com company to promote the idea of an AP-type system," he says. "I think the public wants to be able to buy freedom and liberty over the Internet." Copyright � 2000 Wired Digital Inc., a Lycos Network site. All rights reserved. Assassination Politics Part 1 http://www.konformist.com/2000/assassination/assassination01.txt Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10
https://dangerousminds.net/comments/the_dead_pool_jim_bells_crowd-funded_ass... The Dead Pool: Jim Bell’s crowd-funded ‘Assassination Politics’ 06.05.2013 10:20 am Topics: Current Events , Politics Tags: Jim Bell Richard’s epic rant yesterday on Ernst Stavro Blofeld Peter Brabeck’s unfortunate remarks on privatizing water reminded me of an idea developed by crypto-anarchist Jim Bell that was controversial even in those circles and that (according to some) is what landed him in Federal Prison in 1997, keeping him there on and off (mostly on) until 2012. Bell’s idea and essay were entitled “Assassination Politics,” and if you haven’t encountered it before, well, you’re in for a bit of a shock, particularly as the nuts and bolts necessary are rapidly coming into place: Anonymous and untraceable digital cash (leveraging Bitcoin), uncrackable Internet traffic mixers in the form of the TOR network, and TOR hidden services. (According to Bell the idea is inevitable—it’s coming—though I’m personally quite skeptical of that claim. But no matter…) Basically, the idea is this: What if there was a system that took bets on which politicians, military leaders or water-privatizing CEOs would be assassinated and when? And what if the system preserved the anonymity of any and all bettors and could pay those who “guessed” correctly without identifying them? Using modern cryptographic techniques such a system is indeed technologically possible and described (see video below). Remember The Dead Pool, Clint Eastwood’s final “Dirty Harry” film? Kinda like a high-tech crypto-anarchist version of that, but seen as a practical way to destroy the Shitstem. Big fun. Now in case you’re tempted to believe that this is merely the dream of a Libertarian crackpot, it’s worth noting that Bell not only received a chemistry degree from MIT, he was a relatively early employee at Intel and even started a computer storage company. In other words, Bell, who admittedly is a bit of a weirdo, is most certainly not an intellectually challenged man and the AP idea makes use of a smattering of cryptographic techniques that have largely come to exist in the years since he first proposed it. So it probably can be done. So now, you might ask, What’s so controversial about what is essentially a market for predictions? So what if people are betting on the deaths of world leaders? We all have to die sometime. Well, the key to note here is that the bettors can bet and get paid (if they are correct) without revealing their identity or location (read: IP address) on the Internet. Bell believed that this combination would prove truly irresistible to certain murder-non-averse types who a) Like lots of money and b) Like to kill people and, oh yeah, c) Who don’t mind knocking off hated dictators or other “enemies of mankind” (to quote Samuel Fuller). Indeed, according to Bell’s formulation, the system is designed precisely to encourage someone to, let’s just say, increase their odds of winning the “dead pool” substantially. Universal hatred of a specific figure would increase the odds of his or her impending transience greatly, as an enormous bounty is accumulated via all the bettors betting on (and thereby encouraging) a rapid demise. In his essay Bell then went on to predict the collapse of world governments as they are understood today, because it would become just far too dangerous for even local petty bureaucrats to remain in their position and alive at the same time. Further claims by Bell and others predicted fewer wars, as aggressive military leaders got knocked off via gaining the opprobrium of the masses (thereby accumulating a huge payoff against his name) and then attracting legions of fortune-seeking assassins, one of whom is eventually successful and who can then cryptographically and anonymously collect his huge payout. Of course, claims of the end of war or even the end of governments as we know them sound suspiciously like early comments about the Gatling gun: It’s such a terrible weapon that no one will start a war again (though it wasn’t too much longer before WW I showed us exactly how insightful that comment was). And does anyone really want a world in which, theoretically, anyone’s name can show up on a worldwide kill list? That’d kinda suck for American Idol contestants and pundits from the right and left. But the point here is that if the Brabecks and Koch Brothers of the world keep trying to put the rest of humanity into a great big headlock by attacking our water through fracking and privitization (an interesting combination, BTW), people with serious cypto skillz may get pissed off enough to actually build a secure AP system and load it up with a couple of names. You know: just for fun. In other words, Herr Brabeck, you might want to rethink your position a bit. Do you REALLY want to make an enemy of practically all of humanity? Just stick to poisoning the world with your powdered baby milk formulas and candy bars and maybe you’ll live to a ripe old age.
https://www.wired.com/2001/04/jim-bells-strange-day-in-court/ Declan McCullagh Apr 10, 2001 6:30 AM Jim Bell's Strange Day in Court The cypherpunk accused of threatening federal agents accuses his attorney of making death threats, admits stealing mail and then takes the Fifth. His attorney asks for a mistrial. Declan McCullagh reports from Tacoma, Washington. TACOMA, Washington – The trial of an Internet essayist accused of stalking federal agents took a bizarre turn after the defendant admitted to stealing U.S. mail and accused his attorney of delivering death threats. An increasingly agitated Jim Bell, author of the controversial "Assassination Politics" essay, told a jury on Monday that he was unfairly barred from presenting "six hours of testimony" about a campaign against him by IRS agents and he wanted to fire his court-appointed defense attorney. Bell's lawyer, Robert Leen, twice asked U.S. District Judge Jack Tanner to halt the proceedings because his client had a "major mental disorder." Tanner, who had previously ruled that Bell was fit to stand trial, denied the requests. The 43-year-old chemist and entrepreneur took the witness stand on Friday to argue he had been conducting a lawful investigation into official corruption while compiling names and home addresses of government agents. Bell is charged with five counts of interstate stalking, and jury deliberations are scheduled to begin Tuesday morning. On Sunday, Leen visited his client at the nearby SeaTac prison, which apparently prompted Bell's accusations in open court. Bell testified calmly on Friday, regaling jurors with tales of how public key encryption and anonymous remailers worked, but by Monday had become embittered and combative. He said that his attorney "communicated a threat" against Bell and Bell's family during the meeting, and "threatened to cut me off after 30 minutes if I mentioned" accusations against fellow prisoners. Bell also acknowledged under oath that he had raided the mailbox of a person he mistakenly believed to be a Treasury Department agent, recorded personal information from those letters, then discarded them during dinner at a nearby McDonald's. Although Bell is not charged with that crime, a conviction would carry a fine and a sentence of up to five years in prison. During cross-examination, Bell invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked about $2,000 a month in trust fund income not reported on a statement that he signed in November 2000 to qualify for a court-appointed lawyer. Because of that document, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robb London said, Bell "is in peril of being charged with perjury." "You weren't aware of the trust account that is maintained by you?" London asked about the Bell's shares of the Templeton Emerging Markets Fund. "Have you no shame?" Bell replied. "I'm taking the Fifth Amendment, which even innocent people are entitled to do." Bell said since he was no longer represented by counsel, the prosecutor's continued questions were inappropriate. "I'm concerned about your tactics," he said. "I don't believe I should be questioned under these circumstances.... I've been denied 15 defense witnesses. This is not a fair trial." Tanner has quashed all of Bell's subpoenas aimed at U.S. Marshals, prosecutors, defense attorneys and former and current prisoners, saying they were not relevant. Tanner has denied repeated motions for a mistrial from Bell's lawyer, in addition to motions to withdraw as counsel. Most Popular culture Why Adam Levine's Cringe DMs Are Perfect for the Meme Machine Chris Stokel-Walker gear Put a Little Power Cube Under Your Couch Eric Ravenscraft security The Ungodly Surveillance of Anti-Porn ‘Shameware’ Apps Dhruv Mehrotra gear Give Your Back a Break With Our Favorite Office Chairs Julian Chokkattu "Mr. Leen does not represent me," Bell said. "I wonder if it's legally proper for them to question me without counsel present." The Vancouver, Washington resident said he was coerced into taking a plea agreement on July 18, 1997, in which he admitted to obstructing IRS agents, writing "Assassination Politics" and stink-bombing the carpet outside an IRS office. "Much of that plea was basically fictional," Bell said. He said he was "given a pill the previous day. "I was groggy and sleepy." Upon questioning from London, the prosecutor, Bell said he never filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. London suggested that there were two types of U.S. citizens: Those who were federal agents and those who are not. He said that Treasury Department agent Jeff Gordon was authorized to investigate Bell, but that Bell inappropriately researched information on Gordon. "Do you understand that (Jeff Gordon) is given authority (as a) duly authorized law enforcement officer?" London asked. This case raises the question of what actions are protected by the First Amendment's guarantees of free expression and what crosses the line and becomes illegal harassment. Because Bell repeatedly said he would not violate the law, Leen had hoped to raise a First Amendment defense – essentially saying that because the law protects advocacy of violent acts, the jury can find Bell to be not guilty as charged. Leen asked the judge to incorporate a First Amendment defense in instructions to the jury. But Tanner nixed that idea. He said he did not believe Bell was engaged in political speech. "Are the IRS laws political?" Tanner asked. "I thought they were passed by Congress and signed by the president." Tanner suggested the IRS was as apolitical as a highway "speed limit." "I'm going to deny those instructions," Tanner said, which means the jury will not consider the First Amendment implications of the charges against Bell. Bell has complained that the media was "boycotting" his trial. On Sunday, his mother, Lou Bell, sent e-mail to members of the cypherpunks list saying: "Please send messages to the following newspapers and ask them why they haven't been following the trial of James Bell in federal court in Tacoma. There will be extremely important testimony by James Bell on Monday."
https://thepriceofliberty.org/2021/12/20/ideas-for-liberty-the-jim-bell-syst... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Planet_for_Texans Ideas for liberty – the Jim Bell System revisited Posted on December 20, 2021 by TPOL Nathan A few weeks back, someone suggested in a comment that it might be time to set up the “Jim Bell System.” This idea, also known as a type of “Assassination Politics” was invented back in 1995 by an anarchocapitalist (or crypto-anarchist) seeking a way to directly address tyranny and the seeking-to-be-omnipotent State. For details on his original proposal, visit this website. It provides the complete series of essays he wrote between 1995 and 1997. (For readers’ convenience, I’m providing an extract of his proposal at the end of this commentary.) But in brief, people use crypto-currency, digital cash, and online encryption to establish organizations which are clearinghouses for people to bet on exactly when some politician or leader or bureaucrat – at home or abroad – croaks, and put their money down. As the pot grows, lottery style, one of those bettors bets on a specific date and covers his/her bet by ensuring (in some manner) that the subject of the bet does indeed die. And then anonymously claims the stake anonymously, in one or more forms of cryptocurrency which is untraceable. For those more interested, visit this website which more recently exposed Mr. Bell’s invention and addresses the pros and cons of the entire concept. The Price of Liberty takes no stand on the entire idea. It is beyond our limited understanding of encryption, anonymity, and cryptocurrencies – or gold bars, for that matter – to be able to evaluate. It appears feasible. Although I do not think there is a connection, the proposal is very much reminiscent of the major plot device in H. Beam Piper’s Lone Star Planet, also known as A Planet for Texans from 1957, in which Assassination Politics (AP) is the key feature of government on a distant, long-colonized planet. It has even more in common with another novel, which I often conflate with Piper’s story. On that planet, all of the politicians in office wear explosive collars tied wirelessly to a system of voting booths in which citizens can express their disapproval of the politician’s actions. If the weight of votes is sufficient, a signal is sent to the collar, and bang! – there is one less dastardly politician infesting the body politic. (If a reader can identify the forgotten name of that novel, please let us here at TPOL know!) But the Jim Bell System goes beyond that. The explosive collar idea requires that there BE a government. As did Piper’s system. AP claims to require NO organized government or even a public organization – everything is done anonymously and online, using current technology and methods. And although “legal” could function even if made illegal by government. Other than a fascinating look at an idea that is very much “outside the box” the issue here at The Price of Liberty is a simple one. Is this (as Jim Bell labeled it) a form of “murder by hire”? Or just plain encouraging/inciting murder? Or is it actually a legitimate (and moral) form of self-defense against those tyrants, large and small, that infest our society, our nations, and our world? What do you, dear reader, think? And is it truly a solution, or just another idea (a form of technology) that can be used as much for evil as for good? Would government begin using this against the people? Would this open Pandora’s Box anew? For almost three decades, free-market and other anarchists and even minarchists have been discussing this. Is it time to seriously consider this? Let us here at TPOL know.
From Jim Bell’s third essay (found at this website):
…it should be possible to LEGALLY set up an organization which collects perfectly anonymous donations sent by members of the public, donations which instruct the organization to pay the amount to any person who correctly guesses the date of death of some named person, for example some un-favorite government employee or officeholder. The organization would total the amounts of the donations for each different named person, and publish that list (presumably on the Internet) on a daily or perhaps even an hourly basis, telling the public exactly how much a person would get for “predicting” the death of that particular target. Moreover, that organization would accept perfectly anonymous, untraceable, encrypted “predictions” by various means, such as the Internet (probably through chains of encrypted anonymous remailers), U.S. mail, courier, or any number of other means. Those predictions would contain two parts: A small amount of untraceable “digital cash,” inside the outer “digital envelope,” to ensure that the “predictor” can’t economically just randomly choose dates and names, and an inner encrypted data packet which is encrypted so that even the organization itself cannot decrypt it. That data packet would contain the name of the person whose death is predicted, and the date it is to happen. This encrypted packet could also be published, still encrypted, on the Internet, so as to be able to prove to the world, later, that SOMEBODY made that prediction before it happened, and was willing to “put money on it” by including it outside the inner encrypted “envelope.” The “predictor” would always lose the outer digital cash; he would only earn the reward if his (still-secret) prediction later became true. If, later on, that prediction came true, the “lucky” predictor would transmit the decrypt key to the organization, untraceably, which would apply it to the encrypted packet, and discover that it works, and read the prediction made hours, days, weeks, or even months earlier. Only then would the organization, or for that matter anyone else except the predictor, know the person or the date named. Also included in that inner encrypted digital “envelope” would be a public key, generated by the predictor for only this particular purpose: It would not be his “normal” public key, obviously, because that public key would be traceable to him. Also present in this packet the predictor has earned. (This presentation could be done indirectly, by an intermediary, to prevent a bank from being able to refuse to deal with the organization.) Those “digital cash” codes will then be encrypted using the public key included with the original prediction, and published in a number of locations, perhaps on the Internet in a number of areas, and available by FTP to anyone who’s interested. (It is assumed that this data will somehow get to the original predictor. Since it will get to “everyone” on the Internet, it will presumably be impossible to know where the predictor is.) Note, however, that only the person who sent the prediction (or somebody he’s given the secret key to in the interim) can decrypt that message, and in any case only he, the person who prepared the digital cash blanks, can fully “unbind” the digital cash to make it spendable, yet absolutely untraceable. (For a much more complete explanation of how so-called “digital cash” works, I refer you to the August 1992 issue of Scientific American.) About TPOL Nathan Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL. View all posts by TPOL Nathan → This entry was posted in Nathan's Rants and tagged anarcho-capitalism, anarchy, assassination politics, crypto-anarchist, Jim Bell, liberty. Bookmark the permalink. ← US military establishment – too bloated to work? Honor, self-respect, and … love? → 10 Responses to Ideas for liberty – the Jim Bell System revisited jim nbell says: April 7, 2022 at 1:32 am 27 years ago, when I wrote the AP essay, it may have seemed far too radical, far too extreme, to awful to even consider. Today, April 7, 2022, we have Putin attacking Ukraine, and people are wondering how to take him out of his position. It is time for the AP system to operate! Like Reply Pingback: How stupid do you have to be, to be a senator? | The Price of Liberty pigpen51 says: December 28, 2021 at 1:58 am One other thing that I can see needing attention to. The person who is named must be some government toady, or politician, or other high profile person deserving of death. Otherwise, it is possible that a vindictive person might place a couple grand on the head of his old high school math teacher who made his or her life a living hell, just to see if they can get them whacked. Now, I might not be understanding this right, and this might not be possible, and if so, forgive me, and forget I even mentioned it. Another thing, before I lost my other computer, and all of the data, including my saved books, i had a book that spoke about a group of the people in the U.S. who got pissed with the government and started to eliminate some of the government officers, like the BATFE’s and personal assistants to Senators, the head of planned parenthood, an odd Senator or Represenative, and then, as they became more bold, people who supported them in the nation started to help with the task, killing people like the DC head cop, etc. The main person who started it was some retired SOF guy, with a huge stockpile of weapons, of course, and friends. If anyone has an idea of the name of this book I would love to find it and download it again. someone sent the link to me, it was a freebie. I think it was like 600 pages long, but a good read. I am not saying that I would ever be involved in a scenario like that, but if a civil war were to break out, that is probably the only way to win it, just like the Vietnamese and the sort of how the Afghans did, by being smart, and hitting and running. Although from a few friends who went to Afghanistan told me that sometimes, the Afghans were simply stupid. They would take 2 toyota trucks, full of men with AK 47’s and drive up to the main gate, jump out and run to the gate, while a SAW simply mowed them down, to the last man. The one friend was from work, and he mostly rode shotgun from Kuwait to Bagdad every other day. But when he was in Afghanistan for a month, he said that 3-4 times he saw the trucks come at dusk to the gate, and the guards simply let them get out, run up to the gate, and then mowed them down. Our shop gave this guy, a former Marine, and a member of the National Guard or the Reserves or something, a computer, a bunch of phone cards, I think, some things for his wife and kids, they treated him really good. When he came back, within less than 2 months, they fired him. Total jackasses. Trumped up charges, but they made certain that their expensive lawyers were involved, so you cannot win. Like Reply TPOL Nathan says: December 28, 2021 at 5:50 pm Pigpen, that is an interesting thought. Is the Jim Bell System “just” an anti-government method, or can it be applied to anyone who is aggressing against people? And who limits the potential targets? (And how?) For example, would the CEO of General Motors have been a legitimate target (that is, violence in defense/for self-protection or protection of your family) back in 1964 for producing the Chevy Corvair? Or would the boards of Big Tobacco be legit targets for selling tobacco? There are very thin lines here, aren’t there? Many people agree with you that an unconventional, even low-intensity urban and rural warfare is the best, if not only, way to overthrow an entrenched tyrannical government. And that the more violence and threatened violence against ordinary people and military veterans and lovers of liberty is done, the more people are driven to resistance: not just civil disobedience and passive resistance but active guerilla warfare against the state and those they see as allied to and supporting the state. Situations like that you describe with the veteran can and have led to such things in the past, even here in the Fifty States in recent years. Yes, many Afghans were stupid – but a good many of those were simply tools for the more cunning: religious fervor can lead to that sort of suicidally-stupid action. But it still benefited the groups and people resisting the occupation by the ferengi. And at the same time, reduced the problems they faced during the US withdrawal (and now): it “purified” the population of the most fanatical. Like Reply Slave Larry says: December 21, 2021 at 5:28 am “Bind them down with the chains of the constitution.” How’s that worked out for ya. There is no justice in this life. They literally “Believe” they are God. From POTUS to the local code enforcer. There must be consequences or it just gets worse. Like Reply TPOL Nathan says: December 22, 2021 at 11:54 am Right to the point, Larry. Among others, Boston T Party and Tom Knapp have pointed that that the Bill of Rights really doesn’t have an enforcement provision. The impeachment process has been demonstrated to be nothing but a political, partisan game – all image and grandstanding. And Congress has virtually nothing – vote them out of office? Come on! And recall elections? Depends as much on the alternative person proposed as it does abuse of power or law-breaking by the incumbent. Like Reply jim bell says: December 23, 2021 at 1:32 am Thank you for your coverage and comments. Jim Bell, author of Assassination politics. I occasionally do a web search for ‘ “assassination politics” jim bell’. I can usually be found on the Cypherpunks email list. Like TPOL Nathan says: December 24, 2021 at 6:36 pm Jim, you honor me and all of us here at TPOL. You have suffered much for the cause of liberty, and we salute you. Like Steve says: December 20, 2021 at 4:59 pm Bell’s system needs a couple further things to be moral, in my opinion. First, there can not be anything even resembling to a bounty. Instead, some form of a bet needs to be in place. Maybe a betting pool, where for a buck or a sawbuck, you get to choose a date and time. That might actually be enough, though I’m also inclined to think you need one thing more — a way to retract your “bet”. People change. Situations change. I think that’s probably achievable with just the outer wrapper. At the option’s expiration, either the original owner can supply the key and redeem the coupon, or maybe you choose a beneficiary — at expiration, your proceeds go to the orphanage or whomever you chose. Others buying into the pool could also see when various bets were expiring. If the pot isn’t worth it, or won’t be worth it when a bunch of the pot disappears next Thursday, he just doesn’t bet. In this way, there’s always a way for someone on the list to repent, and if enough of the pool assigned reasonable expirations, the repentance can still have some worldly impact. Like Reply TPOL Nathan says: December 22, 2021 at 9:58 am Good thoughts and ideas. Remember Jim Bell first proposed his idea quite a while ago, as far as technology and issues (and divisions in the States) are measured. Like Reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGem5m9Sr6g Paddock, Serco, Death Pool Betting https://altcensored.com/watch?v=YSn7Iomisyc https://alekbo.com/bitcoin/the-jim-bell-system.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356893936_Assassination_politics_We... Assassination politics, Weapons of Mass Destruction and IT - a timeline based on quoted texts with references, and main focus on South Africa, the US and Sweden ThinePreparedAni US Space Force Fan In a sea of cognitive dissonance Member since Mar 2013 10469 posts Posted on 12/25/21 at 8:53 pm to notiger1997 quote: Las Vegas shooter. My favorite speculation Themes: death pool betting (see Gizmodo article below as this is a real thing...) pedophile blackmail rings It is speculated that Paddock was a promoter of a VIP junkent room that fielded very high rolling clients "betting" on murders... It gets very tangential, but bulk of discussion is at 56:10 (but the whole discussion is very interesting...) youtube quote: Paddock, Serco and Death Pool Betting An In-Depth Conversation quote: Serco is the biggest company you never heard of. Are they somehow connected to Stephen Paddock? Did this multinational conglomerate play a role in the Las Vegas massacre of October 1? Are there shadowy groups of wealthy elites who finance assassinations through evil "death pool" betting syndicates? Talk about market forces! Absolutely fascinating and terrifying...
https://gizmodo.com/behind-the-sordid-world-of-online-assasination-betting-1... Behind the Sordid World of Online Assassination Betting By Jamie Bartlett 6/01/15 11:35AM https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/the-dark-net/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09TT41PRW https://www.amazon.com/dp/1612194893 I have heard rumors about this website, but I still cannot quite believe that it exists. I am looking at what I think is a hit list. There are photographs of people I recognize—prominent politicians, mostly—and, next to each, an amount of money. The site’s creator, who uses the pseudonym Kuwabatake Sanjuro, thinks that if you could pay to have someone murdered with no chance—I mean absolutely zero chance—of being caught, you would. That’s one of the reasons why he has created the Assassination Market. There are four simple instructions listed on its front page: * Add a name to the list * Add money to the pot in the person’s name * Predict when that person will die * Correct predictions get the pot The Assassination Market can’t be found with a Google search. It sits on a hidden, encrypted part of the internet that, until recently, could only be accessed with a browser called The Onion Router, or Tor. Tor began life as a U.S. Naval Research Laboratory project, but today exists as a not-for-profit organization, partly funded by the U.S. government and various civil liberties groups, allowing millions of people around the world to browse the internet anonymously and securely. To put it simply, Tor works by repeatedly encrypting computer activity and routing it via several network nodes, or “onion routers,” in so doing concealing the origin, destination, and content of the activity. Users of Tor are untraceable, as are the websites, forums, and blogs that exist as Tor Hidden Services, which use the same traffic encryption system to cloak their location. The Assassination Market may be hosted on an unfamiliar part of the net, but it’s easy enough to find, if you know how to look. All that’s required is simple (and free) Tor software. Then sign up, follow the instructions, and wait. It is impossible to know the number of people who are doing exactly that, but at the time of writing, if I correctly predict the date of the death of Ben Bernanke, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, I’d receive approximately $56,000. It may seem like a fairly pointless bet. It’s very difficult to guess when someone is going to die. That’s why the Assassination Market has a fifth instruction: * Making your prediction come true is entirely optional The Dark Net The Assassination Market is a radical example of what people do online when under the cover of real or perceived anonymity. Beyond the more familiar world of Google, Hotmail, and Amazon lies another side to the internet: the dark net. For some, the dark net refers to the encrypted world of Tor Hidden Services, where users cannot be traced, and cannot be identified. For others, it is those sites not indexed by conventional search engines: an unknowable realm of password-protected dissident movements, pages, unlinked websites, and hidden content accessible only to those in the know, sometimes referred to as the “deep web.” It has also become a catchall term for the myriad shocking, disturbing, and controversial corners of the net—the realm of imagined criminals and lurking predators. The dark net, for me, describes an idea more than a particular place: internet underworlds set apart yet connected to the internet we inhabit, worlds of freedom and anonymity, where users say and do what they like, often uncensored, unregulated, and outside of society’s norms. It is dark because we rarely see these parts of digital life, save the occasional flash of a hysterical news report or shocking statistic. This is not a book about Tor, since the net is full of obscure corners, of secret back alleys on parts of the internet you likely already know: social media sites, normal websites, forums, chat rooms. I focus instead on those digital cultures and communities that appear, to those that aren’t part of them, dark, insidious, and beyond society’s gaze—wherever I found them. This dark net is rarely out of the news—with stories of young people sharing homemade pornography, of cyberbullies and trolls tormenting strangers, of hackers stealing and leaking personal photos, of political or religious extremists peddling propaganda, of illegal goods, drugs, and confidential documents only a click or two away appearing in headlines almost daily—but it is still a world that is, for the most part, unexplored and little understood. In reality, few people have ventured into the darker recesses of the net to study these sites in any detail. I started researching radical social and political movements in 2007, when I spent two and a half years following Islamist extremists around Europe and North America, trying to piece together a fragmented and largely disjointed real-world network of young men who sympathized with al-Qaeda ideology. By the time I’d finished my work in 2010, the world seemed to be different. Every new social or political phenomenon I encountered—from conspiracy theorists to far-right activists to drug cultures—was increasingly located and active online. I would frequently interview the same person twice—once online and then again in real life—and feel as if I was speaking to two different people. I was finding parallel worlds with different rules, different patterns of behavior, different protagonists. Every time I thought I’d reached the bottom of one online culture, I discovered other connected, secretive realms still unexplored. Some required a level of technical knowhow to access, some were extremely easy to find. Although an increasingly important part of many people’s lives and identities, these online spaces are mostly invisible: out of reach and out of view. So I went in search of them. My journey took me to new places online and offline. I became the moderator of an infamous trolling group and spent weeks in forums dedicated to cutting, starving, or killing yourself. I explored the labyrinthine world of Tor Hidden Services in search of drugs, and to study child pornography networks. I witnessed online wars between neo-Nazis and antifascists on popular social media sites, and signed up to the latest porn channels to examine current trends in homemade erotica. I visited a Barcelona squat with anarchist Bitcoin programmers, run-down working men’s clubs to speak to extreme nationalists, and a messy bedroom to observe three girls make a small fortune performing sexually explicit acts on camera to thousands of viewers. By exploring and comparing these worlds, I also hoped to answer a difficult question: do the features of anonymity and connectivity free the darker sides of our nature? And if so, how? The Dark Net is not an effort to weigh up the pros and cons of the internet. The same anonymity that allows the Assassination Market to operate also keeps whistleblowers, human-rights campaigners, and activists alive. For every destructive subculture I examined there are just as many that are positive, helpful, and constructive. Because the internet has become so interwoven into the fabric of our lives, it presents a challenge to our existing notions of anonymity, privacy, freedom, and censorship—throwing up new challenges not yet resolved: should we have the right to complete anonymity online? Are our “digital” identities distinct from our “real” ones—and what does that mean? Are we prone to behave in particular ways when we sit behind a screen? What are the limits of free expression in a world where every idea is a click away? Particularly since the revelations of the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, these questions dominate debates and discussion about the role of internet privacy and freedom in an increasingly digital world. I don’t propose any easy answers or solutions. I’m not sure that there are any. This book is not a polemic—more modestly, it is a series of portraits about how these issues play out at the fringes. I leave it entirely to you to decide what you think it means. Connected The net as we know it started life in the late 1960s, as a small scientific project funded and run by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), a development arm of the U.S. military. The Pentagon hoped to create an “Arpanet” of linked computers to help top American academics share data sets and valuable computer space. In 1969, the first networked connection was made between two computers in California. It was a network that slowly grew. In July 1973, Peter Kirstein, a young professor of computer science at University College London, connected the UK to the Arpanet via the Atlantic seabed phone cables, a job that made Kirstein the first person in the UK online. “I had absolutely no idea what it would become!” Kirstein tells me. “None of us did. We were scientists and academics focused on trying to build and maintain a system which allowed data to be shared quickly and easily.” The Arpanet, and its successor, the internet, was built on principles that would allow these academics to work effectively together: a network that was open, decentralized, accessible, and censorship-free. These ideas would come to define what the internet stood for: an unlimited world of people, information, and ideas. The invention of Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) in 1978, and Usenet in 1979–80, introduced a new generation to life online. Unlike the cloistered Arpanet, Usenet and BBS, the forerunners of the chat room and forum, were available to anyone with a modem and a home computer. Although small, slow, and primitive by today’s standards, they were attracting thousands of people intrigued by a new virtual world. By the mid-nineties and the emergence of Tim Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web, the internet was fully transformed: from a niche underground haunt frequented by computer hobbyists and academics, to a popular hangout accessed by millions of excited neophytes. According to John Naughton, Professor of the Public Understanding of Technology at the Open University, cyberspace at this time was more than just a network of computers. Users saw it as “a new kind of place,” with its own culture, its own identity, and its own rules. The arrival of millions of “ordinary” people online stimulated fears and hopes about what this new form of communication might do to us. Many techno-optimists, such as the cheerleaders for the networked revolution Wired and Mondo 2000 magazines, believed cyberspace would herald a new dawn of learning and understanding, even the end of the national state. The best statement of this view was the American essayist and prominent cyberlibertarian John Perry Barlow’s 1996 “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,” which announced to the real world that “your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us . . . our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion.” Barlow believed that the lack of censorship and the anonymity that the net seemed to offer would foster a freer, more open society, because people could cast off the tyranny of their fixed real-world identities and create themselves anew. (The New Yorker put it more succinctly: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”) Leading psychologists of the day, such as MIT professor Sherry Turkle in her influential 1995 study of internet identity, Life on the Screen, offered a cautious welcome to the way that online life could allow people to work through the different elements of their identity. But others worried what might happen if no one knows you’re a dog. Parents panicked about children infected with “modem fever.” Soon after Turkle’s study, another psychologist, John Suler, was studying the behavior of participants in early chat rooms. He found that participants tended to be more aggressive and angry online than offline. He suggested this was because, when protected by a screen, people feel that real-world social restrictions, responsibilities, and norms don’t apply. Whether actual or perceived, anonymity, thought Suler, would allow you to explore your identity, but it might also allow you to act without fear of being held accountable (in 2001 he would call this “The Online Disinhibition Effect”). It’s true that from the outset, many BBS and Usenet subscribers were treating cyberspace as a realm for all sorts of bizarre, creative, offensive, and illegal behavior. In Usenet’s “Alternative” hierarchy, anyone could set up a discussion group about anything they wanted. The first group was alt.gourmand, a forum for recipes. This was swiftly followed by alt.sex, alt.drugs and alt.rock-n-roll. “Alt.,” as it came to be known, immediately became the most popular part of Usenet by far. Alongside purposeful and serious groups for literature, computing, or science, Usenet and BBS contained many more dedicated to cyberbullying, hacking, and pornography. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death It was in this heady atmosphere that the radical libertarian Jim Bell first took the promise of online anonymity to a terrifying conclusion. In late 1992, a group of radical libertarians from California called the “cypherpunks” set up an email list to propose and discuss how cyberspace could be used to guarantee personal liberty, privacy, and anonymity. Bell, a contributor to the list, believed that if citizens could use the internet to send secret encrypted messages and trade using untraceable currencies, it would be possible to create a functioning market for almost anything. In 1995, he set out his ideas in an essay called “Assassination Politics,” which he posted to the email list. It made even the staunchly libertarian cypherpunks wince. Bell proposed that an organization be set up that would ask citizens to make anonymous digital cash donations to the prize pool of a public figure. The organization would award the prize to whoever correctly predicted that person’s death. This, argued Bell, wasn’t illegal, it was just a type of gambling. But here’s the ruse: if enough people were sufficiently angry with a particular individual—each anonymously contributing just a few dollars—the prize pool would become so large that someone would be incentivized to make a prediction and then fulfill it themselves in order to take the pot. This is where encrypted messages and untraceable payment systems come in. A crowd-sourced—and untraceable—murder would unfold as follows. First, the would-be assassin sends his prediction in an encrypted message that can be opened only by a digital code known to the person who sent it. He then makes the kill and sends the organization that code, which would unlock his (correct) prediction. Once verified by the organization, presumably by watching the news, the prize money—in the form of a digital currency donated to the pot—would be publicly posted online as an encrypted file. Again, that file can be unlocked only by a “key” generated by whoever made the prediction. Without anyone knowing the identity of anyone else, the organization would be able to verify the prediction and award the prize to the person who made it. The best bit, thought Bell, was that internet-enabled anonymity safeguarded all parties, except perhaps the killer (and his or her victim). Even if the police discovered who’d been contributing to the cash prizes of people on the list, the donors could truthfully respond that they had never directly asked for anyone to be killed. The organization that ran the market couldn’t help either, because they wouldn’t know who had donated, who had made predictions or who had unlocked the cash file. But Bell’s idea was about more than getting away with murder. He believed that this system would exert a populist pressure on elected representatives to be good. The worse the offender—the more he or she outraged his or her citizens—the more likely they were to accumulate a large pool, and incentivize potential assassins. (Bell believed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini would all have been killed had such a market existed at the time.) Ideally, no one would need to be killed. Bell hoped the very existence of this market would mean no one would dare throw their hat into the ring at all. “Perfect anonymity, perfect secrecy, and perfect security,” he wrote, “. . . combined with the ease and security with which these contributions could be collected, would make being an abusive government employee an extremely risky proposition. Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner would even risk staying in office.” In 1995, when Bell wrote “Assassination Politics,” this was all hypothetical. Although Bell believed his market would ultimately lead to the collapse of every government in the world, reality hadn’t caught up with his imagination. Nearly two decades later, with the creation of digital currencies like Bitcoin, anonymous browsers like Tor and trustworthy encryption systems, it had, and Bell’s vision was realized. “Killing is in most cases wrong, yes,” Sanjuro wrote when he launched the Assassination Market in the summer of 2013: However, this is an inevitable direction in the technological evolution . . . When someone uses the law against you and/or infringes upon your rights to life, liberty, property, trade or the pursuit of happiness, you may now, in a safe manner from the comfort of your living room, lower their life-expectancy in return. There are, today, at least half a dozen names on the Assassination Market. Although it is frightening, no one, as far as I can tell, has been assassinated. Its significance lies not in its effectiveness, but in its existence. It is typical of the sort of creativity and innovation that characterizes the dark net: a place without limits, a place to push boundaries, a place to express ideas without censorship, a place to sate our curiosities and desires, whatever they may be. All dangerous, magnificent, and uniquely human qualities. Excerpted from The Dark Net: Inside the Digital Underworld by Jamie Bartlett. Copyright © 2015. Courtesy of Melville House. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reprinted, reproduced, posted on another website or distributed by any means without the written permission of the publisher. The US edition of The Dark Net: Inside the Digital Underworld comes out tomorrow, June 2. We’ll be hosting Bartlett for a live Q&A tomorrow at 3 pm ET on Gizmodo, but until then, check out the first few chapters on Bartlett’s deep dive into the web’s most sordid corners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterbots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_autonomous_weapon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA Slaughterbots Slaughterbots is a 2017 arms-control advocacy video presenting a dramatized near-future scenario where swarms of inexpensive microdrones use artificial intelligence and facial recognition to assassinate political opponents based on preprogrammed criteria. The video was released onto YouTube by the Future of Life Institute and Stuart Russell, a professor of computer science at Berkeley, on 12 November 2017.[1] The video quickly went viral, gaining over two million views.[2][3] The video was also screened to the November 2017 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons meeting in Geneva.[4] A sequel, Slaughterbots – if human: kill() (2021), presented additional hypothetical scenarios of attacks on civilians, and called on the UN to ban autonomous weapons that target people.[5] Contents 1 Video 2 Production 3 Feasibility 4 Cultural reception 5 See also 6 References 7 External links Video Students attempt to flee lethal microdrones The dramatization, seven minutes in length, is set in a Black Mirror-style near future.[6][7] Small, palm-sized autonomous drones using facial recognition and shaped explosives can be programmed to seek out and eliminate known individuals or classes of individuals (such as individuals wearing an enemy military uniform). A tech executive pitches that nuclear weapons are now "obsolete": a $25 million order of "unstoppable" drones can kill half a city. As the video unfolds, the technology get re-purposed by unknown parties to assassinate political opponents, from sitting congressmen to student activists identified via their Facebook profiles. In one scene, the swarming drones coordinate with each other to gain entrance to a building: a larger drone blasts a hole in a wall to give access to smaller ones.[1][8][9] The dramatization is followed by a forty-second entreaty by Russell: "This short film is more than just speculation; it shows the results of integrating and miniaturizing technologies that we already have... AI's potential to benefit humanity is enormous, even in defense, but allowing machines to choose to kill humans will be devastating to our security and freedom."[8][10] Production According to Russell, "What we were trying to show was the property of autonomous weapons to turn into weapons of mass destruction automatically because you can launch as many as you want... and so we thought a video would make it very clear." Russell also expressed a desire to displace the unrealistic and unhelpful Hollywood "Terminator" conception of autonomous weapons with something more realistic.[11] The video was produced by Space Digital at MediaCityUK and directed by Stewart Sugg with location shots at Hertfordshire University[12] and in Edinburgh. Edinburgh was chosen because the filmmakers "needed streets that would be empty on a Sunday morning" for the shots of armed police patrolling deserted streets, and because the location is recognizable to international audiences.[13] All of the drones were added in post-production.[11][14] Feasibility In December 2017 The Economist assessed the feasibility of Slaughterbots in relation to the U.S. MAST and DCIST microdrone programs. MAST currently has a cyclocopter that weighs less than 30 grams, but that has the downside of being easily disturbed by its own reflected turbulence when too close to a wall. Another candidate is something like Salto, a 98-gram hopping robot, which performs better than cyclocopters in confined spaces. The level of autonomous inter-drone coordination shown in Slaughterbots is currently not available, but that is starting to change, with drone swarms being used for aerial displays. Overall The Economist agreed that "slaughterbots" may become feasible in the foreseeable future: "In 2008, a spy drone that you could hold in the palm of your hand was an idea from science fiction. Such drones are now commonplace... When DCIST wraps up in 2022, the idea of Slaughterbots may seem a lot less fictional than it does now." The Economist is skeptical that arms control could prevent such a militarization of drone swarms: "As someone said of nuclear weapons after the first one was detonated, the only secret worth keeping is now out: the damn things work".[1] Paul Scharre of the Center for a New American Security disagreed with the feasibility of the video's scenario, stating that "Every military technology has a countermeasure, and countermeasures against small drones aren't even hypothetical. The U.S. government is actively working on ways to shoot down, jam, fry, hack, ensnare, or otherwise defeat small drones. The microdrones in the video could be defeated by something as simple as chicken wire. The video shows heavier-payload drones blasting holes through walls so that other drones can get inside, but the solution is simply layered defenses." Scharre also stated that Russell's implied proposal, a legally binding treaty banning autonomous weapons, "won't solve the real problems humanity faces as autonomy advances in weapons. A ban won't stop terrorists from fashioning crude DIY robotic weapons... In fact, it's not even clear whether a ban would prohibit the weapons shown in the video, which are actually fairly discriminate."[2] In April 2018 the governmental Swiss Drones and Robotics Centre, referencing Slaughterbots, tested a 3-gram shaped charge on a head model and concluded that "injuries are so severe that the chances of survival are very small".[15][16] Cultural reception Matt McFarland of CNN opined that "Perhaps the most nightmarish, dystopian film of 2017 didn't come from Hollywood". McFarland also stated that the debate over banning killer robots had taken a "sensationalistic" turn: In 2015, "they relied on open letters and petitions with academic language", and used dry language like 'armed quadcopters'. Now, in 2017, "they are warning of 'slaughterbots'".[17] Andrew Yang linked to Slaughterbots from a tweet during his 2020 U.S. Presidential primary candidacy.[18] The sequel video, published 30 November 2021, had over two million views on YouTube by 8 December.[19] See also Lethal autonomous weapon "Hated in the Nation", a Black Mirror TV series episode that features bee-like drones References "Military robots are getting smaller and more capable", The Economist, 14 December 2017, retrieved 21 January 2018 Scharre, Paul (22 December 2017). "Why You Shouldn't Fear 'Slaughterbots'". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Retrieved 21 January 2018. "Slaughterbots". YouTube. 12 November 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018. "UC Berkeley professor's eerie lethal drone video goes viral". SFGate. 18 November 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018. Knight, Will (2021). "Autonomous Weapons Are Here, but the World Isn't Ready for Them". Wired. Retrieved 31 December 2021. "Watch 'Slaughterbots,' A Warning About the Future of Killer Bots". Motherboard (Vice Media). 13 November 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018. Dvorsky, George. "Artificially Intelligent Drones Become Terrifying Killing Machines in Dystopian Short Film". Gizmodo. Retrieved 21 January 2018. Ian Sample (13 November 2017), "Ban on killer robots urgently needed, say scientists", The Guardian, retrieved 21 January 2018 Mikelionis, Lukas (21 November 2017). "UC Berkeley professor's 'slaughterbots' video on killer drones goes viral". Fox News. Retrieved 21 January 2018. "Watch out for 'killer robots,' UC Berkeley professor warns in video". The Mercury News. 20 November 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018. ""As much death as you want": UC Berkeley's Stuart Russell on "Slaughterbots"". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 5 December 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018. "Film produced by Hertfordshire University staff and students goes viral". Hertfordshire University. 28 November 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018. "Edinburgh used for 'killer drone' film". BBC News. 21 November 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018. "Killer drone attacks filmed in Edinburgh to highlight artificial intelligence fears". The Scotsman. 21 November 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018. "Fake news? Lethal effect of micro drones". www.ar.admin.ch. Retrieved 2018-05-31. ""Einstein" bei den Robotern - TV - Play SRF". Play SRF (in German). Retrieved 2018-05-31. McFarland, Matt (14 November 2017). "'Slaughterbots' film shows potential horrors of killer drones". CNNMoney. Retrieved 21 January 2018. "Andrew Yang calls for global ban on killer robots". New York Post. 1 February 2020. Retrieved 31 December 2021. Mizokami, Kyle (8 December 2021). "A New Video Explains, in Graphic Terms, Why the United Nations Must Ban 'Slaughterbots'". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 31 December 2021. External links Slaughterbots (2017) on YouTube Slaughterbots – if human: kill() (2021) on YouTube Why You Shouldn't Fear 'Slaughterbots' (Scharre) Why You Should Fear 'Slaughterbots' — A Response (Russell et al)
https://twitter.com/SilverSpikeSam https://twitter.com/SamJournals/status/1500293691021352969 Sam Steele, Founder of The Silver Spike Society. @elias_714 @R1mElvis @zeemczed @hwinkler4real Look into an idea called "Assassination Politics" by Jim Bell. that would be exactly the sort of system we need for checks & balances. AP (not a new idea) (Read 2802 times) https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=36673.0 Joe Kelley Jr. Member ** Offline Offline Posts: 72 AP (not a new idea) « on: September 25, 2019, 03:01:05 pm » I first read Assassination Politics more than a decade ago, as documented on my own Web page, and from my Web page the link I have there is still a working link: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm I just stumbled on a YouTube presentation by Jim Bell, the author of Assassination Politics, as he eventually made his way out of prison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcJdvQvzlNU According to Jim Bell the first time someone announced the idea coincided with the sudden tripling of Bitcoin price. I follow this idea (not a new idea by the way) and so I saw the Forbes Article mentioned in the Jim Bell YouTube video above: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination... The date on that article is Nov 18, 2013, 08:30am. The Jim Bell Project is here: https://jimbellproject.org/press-release-hackers-congress-paralel-polis-oct-... The idea is simple, it is based upon this: "The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community." - 1 Hume, Appendix, l." (Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852) Anonymity for each individual is one thing, but group anonymity is altogether more difficult to maintain, along the lines of a chain being only as strong as the weakest link. For those who care not to peruse the AP information, I will quote a sound bite: "Last month I received an encrypted email from someone calling himself by the pseudonym Kuwabatake Sanjuro, who pointed me towards his recent creation: The website Assassination Market, a crowdfunding service that lets anyone anonymously contribute bitcoins towards a bounty on the head of any government official--a kind of Kickstarter for political assassinations. According to Assassination Market's rules, if someone on its hit list is killed--and yes, Sanjuro hopes that many targets will be--any hitman who can prove he or she was responsible receives the collected funds." Forbes « Last Edit: September 25, 2019, 03:03:52 pm by Joe Kelley » Logged Bill St. Clair Techie Sr. Member ***** Offline Offline Posts: 6852 End the War on Freedom Re: AP (not a new idea) « Reply #1 on: September 28, 2019, 02:27:05 pm » The normal way to collect an AP bounty is to make the closest estimate to time of death before the fact. Logged "The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair "Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair Joe Kelley Jr. Member ** Offline Offline Posts: 72 Re: AP (not a new idea) « Reply #2 on: September 28, 2019, 05:54:47 pm » “The normal way to collect an AP bounty is to make the closest estimate to time of death before the fact.”
From Assassination Politics by Jim Bell:
“If, later, the "prediction" came true, the predictor would presumably send yet another encrypted "envelope" to the organization, containing the decryption key for the previous "prediction" envelope, plus a public key (despite its name, to be used only once!) to be used for encryption of digital cash used as payment for the award. The organization would apply the decryption key to the prediction envelope, discover that it works, then notice that the prediction included was fulfilled on the date stated. The predictor would be, therefore, entitled to the award. Nevertheless, even then nobody would actually know WHO he is!” On the web page AP Part 9 is dated: February 27, 1996 I was on the National District 40 House of Representatives Ballot in 1996 as a Libertarian. My talking points included statements concerning burning alive men, women, pregnant women, children, babies, after torture for weeks, experiments, all by the “government” in Waco. The point I think that is worth noting here with this AP update, which includes an active Web Page today, is the point about assassinations already are funded, not an idea, not a future possibility, but a demonstrable fact that matters in each murder case. Example: THE COURT: Let me ask you, do all of you agree with this verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). Above are the Trial by Jury transcripts concerning an example of actual Assassination Politics. Whoever paid a penny, nickel, dime, or 100 pennies to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) (National Government in America) previous to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., for speaking the truth, is one of the documented investors in that (capital) murder. This “cause” to put Jim Bell in prison (for proposing an encrypted - anonymous - assassins for hire market competitor) is much like “democrats” blaming “republicans” for rigging an election. This is a basic deception, like a thief pointing and yelling “THIEF!” just before the thief perpetrates yet another theft while employing the same basic deception. Potential defenders of theft are sent on a wild goose chase so as to afford the actual thief the required anonymity.
RECORD NUMBER Of Americans Say Violence Against Gov Is JUSTIFIED Jan 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7FcRl3OoLs Citizens: Govt Overthrow Justified Plausible Or Overblown? Divided America Leads To Civil War Speculation By Keith Preston on January 29, 2022" ( 2 Comments ) https://attackthesystem.com/2022/01/29/plausible-or-overblown-divided-americ... https://youtu.be/2USneLGTnX8 Ten years ago, I thought that the US would be in 2042 where it is in 2022... jim bell says: January 29, 2022 at 5:52 pm https://cryptome.org/ap.htm My Assassination Politics essay. If you previously believed we wouldn t get there until 2042, that explains why you didn t want to discuss it. But now, things have changed. Effectively, we ARE there . If an AP system were operational, today, people would use it, even heavily. Government Itself is Immoral Corbett " 08/14/2022 " 198 Comments https://www.corbettreport.com/government-itself-is-immoral/ Courageous Lion says: 08/15/2022 at 12:32 pm For the NSA people here: Jim Bell s Assassination Politics would be a good way to reign in their pretend authority. For when those in government fear the people there is liberty, but when the people fear those in government there is tyranny. AP is all over the net. It did get Jim in trouble with the IRS though. They were concerned it might take hold. Fact is, with the new way that bit coin works, they better start thinking about what could come next. Cryptocurrency is Asbestos. April 21, 2022 1:40 PM https://www.metafilter.com/195090/Cryptocurrency-is-Asbestos rhamphorhynchus says at 5:03 PM on April 21 [7 favorites] the whole point from the start of cryptocurrency is to implement anarcho-capitalism Quite. Jim Bell's Assassination Politics was 1992 so anarchism, in a nasty libertarian Propaganda of the Deed sense, is pretty deeply ingrained. Ethereum is operating in perhaps the one of the most hostile computing environments that exists now Aye. More poetically, Ethereum is a Dark Forest (linked previously).
https://medium.com/coinmonks/bitcoin-assassination-markets-could-quickly-end... JVictor42 Mar 13 2022 Bitcoin assassination markets could quickly end war Writer and libertarian Tim Bell, described by Wired Magazine as “one of the Internet’s most famous essayists,” reported in 1997 that after the creation of an Internet-native cryptocurrency-such as Bitcoin (BTC)-the world’s first decentralized assassination markets would emerge. Bell describes in 10 articles entitled Assassination Politics, how these markets could work. Initially, the heads of dictators, despots and psychopaths could be put up for a bounty, similar to the jurisdiction of the American Old West, where there was a reward for criminals; “Wanted dead or alive.” The prize could easily be raised in a voluntary fundraiser done in cryptocurrency. How many people would be willing to pay the equivalent of $10 dollars to see their country’s dictator die? Perhaps millions. “Consider how history might have changed if we had been able to “overthrow” Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi, and several others, along with all their replacements if necessary, all for a measly few million dollars, instead of the billions of dollars and millions of lives that subsequent wars have cost.” — Tim Bell. The reward would then be awarded to whoever could accurately “predict” the day of death of the person with a price on his head. Usually, this person would be the killer himself. Payment would be made in cryptocurrency, so that it would not be possible to identify who received the prize. Russian-Ukrainian War If such a market already existed at a more advanced stage of trust and liquidity, Vladimir Putin’s head would certainly be on the line by now. Surely, many powerful people today already have an interest that the Russian pseudo-dictator disappears. However, allowing anonymous payment to anyone close enough to consummate the act — such as employees, friends or family members — exponentially increases the chance of an eventual attack. The same could happen with Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine, who has tyrannically prevented men from leaving the country, as well as politicians and high-ranking officials in the Russian and Ukrainian governments who are condoning these actions. “At the Village pizzeria, while they were sitting down to a pepperoni, Dorothy asked Jim: ‘So, what other inventions are you working on? Jim replied: ‘I have a new idea, but it’s really evolutionary. Literally REVOLUTIONARY.’ “Okay, Jim, which government are you planning to overthrow?” she asked, jokingly. ‘All of them,’ he replied.” Problems to be solved In order to create a market like this, some fundamental issues will need to be solved. Bitcoin needs to have more anonymity and fungibility, something that should occur over the next few years with updates and soft forks. Taproot, the last major update to the Bitcoin network, was another step toward making transactions harder to trace. When this occurs, and a market emerges that demonstrates trust and success in its first use cases, such as enabling the assassination of some small country dictator, it would certainly attract attention and funding from around the world. Like it? Consider donating some satoshis to this brazilian humble bitconer: 1BxmvJGdfPWFoXa6qQpk9FafmLT6BKxFJB An assassination market paid in bitcoin could potentially end hundreds of despot conflicts around the world in a much more efficient and less costly way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Esuqywo9k Lords of the New Church - Open Your Eyes They were trying to warn us 40 years ago. From 1982… " Video games train the kids for war Army chic in high-fashion stores Law and order’s done their job Prisons filled while the rich still rob Assassination politics Violence rules within’ our nation’s midst Well ignorance is their power tool You’ll only know what they want you to know The television cannot lie Controlling media with smokescreen eyes Nuclear politicians picture show The acting’s lousy but the blind don’t know Open your eyes See the lies right in front of ya Open your eyes They scare us all with threats of war So we forget just how bad things are You taste the fear when you’re all alone They gonna git’cha when you’re on your own The silence of conspiracy Slaughtered on the altar of apathy You gotta wake up from your sleep ‘Cause meek inherits earth six feet deep Open your eyes see the lies right in front of ya Open your eyes " https://www.ammoland.com/2022/03/wa-gun-owner-fury-erupts-as-lawmakers-pass-... WA Gun Owner Fury Erupts as Lawmakers Pass Magazine Ban CourageousLion 6 months ago Jim Bell's "Assassination Politics" Google it. -7 Getting Away with Murder: Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination and the Politics of Pakistan by Heraldo Munoz Heraldo Munoz is a Chilean politician who was appointed to head a UN Commission of Inquiry to investigate the assassination of former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto in December 2007. This book is kind of like an unofficial memoir of his experience investigating Bhutto’s assassination. It is a unique blend of a historical and political analysis of Pakistan in the style of Ahmed Rashid and a Whodunit murder investigation. https://www.richlandsource.com/life_and_culture/assassins-explores-the-dark-... 'Assassins' explores the dark side of the American dream at Theatre 166 By Brittany Schock, Engagement & Solutions Editor Oct 7, 2021 Antonio Brown is surrounded by presidential assassins demanding for their right to be happy in the musical "Assassins" premiering at Theatre 166 on Oct. 8. MANSFIELD — Everybody's got a right to their dreams. But what happens when you think that right has been taken away from you? In Stephen Sondheim's controversial musical "Assassins," the https://politicsandwar.com/bulletin/id=11338/chancellor-evades-assassination Chancellor Evades Assassination Bullet Strikes Chancellor, Assassins Commit Suicide By Baudric Ministry of Information 04/08/2022 12:50 pm November 30, 2074 (74/11/30) Yesterday, at 18:23, Chancellor Victor Leopold von Fettenberg was riding to his residence next to the palace in his limousine after what was supposedly a busy and stressful day at the Council of Representatives. With him, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lotta Gräfin von Pattentrop und Magersburg and King Brenner I's son and heir apparent, Crown Prince Brenner Jr.. They were discussing events in Parliament and the social unrest that been plaguing Baudric after the Chancellor's selection, with the limo driver occasionally chiming in. They would've headed to the palace directly to discuss foreign policy with Brenner I before heading to dinner and getting rest for the next grueling day. This wouldn't be the case that day, however, for a shot rings out as they pass the Sutenkräft Brewery, the three politicians take cover. There is a quick skirmish with the Chancellor's motorcade and what appears to be multiple assassins. The attackers are victorious, with all of the motorcade security killed in just two minutes. Witnesses reported eight assassins rapidly approaching the limo from their hiding spots, armed with bolt action rifles and assault rifles. The Chancellor and his entourage could've been killed if it wasn't for the quick thinking of the three and the involvement of the crowd. A crowd, both united conservatives and liberals, bravely blocked the path to the limo as von Pattentrop und Magersburg kicked the door on the left side, armed with emergency pistols. The assassins, whom were unwilling to kill civilians, continued pushing the crowd away, only to be met with gunshots from the three. The Chancellor's former military training allowed for the three to have the upper hand in the engagement, and with police reinforcements rapidly approaching the scene, the remaining attackers took their own lives. An autopsy statement released this morning revealed tattoos of the Reformist symbol on various body parts, which brought further suspicion that the Reformists were attempting to kill them. Brenner I, furious that his government and his son were almost killed, finally took a side and declared the Reformists illegal this morning, along with Chancellor von Fettenberg announcing that the security budget would increase significantly to prevent further attacks and hoping to make sure the social order isn't undermined. The palace released a statement to expect further attacks, but the Reformists will be brought to justice soon.
https://thelibertarianideal.com/2022/02/21/political-liquidation/ Political Liquidation 2022-02-21 chrisshaw1993 Chris Shaw Oscillations of political power, the expansion and contraction of sovereign and elite control, define the nature of conflict and cycles of politico-economic activity. Elites will always exist as political power is always in grasp so long as dynamics of status and wealth gains and the consolidation of support bases are possible. “The tendency in both the hard and soft managerial regimes has been for managerial forces to pervade all areas of political, economic, social, and intellectual life”[1]. Such consolidation is the hallmark of any elite structure. It must dominate and control so as prevent subversive elements and sub-elites from marking out their own territory and developing their own powerbases. The circulation of elites as Pareto called it is a consistent game of governance and power. Much of modern political thinking has concerned itself with the transformation and supersession of such conditions, forging a revolutionary moment or a balance of power so as to either destroy or nullify elite power structures. Elite cultivation is a long game though. It extends beyond the immediately political and into the cultural and meta-political. The slow accrual of power isn’t done through the electoral process and popular means of messaging. It begins in the institutions of high culture, universities, broadsheet newspapers, academic journals, education, etc. Slowly it filters down into the tabloid newspapers, news programmes and political manifestos. Such cultivation isn’t measured in election cycles but in decades, slowly transposing from a minority sub-elite to a larger power-elite. In this movement from abstract intellectualism to widespread propagation, this new elite creates positions and inculcates ideological frameworks that make wider structures and institutions reliant on their expertise, control of resources and/or capacity to judge. “Until one begins to list all the professions and activities which belong to the class, it is difficult to realize how numerous it is, how the scope for activities constantly increases in modern society, and how dependent on it we all have become”[2]. The expansion of Keynesian and neoliberal modes of thought out of economics departments and think tanks into elite policy circles, civil society, corporate management and government bureaucracies and the growth of a transgressive culture industry favouring minoritarian concerns and control over educational institutions are testament to this long march. Both popular politics and constitutional restraints struggle to meaningfully curtail the circulation and expansion of elites. The latter become increasingly reliant on the types of expertise and social capital these elites foster. Administrative managers and policy experts become interpreters and shapers of the constitutional mechanisms that undergird legal precedents and legislative parameters. Through them, new interpretations become integrated which justify new policy actions and new bureaus to manage them. We see this in the transformation of speech rights via the transgressive culture industry which is attempting to codify hate speech and Silicon Valley technocrats who narrow the range of speech available on public forums. The law isn’t changed, but expanded in its scope, creating legal arbitrage which these elite structures manipulate. In the former, there are substantive difficulties with mounting a popular political front against emerging elite consensus. Electoral politics has little effect, as major parties converge toward general agreement over matters of economic and social policy, quibbling over details. Even when supposed outsiders like Trump are elected, they quickly find any attempts to interject into existing bureaucracies almost impossible, facing strong resistance from established groups in the intelligence communities, military brass and wider civil administration. These bureaus and their programmes have consistently expanded despite congressional and executive scepticism and pushback. This is why a policy of “retire all government employees”[3] is so hard, as it isn’t just a matter of the employees but of the educational/training materials that integrate new recruits and the impunity with which these organisations escape substantive accountability. Forces of constitutional expansion and ideological consolidation limit the potential for any popular movement or fragmentary group to challenge elite power. The Overton window is reshaped and established methods of political participation are effectively meaningless. You cannot vote out or even question civil bureaucrats or the policy-making networks which actually dictate legal procedures and their implementation. A political liquidation occurs where the various aspects of political and economic life are closed off, to be decided amongst technocratic groups and procedures. They are nominally accountable in that they publish their meeting minutes and must answer to ministerial or presidential requests, but they intensively entrench their power, lasting longer than any one government administration. Their political power is the power of the closed network, defined by intra-competitive norms and shared cultural attributes that are beyond boundaries of electoral or legal power. A political liquidation, the entrenching of a post-political consensus and the denial of a meta-political critique coming in the form of fragments (national populism, conspiracism, sectoral strikes, protest convoys, a re-emerging petit bourgeoisie), is currently happening within elite political and economic networks. The power of foundation funding toward social causes (as with the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundation and the Gates Foundation funding and depoliticising various aspects of socio-economic policy), the digitalisation of modern life (through the ubiquity of digital IDs, vaccine passports, bureaucratic smartphone apps and mass data gathering) and the increasingly technocratic bent of various institutions and functionaries both public and private (as in BlackRock’s recommendations for central bank-led fiscal policy that depoliticises wealth distribution[4] or various health committees’ control over healthcare and vaccine policies, presenting expert opinion as unitary and beyond reproach). In establishing this political liquidation and post-political entrenchment, they are also happily propagandising their efforts and pushing the negative externalities of their policy recommendations onto the middle and lower classes. Lockdowns are easy for the managerial and administrative sectors (the laptop classes[5]) while crushing for the precariat and lower middle classes (whose businesses are closed and work uncompensated). Climate change policies around net zero and the Green New Deal push high-cost solutions onto the wider population, whether through electric cars, higher energy bills or cost-inefficient, highly subsidised food economies and health cultures. The effects of wage-less inflation (brought on through structural overreliance on tenuous and fragile supply chains combined with cheap labour as well as asset inflation via QE and risk free liquidity) are now coupled with a huge tax burden through income tax/national insurance increases. The original causes of these problems (governance failures, corporate power, inequality, closed networks) are neither questioned nor held responsible, with those who do labelled as conspiracy theorists, fearmongers or doomists. The closed networks that inform and construct these events are immune from popular participation. Reliant on systems of educational attainment, professional credibility and internal peer review, they are susceptible to status quo and confirmation biases, creating knowledge that’s largely unquestionable. This also makes it difficult for existing elite structures to be opened up or reformed, as they exclude alternative forms of information and different methodologies due to them being outside their paradigmatic conceptions. “The interlacing of money, power and lobbying alliances deprives politics of the last crumbs of potential autonomy, to the point that democracies all over the planet now welcome our philanthropic predators with open arms, without even asking questions”[6]. Financial crises and the pandemic have entrenched elite consensus as networks of power have responded aggressively to the challenges they pose. Existing elites exist in the uchronic[7] condition of transvaluing challenges to within their sphere of influence. The 2008 financial crisis has simply cemented neoliberal ideology, as asset inflation and the financial framing of economic stability encompass responses to economic stagnation both in the light of long-term productivity inertia and the affect of coronavirus shutdowns that focus on the monetary policy toolkit as the only adequate way to tackle inflation and induce liquidity. The campaigns in the post-coronavirus era of Build Back Better and the expansion of digital identification and tracking infrastructure are simply more explicit retellings of the neoliberal narrative around financial and logistical globalisation. The WEF and the G8 simply reemphasise their continued position, that the expansion of global trade and governance are unstoppable, and that any impediment will be regulated and controlled. Whether that be the coronavirus itself, with governments of all varieties hubristically assuming they can control a respiratory virus (that flows on the very structures globalisation maintains), or those populations opposed to their integration into international databanks who are caught up in travel sites cum checkpoints that determine whether one is allowed to move based on their medical history and vaccine status. Slogans like “you will own nothing” are nothing new, just more explicit variations on a continuing theme. Any emerging consensus amongst a new elite appears to entrench administrative objectives and ethics in a post-liberal scenario rather than extending freedom or a limitation of coercive power. The power of networks in the civil service, health and education attest to this. As do the prevailing alternatives to Western governance, such as those represented by China’s capitalist authoritarianism with attendant social credit systems. The response to coronavirus has only entrenched such false binaries as parties and interest groups compete to see which one can be more authoritarian in their pursuit of biomedical perfection. Populist challenges of various stripes that attempt to make the various coalitions and interests groups integral to the state and wider establishment more transparent or accountable have been met with vociferous resistance. Whether in the Trump presidency, Latin American populism or the Corbyn opposition, confected media tales and smears as well as severe limitations on their capacities to act (in crafting policy or forming alternative alliances to established powerbases) hampered any efforts to meaningfully construct populism as a political force that could integrate the state into itself. Instead of becoming another such political force, it was diminished into a fragmented base (the Red Wall or Brexit voters in Britain; Trump voters and the flyover states in America; Zemmour supporters or the Gilets Jaunes in France; the trucker convoy in Canada; the farm protesters in India; anti-vaccine passport and anti-lockdown movements in various countries) that were reviled. They were accused of various transgressions that the elite cannot abide: antisemitism, xenophobia, protectionism. That they dare question a socio-political consensus (however concocted) was beyond the pale. “Against recalcitrant groups, organizations, even whole states, our ruling class uses its control of communications to wage demonization campaigns akin to two-minute hates, except lasting much longer”[8]. Thus the bleating around expert-opinion and purging democratic systems of these obfuscatory and dangerous forces. Politics here is impossible as the capacity to make systems of governance transparent is met with extreme resistance from the full coterie of established interests. Alternative sub-elites are thus hampered, either cast off as populist recalcitrance or easily integrated within the ideological apodictic. As Francis notes regarding the development of elite challenges to the current soft managerial elite, the cleavage of this conflict concerns cultural control rather than a wider meta-political critique[9]. An emerging sub-elite would co-opt existing institutions and use their wide-ranging powers for their own ends, potentially exacerbating such powers in the tyrannical direction they’re already heading. The so-called post-liberal direction of populations that favour increased economic intervention alongside a culturally conservative ethic have proved amenable to coronavirus regulations, as UK opinion surveys attest to. Strong government messaging and media fear campaigns have turned ordinary citizens into glorified covid wardens and snitches, happy to be locked down despite the stratified risk and endemicity of the virus. If such a cleavage were to occur where elite consensus moves from soft managerialism to hard managerialism, the prospects for individual liberty and the capacity for decentralised autonomy would only decrease, as more securitised governance becomes commonplace. A libertarian response to the permanency of elites and their oscillations of power is to be a mechanism of exit rather than a political programme of actionable proposals. Such is the nature of elite functioning (their cyclicality and desire for control), that in the case of elite co-option the answers for decentralist movements must remain as bottlenecks in the system, pushing it beyond its boundaries and sitting within its interstices, rather than acquiescing to such power due to ideological alignment. Successor elites are still elites and will exhibit the same tendencies of authoritarianism and expansive control. By maintaining a level of autonomy and/or resistance, such elites can be tempered, subverted or ignored as they move from dynamic flexibility to ossification. The game of the “intellectuals” that Hayek writes on is one libertarians have struggled to exist within. Where it has been successful as through the move from the Mont Pelerin Society and other free market think tanks to neoliberal hegemony, it has inverted the very goals of libertarianism to proscribe coercive entrenchment and institutional ossification and extend mechanisms of freedom, compromising with sovereign and corporate power centres to the extent it is now part of coercive power structures, extending their power rather than ameliorating it as they become part of the intra-competitive dynamics of elite policy-making networks[10]. This game cannot be won by libertarians. Beginning to escape this trap means defining what individual liberty and political freedom really mean in the modern context of sovereign power, elite consensus and coercive apparatuses. Freedom shouldn’t be defined by a means-ends matrix of understanding that moves from deontological to consequentialist axes. Rather it should be seen as a capacity to act, affecting both means and ends as they involve forms of decision-making. Such capacity also extends upwards in scale, from individual to institutional levels as each has abilities to act. In these acts, individual and collective actors produce constraints and tensions that induce conflicts as capacities of freedom delineate into different courses of action. How these tensions are worked out is through means of negotiation and force (both defensive and offensive), which involve varying levels of conflict and violence in their resolutions or continuations. Freedom as capacity goes beyond the dichotomy Friedman identifies as inherent to libertarianism: that of deontological versus consequentialist defences of libertarian political thought. The former, defined as “that most natural and universal of all human activities: the persistent attempt on the part of humans to achieve . . . mutual understanding”[11], is subverted as capacity doesn’t necessarily lead to mutual understanding, rather the extension of projects and collective formations that put their claim onto resources and propagate their ideological underpinnings. Consequentialism too is undergirded by capacity. Friedman’s defence of a consequentialist mode of libertarian thought serves to recognise the underlying variable of freedom and liberty are the capacity for actors to extend and secure their rights in distinction with others, as does Nove’s distinctions in property ownership definitions as emerging from the consequences of their control[12]. Both come back to the fundamental proposition of the capacity for control to extend freedom and rights. Political freedom at its most basic is the capacity to take and conserve force. Friedman’s and Nove’s arguments regarding expansive definitions of freedom only extend force in a particular direction, while libertarian “limitations” of coercive force are themselves nothing more than the preservation of a particular order of property relations. Coercion and political force that comes from it are the fundamental premises of freedoms. Friedman then makes an error in assigning to Hayek’s knowledge problem an aprioristic quality of freedom in showing that the assertion of spontaneity doesn’t provide a ground for the production of the good. The point of the knowledge and calculation problems is to demonstrate the very limits of freedoms themselves and their capacity to expand toward integrated orders. Spontaneity is not a mark of morality, but a recognition of the inability of coercive authorities to necessarily contain all economic and political actions within their plans or purviews. Within their interstices always grow new methodologies of action that exist in their blind spots. This then invokes a defensive concept of property acquisition and the implementation of effective authority. “When these things are said to be ‘important,’ to ‘matter’ to people, these are not value judgments on my part, directly, but rather observations on what matters or is important to them — that is, to all persons, to ‘us.’ We shall have to consider altering our proposed course of conduct in the light of how others react, if their reactions can influence the likelihood of success in those courses. Other people in that sense become the source of special problems (and opportunities) for us. When we contemplate people's potential to affect us for good or ill, we may find ourselves motivated to do something about it, in particular in the way of modifying previously adopted programs of behavior”[13]. The essence of individual liberty is the extension of actions into the social space, modifying and curtailing them in the face of potential conflicts with other such individuals and groups who retain potentials for defensive force and negotiable outcomes. In many ways, the wider libertarian focus on negative liberty and associated concepts of self-ownership are abstractions of the very conditions of coercion, force and the negotiation of action over the social space. In the social space of modern states and other coercive institutions, this entails libertarian engagement with said institutions in the manner of both positive and negative (offensive and defensive) force and negotiated outcomes. At a wider level of abstraction, it is the fracturing of sovereignty into the wider social space, limiting their coercive potential while extending the potential actions of other individuals and groups i.e. increasing the means of their liberties. This process is described by Olson[14] as the negotiation over the social field of distributional coalitions that extend their own means of power at the expense of other groups (both other distributional coalitions as well as fragmented populations that bear the costs). In particularly advanced societies (those characterised by a long-term minimisation of wide-scale conflict and a largely integrated governing structure) the extent and depth of distributional coalitions is such that monopolisation and stagnation are commonplace in multiple sectors. This produces ungovernability where there is an inability for wide-ranging authorities to coercively enforce mandates in the face of powerful distributional coalitions that collate and occlude power from wider society. In such a situation, libertarianism should act as an interstitial agency, exploiting the ossification brought about by societal gridlock that ungovernability entails. As Olson notes regarding the Indian caste system, this is representative of a distributional coalition that ossified power and limited access to outside groups. However, as Doniger noted[15] regarding the various offshoots and alternative practices of Hinduism, the Dalits and lower classes of Indian regions created horizontal patterns of socio-religious organisation that routed around the domination of the caste structure. In a similar manner, libertarian engagement with elites should be to encourage their circularity amongst various groups, making themselves ungovernable and presenting avenues for alternative/innovative modes of socio-political activity. The aim of such interstitial ungovernability is the maintenance of sufficiency and a degree of control over one’s livelihoods, against the spirits of globality and abstraction. Instead of trying to break or reform elite consensus, thus entering the intellectual game which breeds co-option, there should be a libertarian strategy of exits that envelop autonomous institution-building and a defence of liberties against wider coercive forces as well as more offensive, violent interactions that indirectly challenge the state’s and capital’s monopolies on force and economic exchange. However, traditional notions of exit that libertarianism has pursued around “free markets” are limited in their capacity to engender true exits from monopolistic power structures (both state and non-state). Escapes via the means of the market are themselves doomed to failure. The crude libertarian construction of markets as purely spontaneous phenomena underlies a serious deficiency in their worldview, ignoring the overwhelming power of sovereign bodies in constituting and directing markets, as well as the autonomous nature of capital in developing market power which aims at monopolisation, the accrual of profit and the limitation of creative destruction. All markets develop distributional coalitions that aim to extend their own power. Any truly free market in the sense that all exchange and all parameters are organised through voluntary methods and are constituted by contracts (around security, law and property) are extremely decentralised and limited in their scale (not that this is necessarily a bad thing). Fundamentally, they are premised on the means of exit as a constant mechanism for any actor. Modern markets by contrast are constantly caught in the paradoxical contradictions of both denying the involvement of the state while constantly relying on it to set the rules of the game. As Gamble notes, “the paradox for neo-liberals is that their revolution in government requires that a group of individuals be found who are not governed by self-interest, but motivated purely by the public good of upholding the rules of the market order. Yet if such a group existed it would contradict a basic premise of neo-liberal analysis”[16]. As the groups that make up government are governed by the same motivations as others, they will inevitably attempt to accrue power to the detriment of wider society, specifying rules to their benefit and creating selective incentives that favour particular traits, backgrounds and statuses thus constituting an elite structure. The nature of capitalist markets “are ideational, being understood as structures that have an almost static quality in relation to existing capitalism. Epitomising markets as simple conduits of capitalist activity constitutes a form of authority, recognising instrumental rationality and its subsequent socio-economic actions as the generalised mode of action in a market economy”[17]. In other words, the formative construction of political violence and the development of governance as an overarching system precede markets as economic phenomena. They are not separable from their political context, making the notion of free markets as a desired policy goal completely reductive. Markets are an expression of power, whether it be the voluntary power of contractarianism or the coercive power of interest groups controlling prices and the provision of credit. Instead, cultivating forms of financial and economic autonomy are crucial. Whether through cryptocurrencies, mutual exchange systems or securing control over cultivatable land, a multiplicity of options is necessary. Political liquidation portends homogenisation, and selective violence must accompany solid foundations of micro-power that can affectively hold their own in the machinations of monopolistic capital and coercive sovereignty. In the defensive stance, this means the development of counter-institutions in the agorist tradition of black market activity, becoming middlemen and exploiters of weaknesses and bottlenecks in the “free markets” and corporate machines. Figures like the economic middleman, the dishonest cop or the private counterfeiter as described by Block[18] represent meaningful interventions into monopolistic and coercive practices, delegitimising government functions while opening up pockets of freedom. The middleman can exploit bottlenecks and move goods on their own terms, having one foot in and one foot out of the system. On the offensive front, the focus should be targeted forms of violence that always keeps centres of power on their toes rather than waging war on leviathan. War entrepreneurialism[19] as the use of terroristic and insurrectionary force to extend political gains and hold control over owned space presents means through which decentralised forces can circumvent and strike coercive powers. As a military corollary to the economic middleman, the war entrepreneur can exploit the bottlenecks of bureaucratic armed forces and their slow chains of command to quickly affect battlespaces and become guerrillas rather than trying to emulate massed shows of strength. Things like assassination markets are potential mechanisms for how such targeted, decentralised violence could be enacted. “The reason we're still stuck under the thumb of the government is that to the extent it's true, ‘we've’ been playing by THEIR rules, not by our own. By our own rules, THEY are the aggressors and we should be able to treat them accordingly, on our own terms, at our own convenience, whenever we choose, especially when we feel the odds are on our side”[20]. Insurrectionary violence here then is the capacity to invert the ideological presuppositions of the elites themselves. They talk of the essence and importance of liberties yet happily destroy them on a whim. Rights then are temporary entities granted which must be seized if they are to have any permanent fixture in life. The trucker convoy in Canada has done such a thing as they’ve exposed the hypocrisy of Canadian liberalism as a sham. Protests now can only be government mandated and certainly cannot inconvenience the managerial classes in Ottawan high-rises or disrupt cross-border trade. It’s fine if violence is directed at small businesses or street corners, as ruling elites don’t care much about them (as lockdowns showed). But when protests start to bite into their lives, then they show how arbitrary liberties really are in their eyes. As the trucker convoy becomes a “‘state within a state’ of co-ordinated services”[21], we see the authorities’ complete lack of tolerance for any degree of autonomy from their power but also their fragility as they are reliant on trade infrastructure that can be switched against them. They show their true face and their weakness all in one go. The evental potential of decentralised political violence can thus invert the dynamics of systems that first legitimated such violence. Strategies for exit emerge in the violent tumult of unconstrained excess. “Terror then is the nature of the entropic breakdown of institutionalisation, with their re-founding requiring truly anti-systemic properties that will always have the potential to fail”[22]. Political violence of this kind is beyond the control of central authorities, placing buffers and boundaries that constantly oscillate in relation to sovereign power and coercion. The capacity to cultivate such defensive and offensive capabilities will become the main factor through which individual liberties and exits are maintained, expanded and consolidated. There is no compromise with coercive entities but nor is there is a utopic endpoint at which the state, capital and it’s elite structures will whither away. They must be fought and undermined. “A contemporary Libertarianism demands an intellectual and cultural labour of striving towards freedom as a value against technological and utilitarian temptations including a willingness to bear the costs of this freedom. It also needs to understand its limits. It acknowledges the logic of technology and accepts the historical state as a necessary form, while rejecting its cultural implications of heteronomy. Like seldom before, Libertarianism has identified the need to secure untouchable spaces in the home, family, and body to secure against statist intervention. On the cultural front, it celebrates unconstrained individualism with all its pitfalls and dangers, which the technological state will always code as dangerous madness. It chooses it over the dangerous submission to the norm which can always be perverted by propaganda and enforced by the folly of crowds”[23]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Samuel T. Francis, Leviathan & Its Enemies [2] Friedrich Hayek, The Intellectuals and Socialism [3] https://graymirror.substack.com/p/coriolanus-and-the-conservatives [4] https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/insights/blackrock-investment-institute/... [5] https://thelibertarianideal.com/2022/02/07/the-covid-caste-structure/ [6] https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/prolegomena-to-a-franciscan-capitalism/ [7] Paul Virilio, Ground Zero [8] https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-continuing-crisis/ [9] Samuel T. Francis, Leviathan & Its Enemies [10] https://thelibertarianideal.com/2022/01/12/big-government-libertarians-biome... [11] https://philpapers.org/rec/FRIPVP-2 [12] https://philpapers.org/rec/NOVQFP [13] https://philpapers.org/rec/NARLPA [14] Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations [15] Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An Alternative History [16] Andrew Gamble, The Spectre at the Feast [17] https://thelibertarianideal.com/2016/11/09/modern-markets-as-a-dialectic/ [18] Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable [19] https://thelibertarianideal.com/2021/09/19/war-entrepreneurs/ [20] Jim Bell, Assassination Politics [21] https://www.ft.com/content/1f83d3dc-a95b-4947-92ba-4f08899228a3 [22] https://thelibertarianideal.com/2021/08/07/violent-machinations-capital-revo... [23] https://im1776.com/2022/01/21/post-libertarianism/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2021/12/lpnc-conducts-first-independe... 2. [68]Andy Andy January 5, 2022 "Traditionalist," said: "As for you, Andy, your Poe’s law violation is the belief that anarchist zones may realistically be expected to fend off nation states, terrorists, criminals, and so on." I have heard this referred to in libertarian circles as the Hard Problem, that is, once the anarcho-capitalist society is formed, how do you defend it? I have ideas on how this could be done (see my Libertarian Zone concept above; armed militias, private security guards, simply staying out of conflicts and becoming an economic zone from which lots of people could benefit, etc...). I have heard others propose various ideas, such as the Assassination Politics concept, put out by a guy named Jim Bell. "Bitcoin Jesus" Roger Ver brought this up when I interviewed him at Anarchapulco 2018. Check it out here: Interview with "Bitcoin Jesus" Roger Ver at Anarchapulco, 2/17/18 [69] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnt8r_oDdjc https://attackthesystem.com/2021/10/03/beware-of-any-war-on-terror-fought-by... Beware of Any War On Terror Fought by a Terrorist Nation By Keith Preston on October 3, 2021 jim bell says: October 3, 2021 at 10:54 pm Someday, people will begin to appreciate my Assassination Politics essay, from 1995. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Keith Preston says: October 4, 2021 at 6:10 am As well they should. It’s a masterpiece.
https://slug.com/group/VoluntaryMutualDefense/discussion/310561/warm-and-sof... Warm and Soft or Cold and Hard by Joe Kelley 2-3-2022 Hot and Confused or Freezing and Dense. Absolute Heat Forced into Absolute Compression or Forced into Absolute Dispersion. Absolute Cold and Forced into Nothing Nowhere. Too soft and everyone goes their separate ways with no one facing the cold hard fact that mankind must – as a rule – reproduce and care enough for future generations to not merely keep on reproducing, but to get better at it in order to face the cold hard facts about natures provisions. Too hard and everyone is compressed into one body of mass mankind forcing everyone under the crushing weight of everyone else with no room to move an elbow or dare to think an original thought. Taking a lesson from the unnatural laws enforced by Treasonous Frauds, as they inject into their victims the means by which the slave numbers are kept at a manageable level, a self-exterminating idea injected into the pests as a form of pest-control, cost less enforcement of eugenic nirvana, with the side effect of the few and fewer remaining rats inheriting all the remaining power, the Rat Final Solution to their too many rats problem, turned around and used unnaturally to cull the herd of Treasonous Frauds. Draining the swamp with the Treasonous Fraud Final Solution mirror image. What comes around goes around. Fuck around and find out. The Rulers exterminate those they Rule – as a rule – and just as that rule works factually, the same Rule consumes the Rulers. The Final Solution to the unruly too-many-slaves problem turns against the Masters on Judgment Day. I’m (not) sorry, nothing (psyc) personal, here is your Bill, and it has an expiration date. Now you may be softened up in preparation to learn these facts as we-the-humans face these facts together in lockstep, or, remain in our collection of collective Infantile States. If Treasonous Frauds controlling the pesky slaves were not bad enough, what do you think happens when there are no more slaves to eat, due to a general learning curve flattened from top to bottom? Flatten the curve and everyone is a master and there are no more slaves, the ultimate logical End Game, with no more need for torture, since everyone knows everyone else as a fellow Rat in the Treasonous Fraud game, no more room left for disingenuous intellectually dishonest prejudicial pretense. There is no one LEFT to Rat on when all the defenders are attackers. All the former innocent producers make each other into guilty criminals. Who is going to care to know what everyone already knows? The End Game proves itself when We The People Constitute The Human Rat Race. We all pay each other to enslave each other until no one has any time LEFT to produce anything worth stealing from any of the slaves that have already been eaten. That leaves one very Fat Rat as the last slave turned master on the sinking ship of the Infantile State. No? Have you ever heard of the essay titled Assassination Politics by Jim Bell? Before jerking your knee looking for a moderator to help alert the Treasonous Frauds of a Rat in their Ranks seeking to incite Assassinations by Politics, you may want to know that this is not merely common knowledge, it is Public Knowledge, and it is actually a confession as to the basic principles running The Infantile State. The magazine Forbes ran an article on this concept not too long ago, with the required Twist on the original essay title. Plagiarizing by Forbes authority to do so, the title is now Assassination Markets. This was published into The Public Domain, by Forbes, in a piece attempting to assassinate the character of people using cryptocurrencies. How dare you. Jim Bell went to prison for a time, not for his Essay, but for trumped-up charges having to do with tax evasion, or who knows what, I did not get the transcripts of the charges and my guess is that there was never an antiquated common law criminal due process of law authorization for persecuting Jim Bell. No independent grand jury true bill. In other words, the mere act of ignoring the law of the land is a confession of Treasonous Fraud during an effort to bring someone to injustice. Jim Bell is free now and still working the Assassination Politics gambling app, as far as I know currently. It turns out that Assassination Politics, or the Forbes version Assassination Markets, logically lead to Direct Democracy in the Modern versions of Legalese. Forget about the actual meaning of the word democracy, forget the original meaning, ignore the grass-roots and organic meaning, exile the adapted meaning adopted by the Ancient Athenians during the Golden Age of Greece. Not that democracy, but the New World Order version of Democracy, you know, as in the saying “Spreading Democracy” with “Gun Boat Diplomacy” type New World Order Democracy, that plagiarized, falsified, false flag meaning of Big D Too Big To Fail Patents Pending Limited Liability Legal Fiction Dogma Democracy. There is a more recent slogan for New World Order Build Back Better Great Reset Democracy parroted around the world by the slaves who are hired to read from the script and avoid any original thought while doing so, and perhaps you are familiar with this tune too. Dangerous To Our Democracy IFrame How dumb are the slaves? It turns out that the slaves will insist upon mass murdering each other at the ringing of a Jim Bell. Marginally hidden just below the surface of slave-speak are confessions of malevolent minds made evil by evil masters. One confesses one’s malice aforethought during the perpetrating of Treasonous Fraud when one does onto another that which one would defend against if the targeted victim were to dare do the same. Vote Republican. Do as I say, not as I do, cook the books with two sets of rules, one for the slaves, another for the masters of slaves. So what is the confession in Assassination Politics that threatens to turn everyone into Rats in the Ranks, and then there are no more innocent people making a living by producing things worth stealing, such as children? Modern Direct Democracy IS Assassination Politics, something known to malevolent mankind because that is the choice made by those choosing that criminal path, and they do so because that path pays better than all the workloads that cost so much to me. When targets choose the path to make a living producing things worth stealing, such as children, made by thee, and you are defenseless, that constitutes opportunity for me, on my chosen Rat path. Who needs a confession once everyone turns onto the lucrative Rat path when there is at least one Rat LEFT? Stop Jerking your Collective Knees, looking for the moderators, the censors, the thought police, and deal with the facts facing you, this time, just once. Please. You know, everyone knows this to be true, fact-based, undeniable in fact, and facts matter, because all lives matter, or an individual chooses otherwise, and then the only life that matters, according to a malevolent mind, made by choice, is that individual in time and place, choosing that Rat path. One more for me, one less for you. Nothing personal, just working the injustice business, on your dime. A penny for your thoughts, crickets. The cost of membership in the Cult is the basic criminal choice to feed upon humanity one calorie at a time or all at once. The facts check out factually. The adjudication of these facts in any other way is based purely on falsehood, or so-called Fake News. Stop Jerking your Collective Knees. The study here is not focused on a moral process known as charity, which is a human thing to do, given the fact that people have done the work to produce anything worth giving before charity was invented the first time someone adapted to natural forces with the clear leverage of charity. Nature provides life forms that are charitable when that adaptive function serves nature, or God. Working to be charitable, or just plain old dividing the spoils of dirty Rats feeding on the innocently productive defenseless hordes, made stupid and servile with Treasonous Fraud. For those in spiritually oriented organizations, or, Established Institutions of Religious Dogma, there are plenty of adaptive ideas useful in forming disciplined studies of the uses and abuses of the process known as charity, but that is not the subject matter of my work, not here, not now, not your work, if you are taking the time and effort required, expending the cost, to read these words. Direct Democracy followed to the logical conclusion is clearly followed with forensic precision in the essay by Jim Bell, or the rewrite of the same principles in the Forbes article on Assassination Markets. The Cold Hard Facts are that Direct Democracy quickly turns everyone against everyone else until there is only one last Rat standing, or someone grows a moral conscience and opts out, but doing so puts a target on one’s back as the next-in-line to be exterminated for failing to obey the enforcement mechanisms of Direct Democracy Writ Large with modern technology that affords everyone the equal opportunity to gamble on the fate of humanity. Mutually Assured Destruction one Fake Democrat at a time. Enough about that, which exists in reality, not for the faint of heart, but blaming me for what exists in reality, proves the point, as you reach for your moderators, while your knee jerks reading this fact-based report on Modern Democracy as defined by malevolent minds. Moving on to Federated Republics, please, credit where credit is due. Due process. With Modern Democracy a.k.a. Assassination Markets being Cold and Hard, what are, then, the Soft and Warm Cold Hard Facts constituting the opposition? Federated Republics soften up the enforcement mechanisms to a point at which human beings can return to liberty, living and letting live, choice-based decision making on an individual level, to do as one pleases while agreeing to subject themselves to the will of the… Did I smell a knee jerk? Is everyone a fucking progressive liberal these days? Not the patented "will of the majority" - if that is what you thought. The voluntary informed consent of those choosing to be subjected to a power over the individual sovereign decision making power - by natural rights - agreeing to be subjected, by informed choice, subjecting oneself to the collective enforcement mechanism, for the collective good, according to the collective will, is not to a nebulous, ambiguous, fluid, and Rat Racing battle to gain status as a member of the Majority, farthest from that as is humanly possible. The Federated Republican prescription for those maladies injected into mankind from malevolent individuals is… Drum roll? The People as a Whole, dictate to individuals, and expressly not a division thereof. Now you are informed, but will you consent, if you were to hear from The People as a whole, as they may, or may not, demand any service from individuals of mankind? If The People as a whole have no voice, then, every individual does as each one pleases. Everyone is invited, demanded, by suggestion, by informed consent, to take their seat at the adjudication table, adding their voice to the collective whole number of people in the area, the territory, adjudicated by natural laws, also known as the law of the territory, the law of the land, in Latin: legem terrae, and in English: the common law, and in America: Federated Republican sovereign entities. Each King and each Queen are individual Kingdoms by natural right. He, she, he-she, she-he, or whatever each wishes to be called, for dinner at the dinner table, or for adjudication at law, is up to the individual according to the individual's individual power at law. Who speaks for The People as a whole so as to forensically establish the collective voice to be obeyed as an enforceable suggestion suggested to the law-abiding? Did you buy the lie that criminals obey rules? Not the majority, not a gang, not The Angry Mob, not a faction, not a cult, not a minority, not a Special Interest, not a supermajority, not The Übermensch, not a National Communist Party hiding behind a thin veil of a cartoon Jackass stealing everything and giving away some of their stolen loot to fellow cult members in their exclusive Jackass Party, and not a National Socialist Party hiding behind a thin veil of an oppressive Elephant in the room shitting on everyone while all the party members, the cult members, ignore the shit they have to eat because they make nothing but shit, and their sources of wealth transfers are a closely guarded patent-pending limited liability intellectual property wrong, above the forensic scrutiny of the Angry Mob. The people, through their own authority, as independent individuals, private prosecutors, private defendants, independent grand jurors, and independent trial jurors, each individual, all responsible, and all accountable to The People as a whole, all speaking for themselves. All people are internally considered as a single republic, so there are as many republics as there are people in a republic, or what you are dealing with is not a republic. Have a clue, please. How are The People afforded their say so as The People speak for themselves, and as The People then speak as a whole, so all The People know what The People say to all the individuals? Equal Footing Doctrine. Did your knee jerk again? The New meaning of the word Equal does not Equal the original meaning. The federal idea is documented into the public record as the voice of The People as a whole in many forms by precedence, or stare decisis, for all to see, to help when your knee jerks, to confirm what The People say as a whole, when people decide to find out what The People say as a whole, without leaving anyone out by choices made by numbers of people less than the whole: individual dictators or cults of dictators issuing and following dictates. Run that through your processor, but secure your processor from infection by virus, defend your processor with a working bullshit detector when running the numbers yourself, by your own authority, because the collective good depends upon your unique input added to the whole. Can the Public Access Public Record of The People speaking as a whole be confirmed or denied with the following defining moment defining American Federal Republic Principle? "That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:" That is not the official meaning of the principles defining American Federated Republics because God or Mankind or Nature set those meanings of those words onto Stone, or paper made from hemp plants, rather, the fact is that the principles work out factually, logically, and are morally justifiable by each individual each time. Those who arrive at a different result, when crunching the numbers themselves, rely upon falsehood to do so, as a matter of record, recorded into cases tried in Courts of Law, when following due process of law, based upon that principle right there on The Public Record which records the collective voice of The People as a whole, without exception, except for those who rely upon falsehood, or worse, Rats in the Ranks called Treasonous Frauds. "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments" (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61(1878). All individuals are republics unto themselves federated with all other individuals from grass-roots, organically, so as to adapt to natures dictates, locally, in couples, families, churches, legal jurisdictions or countries, towns, townships, cities, counties, states, or federations of states, or federations of federations. If you live and let live, you pay the cost of membership. If you do not, you join the cult of Treasonous Frauds. In either case, you get what you pay for, and you lie in the bed you steal fearfully or sleep comfortably secure in liberty that you defend with accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case of controversy foreign or domestic. Caveat Emptor
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Micro-aggression-and-social-exclusion-i... Micro aggression and social exclusion in data-driven lives Among the items discovered in the car was a document, entitled "Assassination Politics", lists of the names and addresses of IRS employees, material on making improvised explosives (including ... https://theworthyhouse.com/2021/11/03/announcement-podcast-discussion-betwee... https://freemanbeyondthewall.libsyn.com/episode-651 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xh4ZEVJqHM Now available across all platforms is my discussion Charles Haywood with Peter R. Quiones, host of the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. We talk abo ut the fracture of America, putting one s boot on the neck of the Left, why hedge fund operators are inferior to glass factory workers, and much mor e. goodlander November 3, 2021 Your best podcast appearance yet IMO. While listening I wrote a note to ask if you re familiar with Jim Bell s 1995 essay Assassination Politics. Since Gordian knot political solutions, crypto currency, blockchain smart contracts, and blockchain oracles are all fashionable, its strange to me that AP is not. His essay is far more relevant today with all the major technical hurdles are solved. Even the culture seems more warlike and suited for AP now. Loading... Reply Ricky Moore November 4, 2021 Most normies are feminized, fat, comfortable physical, moral and intellectual cowards and prefer to hide and consider themselves better because they re peaceful , even though (as Burnham in The Machiavellians and Georges Sorel point out) an aversion to violence may actually allow more violence in the total. Loading... Reply Charles Haywood November 5, 2021 This, while it has large elements of truth, is far too pessimistic, both in under-rating the degree to which people can change/improve, and in under-rating the number of (silent) people who are not like this, many of whom have useful skills. Loading... Reply Ricky Moore November 5, 2021 I don t believe in free will, I think biology and conditioning controls most people ave their responses to a huge degree which modern tabula rasa Whig society refuses to acknowledge. Under compulsion ( here I mean more the facts of circumstances than political or personal force) people adapt, sometimes with surprising alacrity, but it requires institutions, skills, incentives and most of all competent leadership to make significant changes. As absurd as the modern American nation has become it remains that we are the most physically productive economy in history (contra populist rhetoric, we manufacture and mine more than we ever have, we just don t use human beings for it) and that gives a huge amount of buffer. Look at how garbage Brasil is today, while being far poorer and more violent than our own society, and without much sign of a popular revolt or Caesar to correct the inanities of their abusive elite. We have a long way to fall before we get to Brasil, which means that the US could face literally centuries of decline before its masses are hard pressed enough, and is elites fractured enough, to actually lead to productive reverses (rather than mere catastrophic and pointless civil wars and grifter populism). I believe that having a decent mass society is mostly a matter of luck, as the masses are simply too easily manipulated and their betters too comfortable to actually force through the drastic changes needed. Like yourself I don t believe in an AI controlled Brave New World, but I don t see why America won t just become a huge Honduras where most people are serfs to warlords and crooked business interests, destined to be shot if they try to fight the inept, universally corrupt but heavily armed police and military forces. Of course the situation in South America is partly predicated on American intervention and ethnic problems, but we re making our own ethnic problems and could easily become a colony for some outside empire once we become too pathetic to defend ourselves. Loading... Reply Vxxc November 9, 2021 The bourgeoisie are useless in strife. That s if they were men instead of the AWFL wife s Drone slaves- and they are slaves. Eunuchs. The Middle Class are AWFLS (affluent white ladies) and at best they will stand aside. Neither their husbands nor sons are worth even asking. The election in Virginia was simply a Basic lesson of politics since 1965; our elites will not live as peasants. They live conservative, affluent lives and govern over an ever spreading progressive Detroit Hell. They live Republican and govern Democrat. They live Rumson or Montclair and govern Camden, Newark. Respectfully Heaven and Hell, NJ. Camden makes Newark look like Switzerland, BTW. Loading... Reply goodlander November 5, 2021 People have aversions to dirty hands, not violence in the abstract. Cruelty with a keyboard, crowdsourcing, and the desire to punish one s enemies are all far more common today than in 1995. These are the necessary ingredients for AP. The actual triggermen need only be a tiny minority. Loading... Reply Ricky Moore November 5, 2021 It s not just an unwillingness to engage in combat that s a problem. It s an unwillingness to do literally anything except various forms of masturbation m Loading... Reply Charles Haywood November 5, 2021 Thank you! I am not familiar with it; I ll check it out. Loading... Reply jim bell December 23, 2021 Thank you very much for your comment. Jim Bell, author of Assassination Politics. I am usually found on the Cypherpunks email list.
Assassination Politics: Government, The Bell Tolls For Thee https://c4ss.org/content/1157 Thomas L. Knapp | October 1st, 2009 James Dalton Bell expects to be released from federal prison on December 20th, 2009. Given past events, however, that release may be short-lived, or simply not occur at all. The US government considers Bell a very dangerous man. So dangerous, in fact, that during his last trial (if it can even be called that) the entire court record was sealed, he was forbidden to subpoena witnesses, and he was forcibly "represented" by a lawyer chosen by the government, whom he was not allowed to fire. What makes Bell so dangerous? He has an idea, and he's written about that idea in detail and at length. His version of the idea is one that most would probably classify as "extreme," but it's the nature, not the extremity, of the idea which got government into a tizzy. Bell's calls his idea "assassination politics:" An anonymous prediction market in the deaths of political figures. In a prediction market, participants place bets on events, and collect if their predictions are correct (the players who aren't correct lose their money). Simply put, Bell's idea is that anonymous, untraceable digital money will allow the enforcement of "good behavior" on politicians. A politician who pisses people off will find his or her name listed in the "assassination market." Once enough money is in the pool under that politician's name to make it worth the risk, someone will "bet" on when that politician is going to die, kill (or arrange the killing of) the politician at the time in question, and collect the pool money. Actually, calling this Bell's idea is stretching things. He didn't invent digital money, nor did he invent the concept of an "assassination market." He just wrote about the political implications of both. He's now spent more than a decade in the court system and in various prisons for doing so. Bell's essay took emerging technological developments to their theoretical extreme, but government prosecutors couldn't try him for "felony production of essays." Instead, they patched together a crazy quilt of allegations, ranging from tax evasion to "stalking a federal employee" -- some possibly true, some probably false, most unworthy of being called "crimes" even if true. It would be easy to write off the Bell case as an outlier -- a rare case of government overreaction -- if not for the fact that in the decade following his initial prosecution, lots of other people have found themselves confronted by police, and some have even gone to jail, for implementing a non-extreme, but central, element of the package he put together. That element? Outing and identifying bad actors in government. With the advent of small, portable digital cameras, "gotcha" moments have embarrassed "law enforcement" with public documentation of abuses on a regular basis. The response has been a general crackdown -- not on bad cops, but on those who expose them. Bloggers, "real journalists" and regular citizens have been roughed up, and in some cases arrested on bogus "disorderly conduct" charges, for nothing more than taking pictures of public employees in action. Post-9/11, the "global war on terror" has provided new excuses for suppressing the urge to take photos or video footage. In America "suspicious" behavior worthy of police attention now includes taking photographs of buildings, an activity once considered a common pastime. The United Kingdom's 2008 "anti-terror" law effectively makes it illegal to photograph a police officer, a development no doubt looked upon with approval by American "law enforcement." The courts have generally upheld the power of a police officer to demand identification from a citizen, but the trend has gone in the other direction when it comes to the identities of police officers and other government employees. Police departments routinely withhold the identities of officers involved in shooting incidents. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona even subpoenaed and arrested two newspaper editors for publishing his home address. Also in Arizona, Phoenix police raided the home of a blogger who exposed bad cops, stealing his computers and records. http://carlosmiller.com/2009/04/02/phoenix-police-raid-home-of-blogger-whose... The connection between the increasingly secretive attitude of "law enforcement" and the writings of Jim Bell may seem tenuous, but it isn't. Politicians desperately want you to not know, and to never learn, three things: That you don't need them, that they do you more harm than good, and that there might be something you can do about it. Just as the music industry is losing its ongoing fight with peer-to-peer file sharing tech, government is going to lose its fight with digital photography and videography. And with Jim Bell.
What does OpenAI's ChatGPT oracle have to say about Assassination Politics... Surely some people can feed it some questions on the matter and post the replies...
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/assassination-has-been-utilized-as-... Assassination has been utilized as a political tool Published: 1st Jan 2015 Introduction Assassination has been utilized as a political tool since the beginning of recorded history, marking, altering, or determining the course of events through murder. Even today, assassination and its forms, including terrorism, continue to plague most nations throughout the world. Additional acts of violence, such as ethnic tensions and coups, executions, and civil wars, continue to frequent societies and political systems in the 21st century. Unique to assassinations, whether or not the act is successful does not always reflect failed consequences; all too often, attempted assassinations are equally impactful as complete, or deadly, assassinations. If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help! Assassinations and assassination attempts, particularly upon heads of state, are often highly ranked in terms of political violence and significance. Besides affecting or killing the victim, assassinations have direct consequences upon critical political institutions and the targeted individual’s nation as a whole. As studied and discussed by political theorists and analysts, assassinations and assassination attempts of important political figures have far-reaching political and societal repercussions. Obviously affecting the targeted government or nation, the sudden and unexpected murder of a head of state or high-ranking official not only interferes with a nation’s political effectiveness, but also promulgates terror and unrest within a government. Most significantly, assassinations and attempts to assassinate often disturb or change the focus of domestic and foreign policy within a nation. As previously mentioned, terrorism is closely related to assassination and no discussion on the latter would be complete without a discussion of the former as well. Besides an obvious systematic and deliberate act of murder, terrorism can also be referred to as either a mass assassination, or a terroristic assassination. Terrorism, according to one source, is “assassinations contrived to create a fear sufficient to destroy a whole system. Terrorism implies a movement whose objective can only be achieved by repeated assassinations over relatively long periods of time, for fear dissipates when pressure is relaxed or exercised intermittently. Similar to assassinations, terrorism has plagued and continues to plague many (if not most) nations, often resulting in political chaos or upset. Furthermore, as with assassinations, terrorism is also saturated with politics; however, unlike assassinations, terrorism is employed through strategy, fueled by religious or ecological motives, and carried out with the ultimate goal of power. Although united by a common denominator, murder, the conceptual differences between assassinations and terrorism are profound and worth separate examination, for the purpose of this study. The Concept of Assassination The violent act of assassination is defined as the murder of a (most likely) political, royal, or public individual. The term is derived from the order of the Assassins, which was an 11th and 12th century Muslim sect that advanced its political goals by murdering high-ranking officials. The origin of the word is assassiyun,Arabic for fundamentalist, from the word assass, foundation. The suicide squad of the Assassins, which was a militant arm of the Islamic Isma’ili sect, was founded by Hassan Sabah and operated from the Alamut cliff top fortress in the Elburz Mountains of Persia, now known as northwestern Iran. The Assassins, according to legend, were called hashishiyun, “smokers of hashish,” by their enemies as the hashish was believed to be the source of their visions—which commanded their violent acts. Marco Polo even wrote of the sect and an impregnable fortress in the mountains of Persia when detailing an account of his travels. However, although the term assassination was not defined until the Muslim sect materialized in the 11th century, their method or tool of political murder had been in use since as early as 900 B.C. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not have a word that corresponds with our word assassination. “A killing was simply a means to an end; its moral significance depended entirely on the nature of the person killed” [italics original]. An individual who killed a public figure was either a murderer or a tyrannicide, and the latter term was a synonymous word for “liberator,” one who freed his country. According to Cicero, some of the most celebrated figures in Greek and Roman history were tyrant-killers. Brutus, who murdered Caesar, was born of a long line of tyrant-killers. Undeniably, assassins make history. The Concept of Terrorism For the purpose of being thorough, it is worth examining the earliest uses of the word terror. The word terrorist first appeared in modern politics in the French Revolution, when revolutionists occasionally applied the term to their actions. The revolutionists characterized terrorism as “good” when implemented against individuals deemed to be enemies of virtue and modernity, according to one source. Eventually, upon the defeat of the Frenchman Robespierre and his military force in 1794 (known as the Reign of Terror), the term terrorist became a pejorative. Thus, although the term initially was meant to conjure or reflect what “good” a government could do to achieve and ensure the acceptance of a revolution, within a century and a half, the term had evolved into an evil principle of terror. Russian communist Vladimir Lenin acted upon the belief that “the purpose of terror is to terrorize,” and his orders during the Russian Civil War are reflective of how terrorism can be utilized as an instrument of states. As with assassinations, terror tactics have afflicted or been a part of societies since the beginning of time. However, terrorist campaigns, defined as “the prolonged, systematic use of terror to secure a political objective, [have been] by comparison, conspicuously rare, and the true terrorist enters history late.” As previously referenced, the first example of terrorism can been seen in Medieval Islam with the Ismaili sect. The instances of terrorism thereafter multiplied, resulting in almost every country in the world having experienced an act of terrorism. Ultimately, the development of modern terrorism is too complex to be detailed here, but for the purposes of this study, it is worth noting that terrorism evolved immensely in both strategic and tactical principles in the twentieth century—emerging as the most wielded tool for political murder. Problem Statement Without a doubt, assassinations and terrorism, whether successful or unsuccessful, remain one of the most devastating acts of political violence. The fact that the United States and other world-renowned democracies have not been immune to these two types of violence, assassinations and terrorism, illustrates the very severe nature of the problem. The various assassination attempts that have been made against leaders (primarily presidents) within the United States is indicative to onlookers (or speaks) of a national security issue—opening up questions of vulnerability or enticing a violent act. Essentially, any violent attack against a president or his nation disturbs the social and political stability of the targeted country. Regardless, the impacts of these acts of violence ripple across the world and are felt by other nations, whether directly or indirectly. A critical analysis of the available body of information and related discussion portrays assassinations (complete and attempts) and terrorism as violent acts which not only have the inherent ability to heighten national security, but also interfere with the foreign policy of the United States. The fragile balance that exists between the United States and other world nations, particularly the Middle East, also exemplifies the latter. Research Objectives This thesis/study seeks to evaluate the impact of political assassinations within the United States, as well as the impact of terrorism in the United States. The specific objectives include the following: To evaluate the consequences of political assassinations upon policy* To examine the consequences of terrorism or terror tactics upon policy To compare and contrast the impact of both violent acts, assassination and terrorism, upon the United States Hypothesis In addition to impacting the timing of political action in the United States, the assassinations of presidents and public figures such as civil rights leader Martin Luther King and Black Muslim leader Malcolm X has had the effect of catalyzing public concern and activating the politicization of major policy issues. In essence, broadening support and paving the way for major policy initiatives. Furthermore and most significantly, this study posits that although both assassination and terrorism have been of major consequence within the United States, the brutal act of terrorism has had the greater impact than all U.S. assassinations combined. Terms and Functional Definitions For operational terms and concepts, the following functional definitions were employed in this study: The victim is defined as the intended target of the assassination or act of terrorism. The method is defined as the weapon of assassination, or the tactic employed in an act of terrorism. The result is focused upon the intended victim. The impact is focused upon the effect of an assassination or terrorism upon policy The venue is to identify the location of an assassination or terrorist attack. The assailant is defined as the individual or individuals who planned, carried out, or ordered an assassination or act of terror. For example, an accomplice would also be identified as an assailant. The motive represents the reasoning, when known, of why a victim was targeted by either assassination or terrorism. In this study, policy change is meant to reflect the different judicial, executive and legislative decisions that were made after each act of assassination or terrorism. The following terms are used repeatedly throughout this study: Assassination is defined slightly different according to various sources, but is universally agreed upon as being the sudden, premeditated murder of a political figure, due to the victim’s perspective, prominence, or some combination of the two.Many sources classify an attempted homicide as assassination, so for the purposes of uniformity, this study shall follow the same classification. However, the realm of attempts does not include written or verbal attempts, stalking of a victim, or mass demonstrations. The latter actions are more often, depending upon the situation, characterized as foundational or threshold acts to assassinations rather than as acts of assassination alone of themselves. Generally, assassination is defined as the murder of a public figure by an assailant who aims solely at the death of the victim. For further clarification, a historical event can be described to showcase the employment of terms within an assassination situation. Guiseppe Zangara, for example, attempted to assassinate Franklin D. Roosevelt in Miami, Florida, but hit and killed Anton Cermak, the Mayor of Chicago instead. This example illustrates how the latter event is classified as an assassination attempt upon the President and the murder, not assassination, of Anton Cermak—a bystander victim. Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs. In this study, terrorism is defined according to a definition that has remained sound for over a quarter-century: “[T]he deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends.” The latter definition was proffered by analysts in 1979 at The Jonathon Institute at Jerusalem (a conference on international terrorism) and has been widely employed by scholars and analysts since then. While other definitions exist, all agree that terrorism is the use or threat of use of murder to infuse fear. Contrary to assassinations, victims of terrorism are not always specific targets. For the purposes of effectively analyzing the true impact of assassinations on policy in the United States, assassinations of only those individuals in political public life were considered for this study. Literature Review The violent act of assassination has been commonly presented as the premeditated execution of an important political, religious, or social figure. Contrary to regular homicides, assassinations strategically target important individuals who maintain a prominent position of power and influence in society. In addition, such acts are motivated by clearly defined objectives. For instance, victims can be assassinated for political, economical, or ideological reasons. In the case of complete and attempted assassinations against American presidents, another category of motivation exists: revenge. The majority of presidential assassinations within the United States fall within this category, with the act most often being the work of an unstable, lone assailant and politically aimless. To the assailant, their victim is seen as an obstacle in the realization of a personal goal or established agenda. Although any individual can be the victim of an assassination, the available body of literature that was surveyed for this study depicts political leaders as a high-risk group. Undeniably, the political aspect of assassination has often been depicted as the most complex dimension of the violent act. Politically motivated assassination, regardless of whether an attempt or successful, is always considered an act to murder political leaders. A crucial defining characteristic of these political assassinations is their fundamental objective to advance political interests. The underlying assumption of every assassination is that political figures are individuals upon whom huge responsibilities rest, such as the ability to implement major domestic and foreign policy decisions. For illustration, the presidencies of John Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy were particularly viewed by the communist world dictatorial regimes to be an obstruction in the advancement of the United States’ political and socioeconomic interests. As seen after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack upon the United States, President George W. Bush declared a “war on terror” policy that remains in effect today, although it has changed dramatically with the introduction of current President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration. But notably, the act of terrorism on September 11 led to a policy in which suspected terrorists within and outside the United States were to be tracked and dealt with accordingly. Throughout history, the key targets of political assassination have included Mahatma Gandi of India, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Patrice Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Within the United States, the first attempt to murder a political figure through assassination occurred in 1835, when Richard Lawrence attempted to assassination President Andrew Jackson. Since the nineteenth century, a handful of U.S. presidents have been the victims of this type of political violence. Included within this group are Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. Their deaths have continued to be a topic of unparalleled debate amongst political analysts, scholars, and the general public, due to the concerns that assassination poses to then security of political figures, particularly a president, of the United States. Although as previously mentioned, the majority of assassinations and assassination attempts against U.S. presidents have been classified as random, politically aimless acts committed by a lone individual, the general contention is that they were well-planned and executed. The latter results in the prevalence of conspiracy theories, which contend that within the realm of U.S. assassinations, each act was meticulously planned by individuals working together and with a defined motive in mind. Instead of classifying one factor as the primary cause of assassination, conspiracy theories posit that such violent acts stem from numerous factors. For example, many conspiracy theorists believe that Lee Oswald, the murderer of President John F. Kennedy, was functioning as a component of a network of conspirators. The Politics of Murder: Assassination in the United States The act of assassination can be described as one of the oldest techniques to perpetuate the politics of power. The phenomenon of assassination in the United States has received increased attention in the 20th century, with having only received notable research and attention since the infamous trio of assassinations in the tumultuous 1960s. Nevertheless, the available body of information and research reveals that assassination dates back to when civilization and the concept of formal governments became an entrenched aspect of society. The murder of kings such as Gedaliah and Julius Caesar can perhaps be termed as the earliest assassinations to be recorded in history. However, within the context of the United States, the act of assassination became markedly more common in the 19th century. Such acts of political violence were not expected to happen. The rationale behind such a mentality was due to the United States being a democratic state whose executive authority was responsible and responsive to the will of the popularity majority. Thus, between 1789 and 1835, when the first assassination attempt occurred, no significant protection details (on behalf of either federal or local enforcements agencies) were dedicated to U.S. presidents. Perhaps this rationalistic and optimistic mentality regarding human nature and America’s system of government serve as an explanation for why the politics of assassination have been largely under-explored until the 20th century. For extended periods, prominent political leaders continued to underestimate the threat that assassination posed to U.S. presidents. William H. Seward, who served as Secretary of State under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, once remarked, “Assassination is not an American practice or habit, and one so vicious and so desperate cannot be engrafted into our political system. This conviction of mine has grown so strong since the civil war began. Every day’s experience confirms it.” Ironically, only three years after making the latter statement, President Lincoln was assassinated in what appeared to be a carefully constructed plot. And the optimistic Seward barely survived an assassination attempt on himself during the murder of Lincoln. It can be posited that Seward’s expressed certainty regarding assassination was not unique unto himself, but rather demonstrative of the general mentality of the U.S. populace as well. President James McKinley solidified this rationalistic viewpoint when he declared, “Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; and it is best not to worry about either.” Sadly, McKinley would later regret his overconfidence in a morally sound and rational society—an admirable trait, but one that enabled his death. The Politics of Assassination CHANGE TITLE! While the murder of any political leader of a society is going to have repercussions upon said society, the assassination of a president precipitates significant social and political transformation. In the past, the assassination of a political head was viewed as an appropriate method to eradicate oppressive tyrannical leadership. However, in today’s societies, such acts of violence are hardly condoned as an ideal strategy for catalyzing political change, nonetheless positive political change. Conversely, assassination attempts and assassinations have the impact of destabilizing social and political structures, as the murder of a president or highly-ranked political leader is regarded as particularly detrimental to social and political harmony. Despite the reality of assassination and widespread acknowledgement of its threat, negligible attention has been given to the impact of such acts, particularly upon domestic and foreign policy and the American way of life. The available body of research postulates that assassinations and assassination attempts upon U.S. presidents and political figures have had considerable social and political consequences. Political analyst Sheldon Appleton maintains that the “impact of assassinations on America and the world is incalculable.” He also posits that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was arguably the most outstanding act of violence in terms of (American) societal impact. However, it must be noted that in regards to assassinations, Appleton’s argument does hold water; but in regards to acts of violence upon American soil, it can be argued that the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, resulted in the greatest impact upon society. Other political analysts have concluded that presidential assassinations activate a crisis in areas that are related to authority. Furthermore, it is agreed upon that presidential assassinations have the effect of triggering countermeasures, particularly those that elicit changes in the arena of presidential security. Such beliefs are not unfounded, as presidential assassinations inevitably result in negative consequences due to the extreme importance of the office of the president. Thus, assassinations are likely to spark significant social and political upheavals, even demonstrations, strikes and riots. However, such reactions to an assassination can be described as minor in comparison to other manifestations. One political analyst states: “Beyond these relatively minor reflections of domestic malaise, the sudden and violent death of a leader may also embolden dissatisfied groups to push for greater political change, in extreme cases leading to coups, revolution, and even civil war.” Interestingly, factors that play a role in the influence of an assassination can also serve to mitigate its social and political impact. Political analysts Iqbal and Zorn report recent empirical data that notes that “assassinations are less likely to occur in systems that provide a regular, institutionalized means of leadership turnover.” They also state that a nation’s political structure and its method of executive turnover to be instrumental in the reaction of said political system’s reaction to an assassination. Simply, nations such as the United States, who have a “regular and (mostly) nonviolent” executive turnover, will inevitable react differently to assassinations than countries that do not. Ibqal and Zorn also analogically postulate that assassinations create a “power vacuum” within a political system—of which the suction strength will vary dramatically from nation to nation depending upon the strength of the targeted political order. It can be argued that within the context of the United States, the strength (or impact) of a power vacuum—implemented through assassination—would be notably weaker than Methodology In completing the objectives of this study, the various aspects underlying the topic of political assassination and terrorism, particularly within the context of the United States, were explored. More specifically, this study follows the various presidential assassinations and acts of terrorism that have occurred since the 19th century. Crucial information regarding the consequences of these violent acts was collected and analyzed, with the goal of making appropriate deductions. The information that was required to properly address the objectives of this study was primarily collected from online academic resources, both secondary and primary, as well as various works by political science or historical scholars. This method enabled the acquirement of information that was relative to the impact and nature of political assassinations and terrorism in the United States. The information collected was directive in achieving the objectives of the study and provided thorough analysis of the subject of inquiry. The principal technique used in assembling information related to assassination was content analysis, whereas the subject of terrorism received not only the latter approach but was researched from primarily post-2000 dates. A qualitative approach was utilized to determine the relevance of gathered materials, with said approach taking into consideration the strengths of the arguments presented, as well as their weight. To guarantee the authenticity of arguments and their conclusions, only accredited sources were considered or used. These included books, peer-reviewed political science or history journals, and former studies completed on the subject of either assassination or terrorism. The hypothesis that was previously advanced was tested against the articulations of researchers and scholars, with the objective of achieving a consistent and valid conclusion for this study. A qualitative method was implemented to interpret and analyze the data gathered. This enabled individual analysis of the various instances of political (primarily presidential) assassinations and acts of terrorism in the history of the United States. While doing so, both contrasting and concurring opinions and conclusions expressed by analysts and scholars were considered. The primary expectation in this study is that both political assassinations (attempts or complete assassinations) and terrorism have not only impacted the society and social conscience of American society, but also empowered the adoption of sweeping policy changes. The latter claim will be realized through examination of the response and reaction of society and the political class after a violence act of assassination or terrorism. To consider the impact of assassinations, this study discusses the attacks against U.S. presidents since 1865. The core factor of interest is the degree of policy changes and transformations that took place after an act of violence, beginning first with assassinations, and then acts of terrorism. In this study, policy change is meant to reflect the different judicial, executive and legislative decisions that were made after each act of violence. The various events that took place after each assassination or act of terrorism were reviewed, with special attention given to how each event influenced U.S. domestic or foreign policy. The underlying premise in the various instances of assassination and terrorism is that each violent act had significant political repercussions, but that of these two types of acts, terrorism has achieved the greatest impact. Edelman, Murray, and Rita James Simon. “Presidential Assassinations: Their Meaning and Impact of American Society.” Ethics, 35, no. 2 (1969), p. 199. Rapoport, David C. Assassination and Terrorism. Toronto: T.H. Best Printing Company Limited, 1971, p. 3. Harmon, Christopher C. Terrorism Today. (2nd ed). New York: Routledge, 2008, p. 5. Laucella, Linda. Assassinations: The Politics of Murder. (1st ed). Los Angeles: Lowell House, 1998, p. xi. Ibid xi Rapoport, p. 7. Harmon, p. 4. Ibid 4 Lacquer, Walter. The Age of Terrorism (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1987), p. 11, citing French dictionaries of the 1790s. Harmon, p. 4-5. Rapoport, p. 45. CITATION NEEDED Rapoport, p. 43. This study acknowledges that assassination attempts have been and possess the ability to influence policy in the United States, both foreign and domestic. Such instances are not completely disregarded within this study, but for the purposes of the study, not all attempts are examined. It is also acknowledged that monitoring national security and suppressing public anxiety and fear play a role in the assimilation and release of information regarding threats and attempts (assassinations or other violent acts) against political leaders, particularly the President. Thus, due to the latter and the lack of a full, or complete, release of information regarding assassination attempts, proper analysis is rendered impossible or faulty. Defining danger, p. 1 FINISH LATER Heaps, Willard A. Assassination: A Special Kind of Murder. New York: Meredith Press, 1969, p. 5, citing the New International Encyclopedia. Laucella, p. 128 Harmon, p. 7. Ibid 32; Harmon posits that not only is terrorism a challenging term to define, but one which possesses many gray areas. However, the definition that was a result of the conference in Jerusalem “clarifies much of what is white and much of what is black. One must not demand more of a definition than what the nature of its subject allows,” he concludes. Further extrapolation upon the classification of assassinations is to follow in this study. Goldberg, Alfred. Conspiracy Interpretations of the Assassination of President Kennedy: International and Domestic . Security Studies Paper, Los Angeles: Ford Foundation, 1968, p. 2. Ibid p. 2 Edelman, Murray, and Simon, p. 199. Crotty, William S. “Presidential Assassinations.” Society, 35, no 2 (1998), p. 99 CITATION NEEDED Kingsbury, Robert. The Assassination of James A. Garfield (Library of Political Assassinations). (1st ed). New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2001, p. 93 Ibid 184 Crotty, p. 18. U.S. Department of State. The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the Attempted Assassination of William H. Seward and Frederick W. Seward V2 1867). New York: Kessinger Publishing, Llc, 2008, p. 102 Kingsbury, p. 5 Crotty, p. 109 Appleton, Sheldon. “The Polls-Trends: Assassinations.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64, no. 2 (2000), p. 495 Appleton’s argument does take acts of terrorism into account, but considering the date of his publication, 2000, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are obviously not considered. It is not illogical to thus conclude that his argument has been rendered faulty, or outdated, due to the series of events that have occurred since 2000—but his points regarding assassination remain valid. Edelman and Simon, p. 199 Iqbal, p. 387 Ibid, p. 387 Ibid, p. 388 Due to the overwhelming prevalence of information regarding terrorism, only the most current and balanced works and online journals were utilized in this study. Furthermore, due to the moral sensitivity of the subject of terrorism and its often-unavoidable religious connotations, only language that spoke to the impact or consequences of terrorism was studied.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060505213244/http://www.anti-state.com/vroman/... The Jim Bell System by Robert Vroman InsanusK9@aol.com https://web.archive.org/web/20060505213244/http://www.no-treason.com/Kennedy... https://web.archive.org/web/20060505213244/http://zolatimes.com/v2.26/jimbel... https://web.archive.org/web/20060505213244/http://www.aci.net/kalliste https://web.archive.org/web/20060505213244/http://www.anti-state.com/shirts.... https://web.archive.org/web/20060505213244/http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy... Ed. note: This article reflects the views of the author ONLY, not the editors. We have no official opinion whatsoever on the Jim Bell System, aka Assassination Politics. Please see also Bob Murphy's response to this article. As I write this article on July 3rd 2002, I am already hearing out my window the occasional pops of micro-explosives enthusiasts getting a head start on their annual excuse to play with things that go bang and supposedly celebrate their freedom. Tomorrow, libertarians across the country will use the holiday as an opportunity to grouse to disinterested relatives around the barbecue grill about how little freedom we actually have left, or really ever had. LP lifers often say there is no magic bullet to get the kind of society we want, and it will take decades of hard work in the political trenches, and of course many, many donations to the party, before we ever see progress. Conversely, I propose that a nutty guy named Jim Bell has already designed the magic bullet; it just needs to be forged and we will start seeing dramatic positive change immediately. Since this is a fairly controversial topic, I will start with a psychological self-analysis as disclaimer. My primary long-term goal is to live forever. I’m convinced that the exponential improvements in medical technology will curve upwards to infinity within the next century. This means surviving the relatively primitive period between then and now is the major stumbling block. As an atheist, I am faced with the conclusion that this is the only life I have. Therefore I have an enormous incentive to minimize risks to my health and well being, just as a Christian has incentive not to sin; we both would be gambling our presumed eternal life, an unacceptable wager. One such risk I will choose to decline is taking up arms against the United States government. Thus the powers that be who may read this article can rest assured that I will be exhibiting more or less cowardly behavior for the next 75 years or so, and present no security threat whatsoever. I am simply predicting what will happen and am no more responsible for the outcome than an astronomer who reveals that an asteroid is on course to wipe out DC. Hopefully, the destruction of this particular doomsday rock will be localized around the tyrants. With that said, I present the following dangerous idea. My secondary long-term goal is to live free. By that I mean living in a stable, secure, anarcho-capitalist society. The obvious obstacle to this goal is the existence of the State. The problems I face generally in eradicating this persistent pest are that: The State is actively retarding the progress of science, thus making my immortality timetable more and more dicey. There aren’t a whole lot of capital resources or individuals enlightened enough to be on my side. If I die in the process, either from fighting a revolution or from allowing the state to last too long, stalling out science, it will all be for naught (from my perspective anyway) The challenge then is to devise a plan to remove this obstacle, balancing the considerations of speed, cost and safety. In a recent article John T. Kennedy made the excellent point, using the example of a porcupine, that in order to avoid being eaten, one need not necessarily be anywhere near as powerful as the predator, only become an over priced meal. The historical example of Switzerland in WWII comes to mind. Clearly, with a concentrated effort the Nazi war machine could have decimated the small neutral country. In fact Hitler boasted early on in the war that he would “be the butcher of the Swiss.” However, the Swiss militia system was able to mobilize a half million trained riflemen within 48 hours of that pronouncement. Once entrenched in foreboding Alpine terrain, they were ordered to defend the border “to the last cartridge.” The Fuhrer decided to pass on that challenge and instead waltzed through Denmark and France, countries with little to no civilian gun culture. For our purposes, the State is the predator, and we are the prey. Kennedy mentioned (with appropriate caveats) that Assassination Politics would be one possible method to grow some quills, and raise our price beyond the power monger’s ability to pay. Briefly, the AP system, as I envision its probable implementation, would operate something like this. You come across, say, "www.jimbellsystem.com" and see a long list of names next to dollar amounts. You are then invited to select a name and then submit a guess as to the exact date this person will expire, in exchange for some standard betting fee, like $1, via some as yet undeveloped digital cash scheme. Your dollar is then added to the total on the master list. You can repeat this process as many times, on as many names as you like, or even submit a new name. Strong cryptography protects your anonymity in all cases. Then when someone on the list inevitably is reaped, the site operator examines all the winning bets (if any) and divides the prize evenly among them, after taking a small percentage as commission. The prize money is then forwarded to anonymous digital cash accounts that the winning bettors indicated when they submitted their entries. In other words it’s just a standard betting pool system except with paranoid security, and a rather macabre theme. However, the catch is that once a particular name gets some serious cash associated with it, say $1M+, there will be a strong motivation for an unscrupulous bettor to tip the odds dramatically in his favor via direct intervention in the subject’s death. The further catch is that many of the average, non-homicidal bettors will be aware that such unscrupulous opportunists exist and will play the game without any real ambition to randomly pick a correct date, but instead place bets to drive up the prize on persons they despise. The theory goes that politicians will be high on everyone’s shit list, and be the first to rack up attention getting prize pools. To be wildly optimistic, it is proposed that there will be so many people with a pet peeve against a specific politician, whether they are consciously anarchist or not, that the system will foster a niche industry in assassination, and the collective actions of the market will thereafter make it incredibly dangerous for anyone to seek positions of power. Thus, the people who currently constitute the entity known as government will either die or fearfully resign en masse, and the State will disintegrate. The fully idealistic conclusion is that this will result in permanent, defensible anarchism, since AP can be just as easily applied to any neo-statists who show up afterwards, or any foreign aggressors, assuming there are any states left lacking sufficient internet connectivity to have previously ousted their own rulers. That’s the summary, I will now debunk the many criticisms of the system, which fall into three broad categories: Practical failures Moral failures Strategic failures In the first category are objections along practical lines for its basic operation. First of all, is it technically feasible? I am not a programmer, nor even done much homework in the area of encryption/digital cash, however, there are people out there who are certainly experts who seem to think that both of those concepts have a very strong future. For further information on relevant technical matters, I direct you to J. Orlin Grabbe, who does not to my knowledge endorse any form of AP, but does treat the reader to some creative selections of soft porn. Since I am under educated in this field, I unfortunately will have to pass on any specific technical objections. Logically, though it seems reasonable to compare the operation of this system to, something like a drug cartel. South American drug lords are well known for having top notch computer systemsto keep track of their own affairs, as well as keep tabs on what competitors and Federales are up to. Such cartels are historically very good at surviving against ever increasing law enforcement budgets and political pressure. Since AP’s main business is in computers, and it will most likely be very profitable, it leads me to think that electronically evading cops by similar means may not be a hopeless task. The second practical objection I will cover is a worst-case scenario, where, in its desperation, the state retaliates against AP by banning non-governmental digital cash entirely. Feds shuts down Paypal and anything like it, and only allow e-cash that’s connected to the magnetic stripe on your National ID, and every transaction monitored. This unfortunate news bulletin can be handled several ways by AP’s patrons. To go back to our drug cartel analogy, keep in mind that many millions of people around the world flout the law daily to buy, sell and consume illegal pharmaceuticals. Distributors of drugs are everywhere if you know where to look. It is not so hard to imagine an identical network of underground suppliers could meet the demand for anonymous currency, for any number of purposes, not just AP. This could take the form of cash servers completely off the fed grid, or front companies that accept government e-cash and launder it for discreet uses. Depending on the exact nature of whatever new authoritarian legislation gets handed down, any number of solutions could present themselves, and those same millions of current law breakers will no doubt solicit them just as eagerly. And the added bonus is there is no physical evidence to be un-constitutionally searched and seized, as is the threat in the drug trade. A few Kbytes of data is probably easier to hide than a trunk full of plant extracts. In the same vein, the State might get extremely paranoid, and attempt to ban all encryption lacking FBI backdoors. Assuming that civil libertarians are not sufficiently “concerned” to prevent this, more important is the basic impracticality of enforcement. Analogy: Its 2050 and in an understandable appeal to public safety, the Feds outlaw recently invented personal invisibility cloaks. Storm troopers arrive at my apartment building and question my neighbors. “We have a warrant for the arrest of Robert Vroman for the alleged possession of an illegal invisibility cloak. Have you seen him? No? Hmm.” Again my technical ignorance may get in the way, but if I can hide the content of my message, how hard is it to hide the source and destination? Internet savvy outlaws will undoubtedly provide encryption services under the Gestapo’s nose, just like their outlaw digicash cousins, and their outlaw drug peddler ancestors. But then what if the State, facing imminent destruction, lashes out blindly and tries to shut down the whole friggin internet? Or what if they establish martial law in the scariest uber-polizei-stadt since Adolf was dancing jigs? These and other Orwellian nightmares are possibilities. However, one must consider that any path to anarchism will eventually take us to a point to where the State is cornered and crazed, and thus this is not the fault of AP. On the bright side though, if it is AP that takes us to that juncture, any measures the State take will be short lived and futile. While they may be able to hold off an armed rebellion or mass non-compliance and make our lives miserable for an indefinite period, AP will march along inexorably chowing down on their human resources and scaring them off, until there’s simply no one left to give orders or receive them. The third practical objection wonders if anyone will actually put money into AP, above or below ground. Clearly, there will have to be a significant and constant cash flow to keep the wheels turning and the heads rolling. Finding customers is probably the least of our worries. First on the list are the usual suspects of political extremists. Hardcore lefties in all their myriad flavors: commies, left-anarchists, eco nuts, feminazis, etc. Then your hardcore righties: militia psychos, pro-life zealots, Klansmen, dirty cops, uber-moralists, etc Following with miscellaneous baddies: well heeled foreign terrorists, cultists, sleaze corporations, garden variety sociopaths, drug lords, etc And that’s just the fringe. I propose that humans as a whole are not very good people. If they were, surely we would not be in the prevailing unacceptable state of affairs. Fortunately one of the main selling points of libertarianism is that it’s the superior system given any level of general morality. In the short term though, AP is well served by the relatively low level evidenced by reality. I predict that given a consequence free chance to hurt someone they despise at low monetary cost, a large percentage will sign up. American citizens donate many millions to political parties every year; clearly they take this stuff seriously. How bad do they want their guy to win? Remember, no one will ever know if you place that bet. You can protest the senselessness of it all in public, wring your hands over the latest poor public servant killed in the line of duty, and then go home and secretly sign the death warrant of that Congress asshole who wants to cut your kid’s daycare. Seriously, look at the kind of people around you, who wouldn’t jump at the chance at that kind of power? Practically anyone with any political opinions at all can name some office holder they’d rather see gone. It should be no challenge to get enough people with the same name in mind to bet a few bucks and reach a tempting pot. These people may not be betting against the worst statists in the order an Ancap might prioritize them, but the point is, it doesn’t matter who they bet on, as long as they hit any power holders, because most likely the success of AP will not come from systematically executing every politician, but instead drive them into hiding from fear of their name rising on the list. No matter what direction the fire is coming from, it will keep everyone in Washington’s head down. But just to drive the point home, forget about Americans who might unexpectedly turn uniformly patriotic and over ride their petty partisan proclivities. For an easier challenge, lets toss AP into the mix of some stormy banana republic below the equator. Giving AP to practically any 3rd world country would be like letting the rival faction leaders duel with grenades in a shower stall. Every wannabe El Presidente will openly encourage their followers to bet against the competition and undoubtedly receive the same in return. If you find Somalia encouraging, imagine the entire developing world forced to go the same route. So I think I’ve established that there will be sufficient demand, the other side of the coin is of course supply. Again, we are well stocked. Last I read, the home of the brave here has some 2 million people imprisoned, 40% of which are deemed ‘violent’. Furthermore, approximately 1% of all violent crimes result in a prisoner. This says to me that there is an abundance of dumb mean folks in this country. . One characteristic of the violence prone is they tend to be poor. I imagine that few such criminals actually enjoy risking their life and freedom day after day in robbing random people for watches and wallets. How many would gamble on that One Big Score, if payday were a sure thing? To name a few, we’ve got the obvious examples, Mafiosos, Hell’s Angels, Islamo-fascists, McVeigh acolytes, etc, plus a virtually bottomless supply of standard small time thugs and starving junkies. In other words lots and lots of people who wouldn’t think twice about killing anyone for the right price or cause, all being simultaneously offered heaping mounds of cash with no names being mentioned, no questions asked, and no one to have to trust. All guaranteed and anonymous. And the best part is, there’s no need for the ideologically pure to go fling ourselves against leviathan in some ill conceived revolution. I’m sometimes disturbed by the martyrdom complex some Ancaps seem to exhibit; holing up with their favorite rifle and apparently just waiting for the JBTs to show up someday and take down as many with them as possible. Much safer to just pay otherwise worthless people to do the dirty work instead. To wax poetic, the great melting pot of human society has got scum floating on the top, and scum settled on the bottom. It sure would be great if we could let them thin each other’s ranks, with minimal bystanders getting plugged. Then again, why count on the competence and boldness of American crooks? Watch the experiment unfold south of the border and see who takes the gamble. In parts of the world where life is cheap, AP might be a chief industry, and provide an excellent test pad for its 1st world conquest. If there are other practical failures I have missed, I will have to address them in a follow up article. On to the alleged moral failures. I do not think my audience will contest the notion that tax is theft, enforced regulation is aggression, and basically everything the government does, from bombing foreign kids, to propagandizing local kids, is wrong. Libertarian logic goes on to say that you have a basic right to defend your person and property from aggression, and that if a given level of force is insufficient to deter that aggression, you may justifiable escalate without bound until the aggression is so deterred. Furthermore, you are fully within your rights to contract out your defensive needs to other parties. If the aggressor you are facing is so overwhelming that you can neither personally defend yourself nor openly seek protection services, then it becomes necessary to devise clever systems like AP. Still, some are concerned that indirectly paying someone to preemptively kill a politician is dangerously close to initiation of force, even if the institution he represents is admittedly oppressive. First of all maybe you hate the state and have a T-shirt to prove it, but bear no ill will to the lowly 9-to-5er in the local bureaucracy with no real decision making power. Surely that misguided paper shuffler does not deserve to get axed along with the household name tyrants. Fear not, because AP only recognizes the power of the dollar, and unless someone, somewhere is willing to part with a small fortune in order to doom the government peon, he is probably just as safe as every other person listed in the phone book. The stronger complaint is that no politicians deserve to die, and we should instead get the backing of legions of converts and politely present our leaders with one way tickets to somewhere far away and leave them be. If that were plausible, I’m all for it. Since its not, there’s no reason to protest the forceful alternative. I am not obsessed with justice or vengeance. I would be perfectly happy to let every reigning politician resign without further punishment, even those that knowingly ordered or caused innocent deaths. For example, I have no desire to expend energy exhuming FDR’s corpse and dragging it around the town square, as my grandfather often insists should be done. In other words, out of sight, out of mind. The only thing that matters is that the rulers leave power, their offices dismantled. Going back to my earlier criteria, I will back whatever method of eviction is the quickest, cheapest, and safest (for me), regardless of the consequences said method brings down on the evictees. If AP is the Q, C, and S, then I shed no tears over however many leaders get snuffed before the rest discover their positions cannot protect them. If any of you have a soft spot for some politician who is “really an ok guy deep down, he just doesn’t get it yet” then hopefully he will be among the first to ‘get it’ and work his damnedest to disappear from public consciousness as fast as possible. Imagine this scenario: You just went to considerable cost to move into a nice new neighborhood. The day after you move in, you receive the following note in the mail: Dear neighbor: I live next door to you. Today is Monday. If there is not $2000 in my mailbox on Tuesday, then on Wednesday I will send a gang of armed men to forcibly extract it from you. If you resist, you will be killed. If you kill them, I will send a larger gang on Thursday, and everyday thereafter until mission accomplished. This will be a yearly event. Everyone on the block has already complied. I only had to kill two so far this year. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, Boss Vroman Your options are A) pissing away your down payment and leaving, only to find Vroman’s relatives run similar scams in every other neighborhood B) coughing up the 2 grand every year, and futilely trying to convince your sheeple neighbors to petition Boss Vroman to leave you all alone C) killing a few thugs and eventually going down in a hail of lead, D) spend your 2 grand hiring someone to snipe Boss Vroman when he least expects it. So which will it be, Ex-pat, LP, Waco, or…AP? Whether you buy that as sufficient excuse or if instead you buy into Bob Murphy’s pacifism plan, is actually quite irrelevant. Here is the clutch argument. Why Ancaps should not oppose AP is that the fate of anarchism and AP are inextricably entwined. It is obvious that if the system works at all, it will be very profitable to the operators. In Ancapland there will be no law enforcement per se to crack down on a proposed AP operation. Thus it is inevitable that some profit seeking anarchists, with no fear of state reprisal, will eventually start one or more AP servers. No matter what route is taken to anarchism, peaceful evangelism or other, the end result will be a society devoid of central authority, and with an AP system in existence, due to simple profit motive. Furthermore, even if the consequences of AP are a hell on earth comparable with the worst examples of grotesque statism, that is also irrelevant, because AP is unstoppable. Even if we all converted to minarchism so that we could have the benefits of pseudo-libertarianism, while still having a violence monopolist to counteract AP, that changes nothing. AP can destroy any state, minimal or monstrous. No matter what the ultimate outcome wrought by AP, there are no steps we can take that will avoid it. Even embracing the current police state, if that were a serious option, would not provide significant long term resistance to the looming threat of AP. There is nothing short of 100% popular refusal to participate that will prevent AP from tearing down every political office in the world, and given human psychology, that 100% won’t materialize. Thus the only question is whether AP is useful enough for transition purposes that someone develops it now, or uses other methods to destroy statism first, and wait for AP to show up on its own. It’s like this. Person A is holding person B hostage at gunpoint. You, being a pacifist, would like to save person B, without killing bad guy A. Unfortunately for your humanitarian plans, person B is a part time ninja, and as soon as the immediate threat of the gun is gone, he is going to snap A’s neck instantly. You also have a gun. So whether you shoot A yourself, or somehow non-lethally disarm him and unleash B’s hands of death, A will die. Thus given the certainty of A’s death (and deserved at that) the primary concern should be the other two people in the equation. If you attempt to disarm A, you could get shot, leaving B still trapped and you dead. Or you could just easily shoot A, saving both yourself and B, but troubling your conscience. That’s all I have to say about the moral issues. Lastly there are the criticisms that claim that AP will successfully kill politicians, moral or not, but the real problem is that the system will result in something no better than the current regime. There are common cries that AP will get ‘out of control’. I see two ways this could happen. Foremost is that the operators of AP will somehow appoint themselves de facto rulers in the resulting power vacuum and twist the tool to assassinate their personal enemies at will. This is clearly impossible because if they were able to operate their servers despite the pressure of a state, clearly someone else can operate a competing server despite the pressure of the rogue AP-ists, and if said rogues build themselves a personality cult in a bid for world domination, they make themselves ridiculously easy targets for AP v2.0. The better reason this is impossible is because ideally the AP system would be so well designed that it would run autonomously, so as to avoid there being any actual operators for the state to arrest. Thus there are no operators to go bad in the post-state world either. The other possible unintended consequence, opposite that of crypto-dictatorship, is the Randian fear about war of all against all, i.e. ‘bad’ anarchism ala Mad Max. I see little reason to worry about this possibility. If society degenerates to the point that putting a $100 bet on someone dying tomorrow results in a very real possibility that you will be right, then this would imply that AP players are so widespread and killing so unremarkable, that you might as well just whack the person yourself and save the C-note. At this point AP will fall into disuse for being an unnecessary middleman in the homicide business, except for those rare hard to find targets, as was its original purpose. Therefore, AP has a feedback loop that prevents it from being practical as a means of facilitating petty murders. In conclusion, AP is pragmatically sound, ethically justified, and strategically prudent. The only question is when. Watch out State, you’re on a collision course with an extinction level event. I have foreseen it. July 11, 2002 discuss this article in the forum! Can you help us out? Click here to see why you should support anti-state.com. with PayPal Robert Vroman is a economics student at St. Louis University, a committeeman of the St. Louis Libertarian Party, and an organizer of the Free State Project. His personal site is Anti-Marx.com. back to anti-state.com
https://web.archive.org/web/20060505214123/http://www.anti-state.com/murphy/... The Politics of Destruction by Bob Murphy robert_p_murphy@yahoo.com https://web.archive.org/web/20060505214123/http://zolatimes.com/v2.26/jimbel... https://web.archive.org/web/20060505214123/http://anti-state.com/vroman/vrom... https://web.archive.org/web/20060505214123/http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy... For some time now, I have been aware of a widespread fascination among many libertarians with Jim Bell's "Assassination Politics" (AP). At my request, Robert Vroman has defended the merits of AP. In this article, I will argue that AP is just about the single worst idea that libertarians could advocate. Despite my misgivings, I thank Vroman for his article, so that AP sympathizers may be reassured that I am not attacking a strawman. Now, before I get going, let me offer a serious note: It's true, as alluded to by Vroman's snide remark, that I have recently defended the merits of (qualified) pacifism. I realize that many libertarians find this stance hilarious and indicative of how much of a coward/wuss I personally must be. For the purposes of this debate, let me be clear: I am not at all relying on a pacifist philosophy, but merely the values held dear to most libertarians. I believe that one of the chief attractions of AP is that its proponents can sound like realpolitik tough guys; indeed, I think many people want AP to be practical. But such hopes must be put aside in a sober discussion over whether AP will in fact give libertarians the society they desire. THE JIM BELL SYSTEM For those readers who have never heard of Jim Bell's proposal, and because Vroman abstracted from details that Bell himself deemed essential, let me summarize the original AP vision: (In the following I draw on Parts 1 and 3 of the Bell article linked above, though I have taken some liberties in the interest of clarity.) There would be two groups of people, the predictors and the patrons. The predictors would submit an untraceable (due to modern technology) "guess" to the AP administrators. The guess would contain an encrypted prediction of the exact date of the death of a certain individual. (The contents of the prediction would be unreadable, not only by the authorities but even by the AP administrators.) The patrons would send (untraceable and anonymous) digital cash donations specifying only the name of a certain individual. The administrators would hold the donations and publicize the totals accumulated next to each person's name. Then, after a person on the list died, if anyone had sent in a correct prediction beforehand, he could send in the key needed to decrypt his original guess. The administrators would find that the key worked (i.e. the message would be unscrambled), and they would at that time see that the predictor had in fact correctly guessed the date of death of the deceased. The successful predictor would also specify the public key to be used to encrypt, as a digital cash payment, all of the accumulated donations associated with the now-deceased person. The appeal of AP is obvious: It would ostensibly allow people to pool their money and finance assassinations of hated political figures. The use of modern encryption techniques would make such financing completely anonymous and risk-free. Because even the administrators would never know the identity of the assassins, there would apparently be no way for the government to crack down on the system. * * * Now, Vroman has defended AP on two major grounds: First, he claims that it is inevitable; whether we like it or not, AP is coming. Second, he claims that AP should be cheered by libertarians as the source of their salvation. I dispute both claims. Despite the arguments of Bell and Vroman, I find the AP system completely impractical, and do not think anything like it will ever operate. (This is not to deny that modern encryption and e-currency trends will make traditional assassinations easier to finance. But this will not lead to a mass market in hits placed by the average consumer, which is the hallmark of AP.) Moreover, I will argue that if AP could somehow be made to work, then it would spell the downfall of modern civilization. The libertarian dream of a free society, where people's property rights are respected, would be impossible in a world with AP. WHY AP WON'T WORK Supply Side Although the proponents of AP have done a good job defending it from perhaps the most immediate objections, nonetheless I find the proposal completely impractical. Now, I am no expert in the possibilities of anonymous digital cash payments, so I will concede for the sake of argument that this aspect of the system is as foolproof as Bell and Vroman believe. Even so, I think there are tremendous flaws that would prevent a workable AP system from arising. My most fundamental practical objection is this: To the extent that AP works as advertised, then no one could possibly use it. That is, if it really were the case that the AP administrators could collect millions of dollars in donations, and funnel them to completely anonymous assassins, then what would prevent the administrators from simply pocketing the money? After outlining his system, Bell asserts (in Part 3) that, "Potential future predictors are satisfied (in a mathematically provable fashion) that all previous successful predictors were paid their full rewards, in a manner that can't possibly be traced." But isn't this statement contradictory? Suppose someone sends in a prediction, and takes out the target on the correct date. Then he sends in his claimant message (containing the key to unlock his encrypted guess), which is simply ignored by the AP administrators. Instead these unscrupulous organizers, who have previously flooded their own system with every possible prediction (and "paid themselves" the nominal fee for submitting each guess), act in whatever way is necessary to convince the public that they have paid off the assassin. In such a case, what is the cheated killer going to go? Complain to the police? (The reason drug dealers can carry on despite the lack of courts and police is that purchasers can inspect the product they're buying. And whatever mechanisms the AP proponent comes up with to solve this problem – e.g. having a private, underground rating agency to which assassins can complain – what would prevent governments or other groups from registering phony complaints to discredit the system?) It thus seems to me that the AP administrators themselves would need to be publicly known. Unlike Vroman's idea of a completely automated system, Bell recognizes this need. In an argument designed to prove that "ethical" AP organizations (i.e. ones that only target "deserving" people) would outcompete unethical ones, Bell says: Since both organizations will accept donations for "deserving" victims, while only [the unethical one] will accept them for "just anybody," it is reasonable to conclude that [the latter's] rates…will be higher for its donations....In addition, [the ethical organization] will become larger, more credible, believable and trustworthy, and more potential "guessers"…will "work" its system, and for lower average potential payments. (Bell Part 6, bold added) Now, to the extent that an AP system would require name-brand recognition to attract widespread donations, I think it is clear that governments could easily kill it in its infancy. It's possible that smaller systems could continually spring up after each set of administrators is tortured (much as the court rulings against Napster won't prevent teenagers from swapping songs), but the ostensible advantage of AP – the ability of hitmen to receive small contributions from millions of consumers – will never be realized. Incidentally, Bell himself admits that the realization of AP would require martyrdom on the part of the initial administrators. I offer the following as proof (and to show just how poorly Bell understands American society): Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that EVERYONE would be identified. The "donors" to the system would remain perfectly anonymous, and the "guessers" would likewise be perfectly anonymous, but the organization itself would be made up of real people, who have published addresses, who have simply decided that they have had enough of the current system and are going to participate in a PERFECTLY LEGAL enterprise by the laws of the country, and just DARE the government to try to stop them....Suddenly, all the politicians would be put on the spot! Instead of being asked by the reporters for their position on the economy, pollution, the budget deficit, or some other thing, they'll ask, "Why should the public NOT want to see you dead?" (Bell Part 10, CAPS original) One of the most immediate responses of the government to the rise of an AP system also proves that Vroman's idea of an automated administration is unfeasible. Imagine a credible AP system emerges, and the government can't stamp it out of existence. The first thing that would happen is high-level officials would disappear from public sight (perhaps implementing the "shadow government" plans originally designed to counter nuclear or other attacks on Washington). After they had done this, how would the public know when a particular politician actually died? Even if the politicians inside underground bunkers were still liable to hits from their colleagues, the government would simply lie about the official time of death. So any automated AP system would conclude that the "winning" prediction was in fact a losing one, since the computer would have no way of knowing the true date. Demand Side 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. As a final note on the impracticality of AP, let me ask, Why hasn't it happened yet? Bell was discussing the "inevitability" of his system back in 1996. The technology it requires is supposedly already here. So why haven't the heads started rolling? WHY AP, IF IT WORKED, WOULD BE HORRIBLE So far I have expressed serious doubts about the practicality of the AP system. But let's grant for the sake of argument that it could function the way Bell and Vroman believe. I contend that such an occurrence would be horrible from a libertarian perspective, and would in fact spell the downfall of Western civilization. Most obvious, there is nothing in the AP system to restrict its targets to politicians or others "deserving" death. Think of the power the AP option would grant to labor unions (or the NAACP for that matter). Bell claims that his proposal "would make being an abusive government employee an extremely risky proposition. Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner would even risk staying in office" (Bell Part 2). And by the same token, a functioning AP system would make being a cost-cutting corporate executive an extremely risky proposition. Chances are good that nobody above the level of personnel manager would even risk holding his job. At the slightest inclination of a proposed layoff, the shareholders of the company in question would be snuffed out. Business would come to a standstill. To the extent that AP could make coercive government prohibitively costly, so too would it render the system of private property obsolete. (And again, whatever countermeasures the AP advocate proposes to protect private officials, could be used tenfold by government officials.) Despite its claims, a functioning AP system wouldn't eliminate government. There are very few people in the world with the skill to execute, say, the Prime Minister of England. The "Mafiosos, Hell's Angels, Islamo-fascists, McVeigh acolytes, etc., plus a virtually bottomless supply of standard small time thugs and starving junkies," whom Vroman views as the vanguards of freedom, would be completely unable to penetrate the enhanced security surrounding federal officials in an AP-world, no matter how high the bounties. Rather than delivering us the heads of the masterminds of the New World Order, AP at best would pick off the mid-level bureaucrats. (The proponent may point out the cliché that no one can stop an assassin who is willing to die. That may be, but if the AP hitman is killed, then the government will know who he is, and will have no qualms in arresting his entire family and circle of friends. So we see that a common claim for AP – that it will allow suicidal assassins to execute contracts and specify beneficiaries to receive the millions in bounties – is foolish.) The response of Bell and Vroman to this objection (that AP won't be limited to the "bad guys") is typical of the flippancy with which they propose mass murder. Vroman says, Fear not, because AP only recognizes the power of the dollar, and unless someone, somewhere is willing to part with a small fortune in order to doom the [relatively harmless] government peon, he is probably just as safe as every other person listed in the phone book. In the first place, this is little consolation for the "government peon," since everyone in the phone book is only a point-and-click away from having a bounty on his head. But more serious, Vroman has here grossly misled the reader: The entire appeal of AP is that it doesn't require a "small fortune" from anyone; rather, it requires small donations from large numbers of disgruntled people. Presumably hundreds of thousands of people would be willing to pay $10 to see, say, Eminem or Barry Manilow removed from public service. If Vroman denies the profitability of these assassinations (or of the rude clerk at the local DMV), then he should stop claiming the profitability of hits on government personnel, who will spend millions and even billions of dollars to defend themselves. (Keep in mind that the primary reasons a person can't currently take out a contract on, say, his boss after being fired is that (a) he wouldn't know where to go to hire a trustworthy hitman and (b) the police would know who had a likely motive and would probably be able to discover the identity of the assassin through interrogation. But if AP worked as advertised, someone could place, say, a $5,000 bounty on a regular Joe's head, and a completely unrelated assassin – who has never even met the financier and is thus completely safe – could fulfill the contract. In the world of AP, people would be dropping like flies.) In the same vein, Bell pooh-poohs the fear that his system could get out of hand. In an apparent demonstration of his intellectual honesty, Bell tells his reader of an initial worry that he later deemed illusory: I thought, suppose a person used this system as part of a sophisticated extortion scheme, in which he sends an anonymous message to some rich character, saying something like "pay me a zillion dollars anonymously, or I put out a digital contract on you." For a while, this one had me stumped. Then, I realized that an essential element in this whole play was missing: If this could be done ONCE, it could be done a dozen times. And the victim of such an extortion scheme has no assurance that it won't happen again, even if he pays off, so ironically he has no motivation to pay off the extortion....If making the payment can't guarantee to the target that the threat is removed, he has no reason to make the payment. And if the target has no reason to make the payment, the extortionist has no reason to make the threat! (Bell Part 6) The visionary Bell has apparently not realized that this same game theoretic reasoning "proves" why rich people are invulnerable to blackmail and kidnappers. * * * Ironically, the real reason AP should be anathema to libertarians is that its creation would be the best thing to happen to the government. Look at how much raw power the American people have granted the federal government since the 9/11 attacks. What Vroman and Bell fail to realize is that average people will not look kindly upon the assassinations of the "leaders" for whom they voted in the previous election! The alleged virtues of AP would allow the government to do whatever it wanted. For example, Vroman believes the AP administrators would have an easier time than drug dealers, since there is no physical evidence. But by the very same token, it would be much easier to frame people on false charges of AP activity. The government could lock up anyone at all, and claim that it had "reliable" evidence of the suspect's "electronic terrorism." Civil liberties groups would demand to know what this evidence was, but the government would patiently explain that to reveal such information would compromise its ability to fight the clever AP computer whizzes. Anyone who thinks the public would object is a fool. (Of course, the government wouldn't even need to lock up political enemies, and suffer the bother of criminal trials. It could simply take out a contract within the AP system itself.) On this point, Vroman says: But then what if the State, facing imminent destruction, lashes out blindly and tries to shut down the friggin internet? Or what if they establish martial law in the scariest uber-polizei-stadt since Adolf was dancing jigs? These and other Orwellian nightmares are possibilities. However, one must consider that any path to anarchism will eventually take us to a point to where the State is cornered and crazed, and thus this is not the fault of AP. This is simply not true. Even overlooking the breezy dismissal of martial law, we see that Vroman completely misunderstands the role of public opinion in curbing the power of the State. The reason we have enhanced FBI powers this year, rather than last, is that the American people had the crap scared out of them by the 9/11 hijackers. And if AP ever started, the American public would be absolutely scared shitless and would grant the federal government unprecedented powers. On the other hand, if we adopt the commonplace and admittedly humdrum tactic of persuasion, we can effect a bloodless revolution. The Soviet Union fell without the horrors Vroman claims are inevitable. We can do the same with the American federal government. CONCLUSION Libertarian anarchists must realize that the absence of a functioning government is not a sufficient condition for a free society. As critics are quick to point out, there are "lawless" areas in Colombia and Somalia that have no effective government. And if we look at human society before the rise of the State, we certainly do not see an exact model for the world we desire. The only way to achieve a truly free society is to convince the vast majority that property rights must be respected with no exceptions. That is, people must realize that theft is theft, even when 51% endorse it. People must come to realize that murder is murder, even when duly elected "representatives" order it – or when thousands of people pay for it. Any honest proponent must admit that even if AP works as advertised, it will take many years to completely kill off the State. In the meantime, we will have a generation who sees nothing unusual with assassinations of famous people – not just politicians but movie stars, businessmen, models, and anyone else envied or hated by the masses. Such a society could not possibly believe in the sanctity of property rights, or take seriously the non-aggression axiom. I will close with an analysis of Vroman's response to this objection: If society degenerates to the point that putting a $100 bet on someone dying tomorrow results in a very real possibility that you will be right, then this would imply that AP players are so widespread and killing so unremarkable, that you might as well just whack the person yourself and save the C-note. At this point AP will fall into disuse for being an unnecessary middleman in the homicide business, except for those rare hard to find targets, as was its original purpose. Therefore, AP has a feedback loop that prevents it from being practical as a means of facilitating petty murders. And by the same token, if we were to achieve anarchy by using nuclear devices to wipe out all the politicians (as well as millions of innocent people and modern civilization), then the survivors would find the further use of nuclear devices impractical. July 11, 2002 discuss this article in the forum! Can you help us out? Click here to see why you should support anti-state.com. with PayPal Bob Murphy is a graduate student in New York City. He is a columnist for LewRockwell.com and The Mises Institute, and has a personal website at bobmurphy.net. He is also Senior Editor for anti-state.com back to anti-state.com
https://web.archive.org/web/20030212135325/http://www.anti-state.com/article... The Jim Bell System Revisited by Robert Vroman https://web.archive.org/web/20030213085418/http://www.antistate.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20030212144431/http://www.anti-state.com/young/y... https://web.archive.org/web/20030212135325/http://www.greenpanthers.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20030212135325/http://www.awdal.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20030212135325/http://www.stiffs.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20030212135325/http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/%7Etcs Ed. note: This article reflects the views of the author ONLY, not the editors. We have no official opinion whatsoever on the Jim Bell System, aka Assassination Politics. Please see Robert Vroman's original AP article, as well as both Bob Murphy's and Adam Young's response. Let me re-emphasize that I have neither the knowledge nor the will to implement this system. I certainly don�t like the State, but I would rather concentrate my energies on constructive rather than destructive solutions. That said, I still think governments everywhere are going to be staring down the barrel of an encrypted gun in the near future, and this article attempts to explain why, in response to numerous objections received since my last article. I also want to point out some areas where I think Jim Bell is completely off base. First of all, his insistence that AP is somehow residing in a loophole of the American legal system that only he is aware of, is absurd, as rightly pointed out by many of his critics. I have no delusions that AP would somehow survive its "day in court" or that even if, due to some arcane technicality, AP is a legal enterprise that that would stop the State from pursuing it relentlessly. Furthermore, I am mystified by Bell�s fascination with confrontation and martyrdom (as exemplified by his personal life) and do not think AP will be started by the self sacrificing, or that it�s even necessarily a good idea to have that mindset when designing the system. Bell also overestimates the enthusiasm that ordinary people will have for AP by a long shot. I still have reasons to believe there will sufficient customers, but they are not going to be primarily heartland regular Joes, who Bell envisions watching AP�s deadly progress with amusement. Bell also gives some slightly cockeyed responses to a number of the objections to his invention. In fact really the main thing I take away from his writing is the system itself, not necessarily any of his justifications. My friend and business partner, Bob Murphy presented some powerhouse arguments against my pet theory in our recent columnist debate over the infamous Assassination Politics concept. I contend that under closer examination, his insightful questions can be answered satisfactorily. Additionally, Adam Young has presented a thoroughly researched historical analysis against AP, which I will address first. Young has three main points. First, that assassination has been ineffectual in the past for destroying states. Second, assassinations will instead create a backlash against anarchism by government and citizens alike. Third he does not like the moral implications of the very likely possibility of collateral damage from sloppy AP prize-hunters, given the relatively poor caliber of historical attempts. The first point, despite all its exhaustive research, is I�m afraid to say, totally erroneous, because the mechanism by which AP kills its victims is fundamentally different then assassination campaigns of the past. I am not at all surprised to read that a handful of suicidal ideologues gunning down a few unlucky aristocrats failed to exorcise the nation state. Assume for the moment that AP�s basic functions materialize (I will get to Murphy�s objections later). The pool of assassins has instantaneously expanded from only insane political extremists, to every single violent opportunist in the world who can access a computer. AP represents a veritable full scale war against the State, fought by the scum of society and funded by every partisan malcontent across the political spectrum. A dozen assassinations per century is certainly not going to give any politicians second thoughts about their career choice, any more than the dozen or so plane hijackings in the past 50 years makes me nervous seeing a turban in business class. However, logically speaking there must be some tipping point at which the body count is the most pressing statistic a politician has in mind. AP will surpass this tipping point, where history�s basket case revolutionaries were doomed to fail. The State will of course respond in nasty ways, but inevitably these will prove ineffective in the face of an impenetrable network supporting a sustained and wide spread offensive. Secondly, Young fears that AP will re-enforce the stereotype of anarchists as the 19th century mad bomber and 20th century Starbucks arsonist. This will then erase any chance of our winning hearts and minds via soul stirring online essays, and worst of all, get the lot of us gulagged. What he fails to realize is the absolute lack of a reason for there to be any connection between anarchists and AP. If AP were actually launched, I for one would certainly not be publicly cheering it on (I probably wouldn�t even risk staying in the country, having written this article). The people who will be donating will not be doing so for anarchist reasons, they will not assume they are furthering anarchism, they will not make the connection. The targets also, will not probably be prioritized as an anarchist would. Ancaps are too small a group for our bets (if any) to be a major impact, thus if occasional bettors are caught, they are statistically unlikely to be one of us. The assassins will also not be Ancaps, unless any of you have a mercenary streak you�re not revealing. If all goes well the admins will either not exist or remain anonymous, and thus their political angle is irrelevant. With no anarchists predominantly involved in any of the core functions of AP, or visibly supporting it, I don�t see why Young thinks that the State will blame anarchists for the rise of AP. In fact, if my predictions are correct, the assassins will primarily be the existing criminal class. If the State picks any scapegoats, it will be black militancy, or drug users, or the militia movement, etc, i.e. the people who are actually attacking them. The Government did not condemn anarchists for WTC, they blamed Islamic fundamentalists. Ancaps aren�t being rounded up in detention camps, Arabs are. Despite the fact that anarchists have often said things in the aftermath that amount to "they had it coming to them." Which is more or less what I�m saying here. Anarchists will have just as much to do with AP as they did with WTC. The people who are going to suffer the brunt of the State�s reaction are the actual instigators of violence, and if I read my audience correctly, that will not be any of you. Do you particularly care (aside from general aversion to Statist crusades) if the State launches a crusade against crack heads and professional killers? If the non-betting population experiences revulsion from AP at work, its outrage will be directed at a disparate collection of political interests and unrelated thugs. The State will undoubtedly ramp up its enforcement regime in response to AP, however there is no reason that anarchists would be singled out, when there are more direct threats available. If the State does pick Anarcho-Capitalists as the source of all evil, instead of some other arbitrary group like, say the Republic of Ganjastan, then I advise us all to leave or prepare to be martyrs. At some point things are going to get uncomfortable for non-statists whether its Ashcroft Inc�s regular scheduled programming, or an AP frenzy whipped totalitarian drive. I plan to be an ex-pat at that time in either case. We can always come back in the aftermath, and start the equivalent of Awdal Roads Company in the former US of A. Third is the issue of collateral damage, which can be creatively ameliorated within the AP protocol. Its conceivable AP players might get in the habit of waiting for a number of high priced targets to get in the same building, and then truck bombing the whole structure to claim multiple big prizes, without concern for the dozens of non-targets cut down along the way. The moral failure here, I believe, lies solely with the assassin. However, my opinion is irrelevant, because if the bettors themselves feel they are responsible and they have a conscience, they will not bet for fear that the target they put money on will take a hundred un-targeted coworkers down with him. Thus AP needs to alleviate the moral obstacles bettors will face in order to have the maximum revenue flow possible. The answer is to allow for pools to be started with any number of stipulations. For example, the prize for politician Z might include the following rule: "If any bystanders are killed in the death of the target, 90% of the prize money will be donated to a fund for their next of kin. The remaining 10% will be distributed evenly to correct guessers via the normal method." Or some such wording that would serve to greatly motivate the assassin to be careful in planning his attack. By this scheme, there could be multiple prize pools for the same target, each with different disclaimers. For example, in addition to the 90% victim payout pool for Mr. Z, there might be a no questions asked pool for the same guy. Presumably, the fewer rules there are attached to the prize, the more likely an assassin will be to take a chance at winning it. Thus bettors have to balance their moral qualms about collateral damage versus their desire to see results. If they care more about bystanders, they should bet into the rules heavy pool, if they care more about eliminating the target, bet into the open ended pool. Unless there is overwhelmingly more money in the "kill by any means" pool, the mere existence of the "kill carefully" pool, should convince the assassin to be as discrete as possible so as to win both prizes. So even if AP bettors are on the whole more bloodthirsty than socially conscious, the few with some scruples will be able to have a large impact on how AP players go about their operations. In fact if AP players really did tend toward wanton destruction in order to hit their marks, it might be in the best interest of people, who either exist in close proximity to a top target, or have a general compassion for bystanders, to bet into the constrained pool, even if they have no desire to see the target dead, but for no other reason than to be sure that when he does die, the assassin will hopefully be motivated by the money in the conditional pool and avoid civilian casualties. Young denounces AP on the grounds that it uses a tactic of the State, i.e. "terror", against the State itself, and this is a reprehensible flaw. Saying that AP is terror because it kills tyrants, is like saying shooting a mugger is terror. Well, yes. If you were unfortunate enough to live in a neighborhood inhabited by gangs, and got a reputation for shooting harassers without hesitation, this would effectively "terrorize" the gangsters into leaving you in peace, or so goes the "armed society is a polite society" school of thought. However, AP does not even qualify as terror in the political sense. The precise political science definition of terrorism is "a group that uses force against an intermediate target in order to bring about a desired decision from an ultimate target". In other words, a terrorist is ill equipped to directly attack the hated government, so instead he blows up a school bus, and issues a public ultimatum that unless the government meets some of his petty demands he will strike again. The logic being that the government is incapable of protecting every school bus all the time, and the terrorist has nothing else to do but plan his next bombing, so he can essentially strike at will. He hopes that eventually the State will tire of this harassment and acquiesce, usually because the population becomes exasperated at the government�s ineffectual attempts to stop the attacks, and it is in danger of losing its power, not due to any compassion for the school kids. AP does not follow this model, primarily because, unlike the terrorist, it can indeed strike the ultimate targets directly and does not need to play deadly games with intermediate symbols. If anything, AP should be described as guerrilla warfare. Even if the effects of AP end up being terrorist in the popular sense, this is wholly different from say Al Quaeda plotting together in some dusty bunker. AP is a decentralized system unlike anything ever before. Without a central decision making body like a terrorist cell, the targets selected by the AP patronizing public will reflect its user�s ideologies. AP will only use explicitly terrorist tactics, if its users overwhelmingly have terrorist inclinations themselves, which given the superior abilities provided by AP, is an unproductive course of action and a waste of money. I hope that is a decent response to Young�s excellent article. On to Mr. Murphy�s piece. First Murphy doubts the feasibility of AP with the very legitimate concern that if the system were truly an impenetrable secret to all investigators, there is nothing stopping the AP operators from pocketing all the donations, yet claiming winners had been paid, resting on the impossibility of discovery, and the robbed winner�s desire to remain anonymous (since he�s probably got blood on his hands). A better scam might involve creating artificially high bounties, and then only paying out what�s actually in the pot. Since if there are multiple bets on the same day, the prize is split evenly between them, the assassin will not know if he has been cheated or if there are actually were enough other random guessers to dilute his prize down to the share he actually gets. The administrators could also skim off a healthy chunk too, and no one would be the wiser. This would probably be the best way to for the admins to dishonestly game the system, so that they enrich themselves; the assassins are disappointed but not given proof of treachery; and the bounties are higher than normal, thus enticing more gullible thugs. So is this really a problem? Seems to me the system still works exactly as planned whether the admins are honest or not. The only problem is getting people to trust the system in the first place, which I�ll cover in a minute. If we assume that the admins� purpose in creating AP is to make as fat a profit as possible, then they will not want to blatantly rip off hit men, for fear that word will inevitably get out among the criminal population that AP isn�t on the level. However, even in an extreme case where the admins do embezzle every penny, it doesn�t matter. Since very few people involved with AP will be actually killing anyone, only a tiny minority of users will feel they have been cheated, while the greater number will be convinced they got their money�s worth. Thus they will continue to use the system. Future assassins not in communication with their gypped colleagues will also be led to believe others have been paid. Thus everything still works, money goes in, prizes are accumulated, and targets are eliminated. If the admins really are capable of hiding all evidence and expertly conning the system, then the system will indeed be conned, and so well conned, that it will continue to run despite being conned over and over. The only problem is if this possibility prevents people from ever starting to bet and becoming convinced they are being dealt with fairly. There are two answers to this: the AP business can slowly build trust with less extreme versions of itself, and also the overlooked fact that people have surprisingly high tolerance for potentially fraudulent online services. To establish itself as an authentic operation, AP might be introduced not as a full fledged death machine but instead as a low key betting pool system whereby users could put money on sporting events or guess the day certain celebrities will get divorced, and other trivial wagers. The selling point is the hardcore anonyminity feature for users in harsher nanny states. In this relatively low risk phase, winners could have the option of being publicly announced for ego�s sake, and this would prove the system operated as intended. Then gradually more and more sinister bets would be allowed until it becomes completely un-moderated and AP is born. Such a system would not be nipped in the bud, as Murphy predicts, as there are countless underground betting organizations currently in operation, and proto-AP would arguably be even more secure from law enforcement, by benefit of its exclusive existence on the internet with solid encryption and no face to face contact among users. Even at the intermediate semi-morbid phases its possible proto-AP would not garner significant government attention. Look at this http://www.stiffs.com. Clearly harmless, but the fact it has garnered no legal complaints is a good indicator that real-AP would be able to go on the offensive for some time before the Feds figured out where the threat is coming from. I also still think the best idea is to design an autonomous system with no publicly identified administrators even in the proto phase, whether this will become feasible with future developments in cryptography remains to be seen. Even if AP did not go to the trouble of gradually building a customer base, does not necessarily mean it will fail. Examine the case of online gambling. Here we have people putting there money on games where the "house" can completely manipulate the odds in its own favor simply by changing a few lines of code, and the user will never know unless he takes detailed notes on winning percentages. They do not even have a reputation at stake like a traditional Las Vegas casino, which could do the same with its electronic slot machines. If a Vegas outfit says its slots pay out 99% or something, people who have no good reason to trust that, still play by the thousands. Many people are unaware that the Nevada Gaming Commission even exists, and virtually none have any idea how good a job they do at enforcing gambling regulations. And inexplicably they play online versions of these same dubious games too, where they have far less control, and nowhere near the trust of a "reputable" brick and mortar casino. Online gambling rakes in millions, despite obvious security holes and opportunities for abuse. An indicator that even if AP is not fool proof as far as protecting bettor�s money from the admins, people will still donate and predict. Maybe they�re just stupid, and maybe the online casinos are actually honest. Murphy also points out that if politicians resort to holding Congress inside a NORAD bunker, then any information about deaths inside the mountain can be easily manipulated by the government, thus disrupting the rewarding of correct guessers. I doubt this will be an effective countermeasure against AP. If the outside world never knows that the Feds are lying about death dates, then potential assassins would not be aware their successful hits might be in vain. They would then still have motivation to mount their attacks, and only afterwards realize the government�s press corps has cheated them out of their prize. However, the people donating money have still gotten what they want: a dead politician, and thus will continue donating. Since the assassin will presumably either be dead, captured or in hiding, he will not be able to warn anyone that the government is using information warfare against AP. Thus the system continues as planned. On the other hand, if it becomes common knowledge that the government is not a reliable source of information, then it will be up to the assassin to make the real death date known. Perhaps acquiring a tissue sample from the victim and anonymously forwarding to independent media, or videotaping the kill shot with some kind of provable date stamp. This means the assassin has to take extra risk in getting close enough to the body to grab some proof, or accidentally providing incriminating evidence on tape, and also risk further exposure in contacting the media. If the AP server is run autonomously, it will have to be programmed to take into account the relative trustworthiness of misinforming government sources versus potentially nutcase indy media, and then make a decision as to the actual date of death. If the information is too ambiguous, then it might extend prize percentages to predictions on neighboring days, based on the probability of being correct. In light of this possibility the assassin would be smart to take out high interest loans and dump his entire net worth into bets on days all around the planned kill date. In light of this development the assassin will have to take more risks and thus insist on a higher prize before taking his chances. Thus this government strategy will only serve to increase the equilibrium price of assassinations, just like their moving into the bunker itself. Matt Apple, brought up a similar potential scam on the forum: "Another problem is the targets could fake their deaths. Suppose I'm a powerful person you've targeted. I just buy a day and then fake my death on that day. I put out a phony death certificate, maybe I even provide some gruesome staged photos of me lying dead. The media reports me dead and the operator releases the dough to the "guesser" ie me. As soon as the anonymous transaction is completed I appear on camera at a live press conference and announce that the plans of the evil electronic terrorists have been foiled and that in an ironic twist I'm donating the bounty they had on my head to the FBI. If this happened just once then all the people pumping up those bounties will lose their faith in the system." If the media is so blatantly lied to, then more so than the AP bettors, the media itself will not believe future death reports. They will want to take pictures at the autopsy or do whatever it takes to have ironclad proof that this guy really is dead. If the media becomes an overt tool of the state, there will still be people who demand an objective news source, whether they are AP sympathizers or not. This demand will support the Matt Drudges of the world who will find a way around mainstream hegemony, and AP can be programmed to ignore statist media. Murphy doubts that my army of gutter trash will be able to make a dent in the ruling class. Perhaps he�s right that the average street hoodlum will only be successful in killing mid level bureaucrats that the State can�t afford to lavish security on. However if that were true, is it really such a crucial flaw? If AP bettors come to realize that the tiptop of the pyramid can find impenetrable missile silos to hide in, then it�s no longer cost effective to chase them with ever higher donations. Like any institution, the State clearly needs support personnel, and even if they do choose to hide in Mt. Cheyenne, they still need people on the ground at the very least to crack heads and collect taxes to keep the lights on down in their hole. If AP bettors become frustrated that the juicy targets are out of range, the next level down is going to take the brunt of it in the face. It might be fun to be a storm trooper, but if suddenly you, due to lack of options, become the priority target for the assassination market, maybe its time to turn in your badge and go back to vocational school. Additionally if you are an ordinary citizen who has up to this time not been involved with AP at all, but suddenly you notice that the tax collectors who stay above ground are getting executed with alarming frequency, you might be more inclined to gamble on fudging your returns or not paying at all, and hoping that the constant harassment provided by AP will prevent the revenue harvesters from noticing you. If the State is denuded of its agents and means of interaction, then it is just as harmless as if it had been chopped up directly. However, it would naturally be more efficient to strike the root. AP would reach its end goal quickest, with the least collateral damage, if assassins were able to hit the politicians even in their super-bunkers. There�s an argument that there is some upper bound beyond which additional funds will no longer influence the odds of an assassination taking place. Meaning that if $500M is not enough to convince anyone to take a chance on the target, $5B probably won�t either. That may be the case for individuals, but not for groups of AP players. If a mercenary or terrorist group became interested in mounting a multi-person operation like the WTC attack, then the higher the bounty gets, the more equipment they can buy and more personnel they can recruit for the plan. If say, there were multi-million dollar bounties on Saddam Hussein (a safe example) and all his top generals and lieutenants, making their bunker a concentrated mega bounty, it could become worthwhile for some para-military unit to risk a raid. The highest paid professional mercenaries in the world are employed by Sandline International and, according to the UN (who wants to ban their line of work), they make no more than $300,000/yr. That�s not chump change, but for someone who rides shotgun in a chopper chasing down African guerrillas for a living, the extra risk driving into Baghdad might be worth the hazard pay offered by AP. Taken to its logical conclusion, if there were enough extremely high bounties on a country�s leaders, who were all clustered into one spot, no matter how well defended, it could be cost effective for army sized forces to be mobilized to seize the prize. So even if the top brass did hole up in the ultra bunkers, entire legions of militiamen or other adventurous chaps might come a knocking to snag all those billions. Murphy goes on to say that the average Americans will be horrified by the idea of AP. True, the 50% of the population who don�t bother to vote probably will not feel their time is well spent influencing the political system by AP or any other method. Of the other half, probably the majority has no deep interest in the issues or understands anything beyond doing one�s civic duty. Of that slim percentage that actually have strong to passionate views, whatever they may be, therein lies AP�s demographic. What Bob fails to realize is that AP bettors will not know what they are doing, long term. Very few people are going to consciously decide they want to get rid of government and put money on it. Instead they will donate money against specific politicians in the hope it will help advance whatever pet cause they clutch so dearly. Think if AP were in place back in the 2000 election. Are you a greenie who can�t stand the thought of oilman GW raping poor Gaia? Give AP some of your weed money and see what happens. Are you a good ol� boy who thinks eco-feminist Al Gore will send the beloved US of A the way of the Roman Empire? Put off buying that new truck and see what AP can do. Even the most authoritarian bastard who ever cast a ballot can list some Statists of a slightly different breed that rub him the wrong way. Do you doubt the gun culture would pass up on an opportunity to bury some liberals, or for the religious right hypocrites to take out some of the godless queers in Washington, or radical feminists putting their 79 cents on the dollar against Deep South carpetbaggers? And more importantly than private citizens, don�t forger corporate-statists, like Big Ass Subsidies Inc who�s pocket politician might lose to the candidate who�s platform calls to spend the loot on some other boondoggle. Surely they can afford a million dollar write off if their spot in line at the trough is at risk. The point is that maybe Mrs. Soccer Mom has no strong opinions and would never think of placing a bet, but there are many, many people with strong political views, regardless of what they are. Surely the more diehard or less moral will see that they increase the chances of their guy winning, if the enemy is scared off by a rising AP tab. And the boiling frog effect comes into play as AP makes its mark on the world. When the state predictably increases its enforcement measures, more people will see it in their best interest to bet against encroaching fascists. If you doubt Americans will buy into this system in relevant numbers, I will repeat the point from my first article that Murphy did not address. I can concede that Americans will refuse to play, or that the Feds will manage to protect themselves (I don�t) but that does not mean AP cannot be effective. Ignore the NATO countries for a minute. Imagine AP taking root in some exotic locale like Nigeria for example. I bet a lot of those relatively well to do white farmers might take the opportunity to go online and put some money against Mugabe. I also think that one of his sadistic henchmen might be able to do the math to see that the AP prize is greater than his entire combined future earnings. The downside of the Third World is the lack of communications infrastructure, but in the coming years, ever cheaper electronics will make that less and less of an obstacle. The upside of course, is that the leaders are rather absurdly unashamed of their predations, and very frequently there are large contingents of people who adamantly hate them. Furthermore add that these States have less sophisticated means of combating online activity it disproves of, and the fact that the population is used to politicians forcefully attempting to grab the throne. Conclusion is that many of the potential objections that apply to America and the "civilized" world are not to be found at all south of the equator. This could be an interesting test bed for the protocol. If it works, we get another blossoming Somalia. If it fails, well, the country was a hellhole before anyway. Murphy says that if AP works well enough to destroy the state, it won�t stop there and will completely shred civilization. He claims for example that just as disgruntled citizens can axe politicians at will, laid off workers can axe their cost cutting former employers, and that any defenses the private individuals can use, will be even easier for the state to use. This is wrong on both counts. Not only is it harder for capitalists to be killed, they can defend themselves from AP easier. First of all, there are vastly more high ranking business owners than there are high ranking bureaucrats. If the AP betting population suddenly gained an all consuming irrational desire to destroy capitalism, it would take a far greater monetary investment against businessmen than politicians, to reach that tipping point where targets are scared away from their positions. Furthermore, each individual businessman has a much smaller pool of people affected by his decisions. Whereas everyone in the country has to deal with the onerous decrees of the gang in Washington, there are many orders of magnitude fewer people dependent on any given board of directors. Presumably, people who don�t work for that company will not be very inclined to donate money, just as not many Americans would bet against Italian party chiefs. Therefore if the boss does manage to royally piss off the workers, he has much fewer potential bettors against him. These are people who have just lost their source of income (with no welfare to look forward to), and have fewer co-conspirators; they will not be able to produce nearly as enticing bounties as those that public officials will accrue. Keep in mind that people who bet against politicians will be expecting their incomes to rise in the absence of taxes, and thus be more likely to bet higher. More importantly, the boss knows who they are. If murder is being considered its likely due to them being whipped into a fury by some mafia goon union boss. The CEO has much more money at his disposal than an unemployed working class gang. If the union leader agitates his followers to wreak AP based revenge against the CEO, he can�t expect to survive either. Anyone who attempts to rally workers to donate their already dwindling cash reserves into pointless vengeance will see his own name rising on the list faster than the CEO�s. The population of an entire state will be large enough that the number of independent people willing to put money against their powerful enemies will not require there be anyone egging them on. In order for smaller interest groups to get their petty revenge, a more coordinated effort is required. Harder still is that the potential victims have a much more conveniently sized body of suspects to watch, compared to politicians who are being targeted by anonymous bettors hiding among millions or billions. And better still, if the CEO knows whom he fired and who is threatening him, then everyone else knows as well. Would you hire workers who had paid for the assassination of their last employer? If a group of people are fired and their ex-boss is subsequently the target of a fat AP prize, then the entire group will immediately be blacklisted by every other employer. This will provide a huge incentive for individual workers not to toe the union line. Their own reputation and future employability rests on breaking their professional relations civilly or at least without bloodshed. This situation might instead just serve to impress upon corporations the need to be more careful in their hiring and firing. Only take on workers you really need, and only let them go after careful consideration, and in that event, possibly firing them in smaller batches, rather than mass lay offs. Nevertheless this may indeed grant more power to workers. We must remember that not all corporations are nobly building wealth in spite of government machinations. Occasionally there really are scumbags who abuse employees, is it such a disaster if such people fear lethal retaliation for their misdeeds? Another dystopian fear is that AP will support murders between non-famous people over petty frustrations. A scumbag husband wants to get out of a divorce without losing half his wealth, so if he thinks an AP bet worth a quarter of his wealth will get the job done, and does so. An unrelated party kills the wife, scumbag cuts his losses nicely, and the wife is horrendously aggressed against with no chance of justice for her family. Yes this is a problem that AP would exacerbate. Choosing your spouse carefully has always been good advice. However, if the wife�s lawyers checked the AP records and found there had been a substantial prize, despite her being a generally well liked individual, they would decide that the "unrelated" killer might not be such a random tragedy after all. And proceed to hire detectives to investigate the ex-husband�s financial records to find a similarly sized hole. Even if he expertly hid all his transactions with encryption and such, the sheer lack of other suspects may lead an arbitration committee to demand the husband prove his innocence. I assume hiring an assassin to initiate aggression will be a crime in Ancapland, but I will let others debate that. Like the threatened businessman who knows who his potential threats are, in the case of an innocuous unknown being the victim of AP, it will be easy to discover the few or single person that has motivation to invest the significant money involved. AP in fact hurts the chances of the anonymous petty murderer, because the record of one�s prize is public. Anyone who cares to investigate the death of an AP victim can see exactly how much it cost. If the victim had few enemies, it is a simple matter to make the connection between the specific sum and the likely suspects. Compare this to the case of a low level bureaucrat that Murphy complains is just as vulnerable as the rest of us. He is right in saying that it doesn�t require one big bet, only lots of little bets. However, unless the bureaucrat has managed to piss off all those people placing the little bets, they won�t happen, and he is safe. If the bureaucrat has managed to do so then there�s probably a reason he deserves it. People in the phone book though, probably do not have multitudes of enemies, and thus are safe from all but an exceptionally wealthy psychopath, which I imagine are few and far between. As for the extortion scheme that Jim Bell rather awkwardly argued against and Bob accurately deflated. The problem there is that the extortionist needs to have enough money of his own to actually place the bet that will attract assassins to his victim. Fortunately, extortionists usually ply their trade because they don�t have any money. The thug could bluff, but if called on it, he has no bargaining chips in this case, like an old fashioned significant other duct taped in the basement. If he actually does have the money and the victim calls his bluff, if he goes through with his threat, he has just spent a shit load of money to kill someone for no reason, and with no return benefit to the extortionist. Not a very profitable scam. If he does convinces the target to play along, he still has to communicate his threat. Such exchanges usually involve some amount of negotiation, or complicated instructions that require communication. The extortionist has to sacrifice a lot of anonyminity to pull his crime off. This weakness gives the presumably deep pocketed target plenty of opportunity to spend some of that ransom on private detectives to locate the extortionist. The criminal in this case has no human shields to prevent a raid. The benefit of AP is to allow anonymous assassination contracts, in both the case of the vengeful labor leader, and the crafty extortionist, both lose that shield and leave themselves wide open to retaliation from the greater resources of their chosen enemies. Another concern mentioned on the forum, is that the State, with its trillions of revenue will actually invest money into AP to off its political opponents. This is a pretty ridiculous proposal. First of all, the enemies of your enemies are not necessarily your friends. If the State pays an AP assassin to shoot some, say, ultra-lefty criticizing them, are we really that much worse off? In fact, I�d be overjoyed to see politicians taking out AP bets against their opponents for the most part. Why should a democrat spend valuable campaign money on advertising when he could just pay to have his republican opponent drop out of the race permanently? Libertarians are rare enough that I doubt we present a serious enough threat to the State compared to their fellow parasites scrambling for the best suck spot, that they�d spend money to attack Harry Browne instead of their opponent in the primary who has a real chance of ousting them. Another problem with this supposed counter strategy is that it�s entirely unnecessary. If the State really wants to kill someone, they already have all the tools; they don�t need to spend money on AP. They could just give Lon Horiuchi his normal paycheck and have him snipe whomever they don�t like. It�s not as if they ever get in trouble for it, even when they aren�t exactly subtle. It doesn�t make sense for them to pay for secrecy they don�t need. Finally, this plan would backfire, because if the admins are anarchists, and they take a commission, then the State, by playing AP, is directly enriching someone who will re-invest his profit against State targets. Also, the assassins don�t care who they kill if the money�s right. The State is also enriching people who will be just as happy to come back and shoot Statists, now with more resources to plan hits too. Bob concluded by essentially saying that the only way to anarchy is an enormous campaign of rational evangelism. He disapproves of the whirlwind anarchy in Somalia and similar power vacuums. I disagree. I see much more hope for building Ancapland out of the lawless ashes of a Somalia, than of gradually subliming the promised land out of the monolithic State in an America. If AP does prove the alarmists right, and crashes society into an apocalyptic period, (I do not think this is the case) still, such a turn of events will be in the long run an easier path to Ancapism than the intellectual erosion strategy. Murphy points out the example of the bloodless revolutions in Eastern Europe. To which I respond derisively, what revolution? They traded hard line Russki-communism for soft line Euro-socialism. That�s even more of a joke than American style Republicrat lesser-evilism. Stasi agents all retired on embezzled millions, and now the Great Terror War is inviting domestic espionage back in force all across the Continent. The only revolution that arguably has ever made recognizable progress is the American experiment, which is notable for killing employees of the previous regime by the thousand. If Thomas Jefferson could have emailed digicash to pub brawlers in London, or scheming heirs in Buckingham palace, mad King George�s confused reign would have come to a deserved end before he could futilely attempt to reclaim his rebellious colonies. The point being, in order to get anarchism, I don�t think it�s a question of getting the balls to start sledge hammering the Berlin Wall and hope the Kalishnikov toting border guard respects the numbers presented by all your fellow civil disobeyers. If the only fall out is a different set of thugs being in charge tomorrow, there will of course be less State resistance than if the entire thug industry is being called into question. If you want real change as in no more thugs, ever, then the top thugs aren�t going to budge until they have no other choice. The ultimate conclusion then is that if anarchism takes a revolution of the non-bloodless variety, there�s no reason why the fighters shouldn�t be backed up by a means to get at the higher ups. Or better yet, replace the fighters entirely with anonymous assassins and strike exclusively at the heights of power. I know I don�t want to spend much time huddling in trenches. It undoubtedly sounds arrogant, but I would say that less than 1% of global population has any concept of how the world (i.e. economics) really works, and of those that do, most have got it horribly wrong. However, when they are forced to suddenly make do for themselves in the absence of authority, as is the case of Somalia, Ancapism spontaneously appears without the presence of wise graduate student mentors preaching Mises. It sure would be nice, naturally, if Bob could go over and warn them off from accepting UN overtures of providing "stable governance", but the point is they were able to find profitable anarchism on their own, with little to no knowledge of economics and certainly no deep respect for pacifism. All it took was the total destruction of their state, the means notwithstanding. On the other hand if Murphy expects to get some percentage of the population to side with him before picking up a hammer, he will definitely be taking the long uphill route. Murphy says that a generation growing up surrounded by headlines full of dead famous people will be disastrous. I fail to see how this could be more damaging than the scores of generations stretching back into history that grew up with headlines of how great the State is. The Somalians lived through generations of war, where life was made quite cheap, yet now they are Africa�s best chance. If AP worked perfectly and stripped the state away by force in a relatively short time frame, people will be thrust into unfamiliar territory. No doubt in their confusion they will attempt to recreate State functions. These will be torn down again and again. Like a child getting its hand slapped every time it reaches for the hot stove, AP will discipline the world that concentrations of power are bad. In the mean time, if Murphy is able to patiently explain to the bewildered why this is the case, so much the better, but either way, there will be no more State, and they will not have a choice in the matter. Murphy is essentially advocating a Taking Children Seriously approach to enlightening the collectively childlike population. I would rather just smack them until they stop and maybe explain briefly afterwards why. Lastly, it seems clear to me that AP is superior because it is a market process. People exchange value for perceived value. They invest their money for the benefit of removing aggressive people from society. On the other hand, Murphy is advocating a "educate the masses" routine that depends solely on he and his colleague�s dedication to the cause. Not to disparage his efforts, honestly, if anyone can do it, the current crop of anarchist intellectuals has got my fullest confidence. However, I really don�t think anyone is going to listen until they are already living in it. I see the economic wizards role as after the fact guides in the new wonderful world of anarchism wrought by AP and other market strategies. Once everyone is stuck in their regional equivalents of Somalia, and wondering what the hell just happened, Bob and co, will step in and say, "Hey, isn�t this great, look how much more we can get done now!" And people, who have been forced to find alternatives to formerly government offered services, and no longer obey regulations or sacrifice taxable income, will sit up and finally notice Bob, and say, "What the fuck? Why haven�t we always done this? Thanks, Bob!" Bob will then smile knowingly and go on a worldwide lecture tour. Then from time to time, a few clueless bastards will try to "get all the guns and take over". AP will mercilessly smite them. Life goes on. In the meantime, I await the next round of objections. August 15, 2002 discuss this article in the forum! Can you help us out? Click here to see why you should support anti-state.com. with PayPal. Robert Vroman is a non-violent person. back to anti-state.com
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2015/05/small-game-fallacies.html Small-game fallacies by Nick Szabo Monday, May 25, 2015 A small-game fallacy occurs when game theorists, economists, or others trying to apply game-theoretic or microeconomic techniques to real-world problems, posit a simple, and thus cognizable, interaction, under a very limited and precise set of rules, whereas real-world analogous situations take place within longer-term and vastly more complicated games with many more players: "the games of life". Interactions between small games and large games infect most works of game theory, and much of microeconomics, often rendering such analyses useless or worse than useless as a guide for how the "players" will behave in real circumstances. These fallacies tend to be particularly egregious when "economic imperialists" try to apply the techniques of economics to domains beyond the traditional efficient-markets domain of economics, attempting to bring economic theory to bear to describe law, politics, security protocols, or a wide variety of other institutions that behave very differently from efficient markets. However as we shall see, small-game fallacies can sometimes arise even in the analysis of some very market-like institutions, such as "prediction markets." Most studies in experimental economics suffer from small-game/large-game effects. Unless these experiments are very securely anonymized, in a way the players actually trust, and in a way the players have learned to adapt to, overriding their moral instincts -- an extremely rare circumstance, despite many efforts to achieve this -- large-game effects quickly creep in, rendering the results often very misleading, sometimes practically the opposite of the actual behavior of people in analogous real-life situations. A common example: it may be narrowly rational and in accord with theory to "cheat", "betray", or otherwise play a narrowly selfish game, but if the players may be interacting with each other after the experimenters' game is over, the perceived or actual reputational effects in the larger "games of life", ongoing between the players in subsequent weeks or years, may easily exceed the meager rewards doled out by the experimenters to act selfishly in the small game. Even if the players can somehow be convinced that they will remain complete strangers to each other indefinitely into the future, our moral instincts generally evolved to play larger "games of life", not one-off games, nor anonymous games, nor games with pseudonyms of strictly limited duration, with the result that behaving according to theory must be learned: our default behavior is very different. (This explains, why, for example, economics students typically play in a more narrowly self-interested way, i.e. more according to the simple theories of economics, than other kinds of students). Small-game/large-game effects are not limited to reputational incentives to play nicer: moral instincts and motivations learned in larger games also include tribal unity against perceived opponents, revenge, implied or actual threats of future coercion, and other effects causing much behavior to be worse than selfish, and these too can spill over between the larger and smaller games (when, for example, teams from rival schools or nations are pitted against each other in economic experiments). Moral instincts, though quite real, should not be construed as necessarily or even usually being actually morally superior to various kinds of learned morals, whether learned in economics class or in the schools of religion or philosophy. Small-game/large-game problems can also occur in auditing, when audits look at a particular system and fail to take into account interactions that can occur outside their system of financial controls, rendering the net interactions very different from what simply auditing the particular system would suggest. A common fraud is for trades to be made outside the scope of the audit, "off the books", rendering the books themselves very misleading as to the overall net state of affairs. Similarly, small-game/large-game problems often arise when software or security architects focus on an economics methodology, focusing on the interactions occurring within the defined architecture and failing to properly take into account (often because it is prohibitively difficult to do so) the wide variety of possible acts occurring outside the system and the resulting changes, often radical, to incentives within the system. For example, the incentive compatibility of certain interactions within an architecture can quickly disappear or reverse when opposite trades can be made outside the system (such as hedging or even more-than-offsetting a position that by itself would otherwise create a very different incentive within the system), or when larger political or otherwise coercive motivations and threats occur outside the analyzed incentive system, changing the incentives of players acting within the system in unpredictable ways. Security protocols always consist of at least two layers: a "dry layer" that can be analyzed by the objective mathematics of computer science, and a "wet layer" that consists of the often unpredictable net large-game motivations of the protocols' users. These should not be confused, nor should the false precision of mathematical economic theories be confused with the objective accuracy of computer science theories, which are based on the mathematics of computer architecture and algorithms and hold regardless of users' incentives and motivations. A related error is the pure-information fallacy: treating an economic institution purely as an information system, accounting only for market-proximate incentives to contribute information via trading decisions, while neglecting how that market necessarily also changes players' incentives to act outside of that market. For example, a currently popular view of proposition bets, the "prediction markets" view, often treats prop bets or idea futures as purely information-distribution mechanisms, with the only incentives supposed as the benign incentive to profit by adding useful information to the market. This fails to take into account the incentives such markets create to act differently outside the market. A "prediction market" is always also one that changes incentives outside that market: a prediction market automatically creates parallel incentives to bring about the predicted event. For example a prediction market on a certain person's death is also an assassination market. Which is why a pre-Gulf-War-II DARPA-sponsored experimental "prediction market" included a prop bet on Saddam Hussein's death, but excluded such trading on any other, more politically correct world leaders. A sufficiently large market predicting an individual's death is also, necessarily, an assassination market, and similarly other "prediction" markets are also act markets, changing incentives to act outside that market to bring about the predicted events. Posted by Nick Szabo at 9:36 PM 15 comments: Anonymous said... This is pure gold. Prediction market may become assassination market 12:00 PM brownboi said... Things are moving quickly... https://medium.com/plain-text/using-scicast-to-find-answers-in-the-bitcoin-b... FYI I'm in full agreement with Szabo. Combinatorial prediction markets, never mind mild futarchy, haven't been proven in real life situations. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are virgin territory as they are. No need to further complicate things. Lets handle this the way the early evolution of the web was handled! 2:15 PM Unknown said... While a "prediction market on Death A" provides a payout to Group X upon A's death (Group X being those who correctly bet that A would die), an assassination market needs to provide the payout to a specific individual Z (usually as only Z knows the date of A's death). In a prediction market, one cannot control or restrict membership in Group X, which makes the incentives different: A rival assassin can spy on Z and steal his payout by front running Z's trade, A can bet on his own death and then fake it -profiting from his enemy's contributions-, Z's co-conspirators can wait for the pro-death trade to go through - make a (now-wildly-profitable) pro-life trade - and then rat out Z to the authorities in exchange for legal immunity. These counterexamples all exploit the unrestricted entrance into the prediction market's Group X. Moreover, consider two large prediction markets instead of one: the first, "A to be assassinated sometime in May 2015?", the second, "Someone to try to assassinate A (successfully or otherwise) sometime in May 2015?". What are the incentives now? The more money on M1="No", the more likely someone is to attempt to assassinate (M2="Yes" should increase), warning the victim of danger, and giving bettors a way to profit by thwarting the assassination itself (but not the assassination-attempt). I'd go as far to say that, by narrowing your focus to a single prediction market, you've made the very fallacy you describe in your post. -Paul 5:30 PM HostFat said... @Paul Is it possible that more than one prediction market will survive? I think that it will be the same as for currencies (on the long run at least) Are there incentives to stay on different prediction markets? (I mean, if they give the same features ...) 4:58 PM Unknown said... @HostFat I think you've gotten a little confused. InTrade.com was a single website, but it contained many, many different prediction markets. There may be only one "prediction marketplace" (ie, one website [InTrade], or one protocol [Truthcoin]), but it would be very bizarre to imagine only one prediction market existing. That would be a little like saying "people can only ever trade shares of one corporation (Apple, for example)". 6:15 PM Anonymous said... This needs to be applied to Game of Thrones immediately 8:48 PM shah8 said... When you see a bunch of public intellectual singing a certain tune that rings dubious to you, but beneficial to a state--predicting how another state is just going to lose, lose, lose in the near future because of x, y, z (made up bad faith stuff), that's coming from the stuff Szabo is talking about up there. For instance, the anti-Greek chorus. There are several themes used over the times, however, let's point out the early May theme of how Greece was going to inevitably capitulate completely, and poor, stupid, and feckless Syriaza was going to be tossed over by the voters they overpromised to. In neither case was that ever likely. The international chorus was there to rattle/communicate with institutional stakeholders. No big if it doesn't work, any more than icing the kicker at the end of an American football game. 10:12 PM Anonymous said... For a real world "prediction market that changes incentives outside that market" with $billions at stake, look no further than CDS vs underlying credit. Here's a good place to start: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-18/radioshack-is-running-on-cr... Or this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-22/blackstone-unit-wins-in-no... Just stumbled across this blog. The Assassination Market quip killed me. Thank you. 8:07 PM Kyle said... The "Assassination market" has been around since the early 90s (see Jim Bell and Wikipedia.) 9:53 AM Anonymous said... Nassim Taleb calls that the ludic fallacy http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy 12:56 PM Iang said... Any market cannot be separated from feedback into the price of the good itself, a sort of Heisenberg Uncertainty Response. The more a market attracts interest from less interested parties, the less it predicts some 'true' reflection of the fundamentals. Prediction markets become assassination markets, but they can also becomes a disinformation market. Saddam Hussein could have bet on the book for his death either up or down for different purposes. Up if he wanted to convince people he was dead (and please stop trying to kill me) or down to convince people he wasn't worth killing. Economist Charles Goodhart of the Bank of England postulated that any measurement of the currency intended as a control became like a corset and activity would bulge out elsewhere, rendering the control useless. Likewise a market can become the driver not the intermediary. We see this with certain commodities markets where the paper issuance is orders of magnitude greater than the physical, and prop trading starts to drive the price away from physical fundamentals. 5:59 PM dhi25 said... Look at what happened with "The Interview" movie. Apparently even making a movie about a fictional assassination is considered enough to incentivize assassination in some people's eyes. And ironically Kim Jong-un's (alleged) reaction could have caused him to be more likely to be killed. Real world feedback loops quickly become entangled in unpredictable ways. 9:53 PM Stewart Harding said... It's nice to read an article that isn't just pictures or misguidance from some ageing hippie. Thanks for sharing. 6:23 PM camp said... I don't see how you stop the assassination aspect. Let's use the example of public election results that is often used when discussing prediction markets. The bets focus on the following question: Will Hillary Clinton be inaugurated as president in 2016? A dead person can't be sworn in. Most questions (perhaps all) are subject to an outside attack in this way. I don't see how this issue can be overcome. But it's not the death of prediction markets imo. Those are useful enough (and effectively inevitable) that it's more likely that we'll transition away from violence as a species than avoid mass adoption of prediction markets. 5:15 PM Zawy said... As in the prediction market problem, expectations of a selfish or cooperative environment results in a selfish or cooperative environment. Hence it's a social disaster to philosophically think in terms of "selfish genes" or selfish individuals as capable of originating selfish forces independent of their origins. The global environment is the only source of physical forces (from potential energy gradients) that guides the creation and sustenance of individuals and genes. Information creation in the specifics of markets is the result of a larger, governing environment. The error is not limited to economics and evolution, but goes back to their fundament, physics: Newton's law is not fundamental because it allows for non-conservative forces (mainly friction) which are not fundamental (see Feynman, "Least Action"). This results in the belief that the thermodynamics 2nd law is "entropy is always increased" which has been supplanted by the standard model and direct observation that entropy in large expanding volumes of the Universe is constant (see Weinberg's "The First 3 Minutes") which means all small open volumes of the Universe (e.g., the Earth's Surface) must have decreasing entropy that is emitting entropy to "allow" the Universe to expand (entropy is conserved). The error in thinking the Universe is doomed to a heat death erringly justifies a philosophy of selfishness. 4:36 AM
http://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf Sukumaran, R. (2004). "Cryptology, digital assassination and the terrorism futures markets" (PDF). Strategic Analysis. 28 (2): 219–236. doi:10.1080/09700160408450129. S2CID 154847137. Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets R. Sukumaran Abstract A recent news item indicated that the US Government had been planning a website that would enable people to place bets on the likelihood of terrorist events. It was hoped that a study of market trends would enable intelligence agencies to anticipate and prevent such events. The idea was mooted by Admiral John Poindexter, head of the Total Information Awareness Program and bears some resemblance to a scheme mooted by Jim Bell. Bell, an MIT graduate had proposed a scheme which uses cryptography and the Internet in order to eliminate corrupt public officials. His scheme rewards those who correctly predict the date of death of such officials. However, the identities of the successful predictors were to be kept secret by using public key encryption methods. Bell claims that his scheme, if universally adopted, would lead to the elimination of government itself. Society would regulate itself by the threat of assassination of those acting inimical to its interests. No other regulatory mechanism, he claims, would be required. This paper attempts to understand Jim Bell's concept which requires some knowledge of cryptology. It briefly discusses some concepts in cryptology and electronic banking which are essential to the working of the scheme. It also discusses the Iowa Electronic Markets which have been fairly successful in predicting US Presidential elections. It uses an approach similar to that proposed by Admiral Poindexter's group. The paper analyses the practicality of both Bell's and Poindexter's schemes. --*-- Introduction In late July 2003, the US media was rocked by news that the Pentagon was planning to open a website that would enable investors to place bets on the probability that a particular event -- a terrorist attack or assassination -- would Strategic Analysis, Vol. 28, No.2, Apr-Jun 2004 Revised paper received © Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses on May 8, 2004 Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 219 take place.1 The programme, called the Futures Market Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP), was part of the Total Information Awareness Program and was coordinated by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The key figure in the plan was retired Admiral John Poindexter, a prominent actor in the Iran-Contra scandal that bedevilled the Reagan administration. Its purported aim was "to explore new ways to help analysts predict and thereby prevent the use of futures market mechanisms."2 The terrorism futures market bears a certain resemblance to a scheme called `Assassination Politics', propounded by Jim Bell, a disgruntled American cyberpunk and MIT graduate.3 Jim Bell has used the ideas of cryptography and e-banking to develop a concept he calls `Assassination Politics' or `DigitaLiberty'. He conceives of an organisation that would assist in eliminating corrupt officials and oppressive politicians through a system of rewarding those who correctly predict the date on which a particular official or leader will die. The identities of the successful predictors would be kept secret using encryption. Bell believed that the successful implementation of his system would result in the eventual abolition of all forms of state control and even war. Interestingly, Jim Bell was imprisoned in 1997 for threatening a US federal agent following the publication of his scheme. This, coupled with his refusal to pay tax demands he considers illegal, brought down on him the wrath of the Internal Revenue Service (the American equivalent of the Income Tax Department).4 The apparent co-option of his scheme by the Pentagon therefore deserves closer scrutiny. The Basics of Cryptology Codes, Ciphers and Frequency Analysis In order to understand Bell's system, we digress a little into cryptology -- "the science of rendering signals secure and extracting information from them."5 This comprises both cryptography -- "rendering information unintelligible to outsiders by various transformations of the alphabet", and cryptanalysis -- the method of breaking down or extracting the message from the intercepted signal.6 Technically, substitution at the word level is known as encoding.7 Thus, if we replace `I am here' by `1 2 3', where 1 represents `I', 2 represents `am' and 3 represents `here', we would have encoded the message. Substitution at letter level is enciphering. This can be done by transposition, where the letters constituting the message are re-arranged, thus forming an anagram or by 220 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 substitution in which each letter of the alphabet is replaced by another according to a certain pattern.8 If we replaced each letter of a message by another in a certain pattern, we would have enciphered it. Many encryption schemes use a combination of transposition and substitution incorporated in a specific pattern, controlled by a key.9 Encoding messages requires a code-book, which contains an equivalent for every possible word that could be used.10 It would therefore be a fairly hefty tome. Every person in the transmission-reception chain would need a copy. The loss or capture of a code-book would be catastrophic and preparing and distributing a replacement would be a nightmare. Around the 16th century, codes were therefore replaced by ciphers. Ciphers need to cater only for the limited number of letters in the alphabet, instead of for the entire lexicon of words.11 Around the 8th century, the Arabs discovered that some letters of the alphabet occur more often than others in any message.12 They also found that the frequency of the occurrence of these letters is independent of the message, provided it is long enough. In English, the letter `E' occurs most often, followed by `T' and `I'. the Arabs were possibly the first to use frequency analysis to decipher messages, without knowing the `key'. Mono and Poly-Alphabetic Ciphers The simplest form of substitution ciphers are called Caesar ciphers after Julius Caesar who is believed to have used them.13 These involve replacing each letter in the message by another a fixed number of places away in the alphabet (called a Caesar shift). If `a', `b' and `c' were replaced by `d', `e' and `f' respectively, we would be using a Caesar shift of three. The English alphabet permits Caesar shifts of up to 25. The alphabet re-arranged according to the Caesar shift is called the cipher alphabet. However, we need not stick to simple Caesar shifting. We could also rearrange the letters of the alphabet randomly to form different cipher alphabets. This would give rise to an enormous number of permutations making deciphering much more difficult. Simple and even random substitution ciphers are however vulnerable to frequency analysis. This led to the development of poly-alphabetic ciphers.14 Here, each letter of the message is enciphered using a different cipher alphabet.15 This is determined by the keyword chosen. Depending on its location in the message and the length of the keyword, the same letter could be enciphered differently. This form of encryption, known as poly-alphabetic encryption, is immune to normal Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 221 frequency analysis. While the enciphering technique might be common knowledge, how the process works depends on the keyword. The Importance of the Keyword The 16th century de Vigenere cipher was poly-alphabetic. This meant that the cipher changed with every letter of the message. The pattern was decided by the keyword. Keeping the keyword secret therefore became the cryptographic problem. It had to be agreed beforehand by both parties. The keyword decides which particular cipher alphabet of the de Vigenere Table will be used to encrypt each letter. The encrypted message thus contains as many cipher alphabets as the number of non-repeating letters in the keyword. The longer the keyword, the more secure the cipher. The receiver uses the keyword again to decipher the message. The de Vigenere cipher was considered to be practically unbreakable for the next four hundred years since it was invulnerable to simple frequency analysis.16 When it was eventually broken by Charles Babbage and Friedrich Kasiski in the 19th century, deciphering was made possible because of restrictions imposed by the keyword selected.17 One possible solution was not to use meaningful words as keywords. Another was to use keywords as long as the message itself. However, there still remained the problem of informing the receiver what the keyword was. Many different approaches were used to provide strong encryption. The German Enigma enciphering machine designed by Arthur Scherbius and patented in 1918, used poly-alphabetic ciphering. The Enigma used three scramblers, which meant that every letter went through three stages of substitution. Interchanging the scramblers further increased the number of possible scrambler arrangements. It also had a plugboard, which interchanged six pairs of letters (transposition).18 The total number of arrangements possible on the Enigma was a staggering ten million billion (1015).19 Despite all its features, the Enigma encipherment was eventually broken because it used a key for setting the scrambler positions. Solving the Key Distribution Problem: The Advent of Public Key Cryptography The main problem the sender and receiver had was that of agreeing on a key. If the key were intercepted, the message could be read. The problem of how to agree on a common key, without an eavesdropper being able to intercept the key, is known as the key distribution problem.20 222 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 In 1976, Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman of Stanford University, proposed a solution to the key distribution problem involving the use of one-way mathematical functions. When a number is input, these functions produce a unique output. However, the process is not reversible. Two persons, A and B, use a one-way function of the form yx (modp).21 They agree on values for y and p over an open line, but choose values for x that they keep secret. Both now insert their values for x into the one-way function and exchange their results. These values are inserted in place of y in the one-way function and the result again calculated. The results are identical. This becomes the key and it can be used to operate a symmetrical cipher. A and B have therefore managed to agree, without meeting, on a common key which they can use for enciphering and deciphering messages. To take a simple example, an eavesdropper would know that A and B have agreed to use the values y=7 and p=11, in the function yx (modp), but would be unable to work out their respective values of x. The values of y and p actually used are very large, thus making life more difficult for any eavesdropper. Asymmetric Keys Thus far, all keys had been symmetric -- the same key being used for both enciphering and deciphering. Whitfield Diffie therefore visualised a system which would use an asymmetric key. One key, widely publicised, would be used for enciphering and another key, solely in the possession of the receiver, would be used to decipher the message. However, Diffie did not have an example of a function that could work in the manner he envisaged. The problem was solved in 1977 by Rivest, Shamir and Adelman, who evolved what is now called the RSA system, after their initials. Public Key Cryptography -- the RSA System Rivest, Shamir and Adelman used a one-way function. One-way functions are non-reversible. Just by knowing the function used and the output obtained, one cannot work backwards to obtain the input. Rivest and his colleagues used a one-way function based on modular arithmetic. The message is digitised and put into the function which generates another number called the ciphertext. The system essentially uses the fact that it is exceedingly difficult to factor the product (N) of two very large primes. N is called the public key.22 To send a message to A, B inserts her public key and the message into the one-way function and sends the result to A. Merely knowing A's public key is not enough for anyone to decipher the message. He also requires A's private key. The private key is related to the Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 223 primes that A multiplies together to obtain the public key. However, it is difficult to factorise a very large number into the two large primes that are its factors. If the prime numbers used are of the order of 1065, the number N would be of the order of 10130. Factorising such a number could take a 1 GHz Pentium with 128 MB of RAM several months. Actually, the values of N used in important transactions tend to be much higher. Hash Functions and Digital Signatures Digital signatures were originally suggested by Diffie and Hellman as a method of verifying that a message had not been tampered with and that it had indeed been sent by the purported author.23 These are generated using hash functions. A hash function H takes the message m and transforms it into a sequence of fixed length, whatever the size of the original message. This is called the hash value h (i.e., h = H(m)). Reversing the process should not yield the message m or its length. Hash functions employed in cryptography are usually chosen to be collision- free, i.e., no two messages will result in the same hash value. Further, neither the message nor its length can be extracted from the hash value. A first encrypts a message using B's public key and sends it to him. B uses his private key to read the message. In order to generate a digital signature, A inputs her message into a hash function. She then encrypts the resulting hash value using her private key and sends the result to B separately. B extracts the hash value using A's public key. He then applies A's hash function to the original message. If the resulting hash value is the same, it proves that the message has not been tampered with and that it was genuinely originated by A. Privacy and e-Banking Digital Cash Personal privacy is now a major public concern. Increased computerisation has resulted in credit card companies and banks creating huge databases on customer preferences and spending patterns. Despite assertions to the contrary, this information is often sold to other commercial interests and can also be linked to virtually build up a dossier on any particular individual. This information can be misused by various agencies, including the government. Increased computerisation has resulted in the development of digital cash. These are essentially numbers which represent a certain sum of money. A bank would sign (superimpose) a particular series of notes with its digital signature 224 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 (private key).24 All notes signed with this particular key would have a certain value. These bank notes could be authenticated using the bank's public key. Thus, if A wishes to withdraw a dollar from her bank, she first generates a random number, signs it with her private key and sends it to the bank. The bank verifies her signature with the public key she has earlier agreed for transactions with the bank. It then removes her signature, signs the number with its own private key, certifying that it is worth one dollar and returns the now valid note after debiting her account by one dollar. This note can now be used by A to pay for goods in B's shop. B can verify the note by checking the bank's digital signature. He then sends the note to the bank. The bank verifies its own signature and the note number and notes that it has been spent by A. It then credits B's account with one dollar, simultaneously debiting A's account by the same amount. The note cannot now be double-spent. However, the system described does not have privacy since the electronic notes can be tracked. Blind Signatures and Digital Pseudonyms In a paper published in the Scientific American in August 1992, David Chaum and his colleagues outlined a scheme to prevent such digital cash being traced. They developed a system they called `blind signatures'.25 When sending a note to the bank, its number is multiplied by a random factor. The bank therefore does not know its number. It only knows that A has sent it. Once the bank has signed and returned it, A removes the blinding factor. Since the bank has no knowledge of the actual note number, transactions cannot be linked. The notes cannot be traced since the blinding factor is unknown. In the same article, David Chaum also described a concept called a `digital pseudonym' which would ensure privacy while at the same time-enabling a person's identity to be validated. A person could choose different digital pseudonyms for every organisation that he/she does business with. This would be done by using `electronic representatives' and `electronic observers'.26 An electronic representative would reside on a smart card with a keypad and display. It would control all electronic transactions that its owner makes, all data input and generate the private and public keys required for a transaction. This would ensure total privacy and untraceability of transactions. `Electronic observers' would prevent double-spending of digital banknotes and protect the interests of banks. The observer would reside on the smart card along with the electronic representative and monitor its behaviour. Observer and Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 225 representative would be programmed not to trust each other. In order to protect its owner's interests, the representative would be in overall control and ensure that unauthorised transactions are not carried out. Observers would be validated by validating authorities. These would also authenticate the various digital pseudonyms that a person requires for transactions with different agencies. The validating process would assure any agency transacting business that a genuine person exists behind the digital pseudonym. Assassination Politics or DigitaLiberty An American anarchist named Jim Bell has integrated all these aspects, into a system for the elimination of corrupt Government officials.27 Jim Bell is an MIT graduate, presently serving a term in prison for threatening a US federal agent. His original grouse seems to have been that he was unfairly taxed. His scheme, which he calls DigitaLiberty, has been published on the Internet under the title "Assassination Politics".28 The effectiveness of Jim Bell's scheme hinges on the concept of digital cash and digital pseudonyms, as envisaged by David Chaum and on securing personal anonymity through the use of Public Key Cryptography (PKC). It envisages an organisation which would act as a combination of bulletin board, mail forwarder and lottery manager. It would maintain a list of particularly disliked public officials and separate accounts for each person. The organisation would also display details of the money that it has received as contributions from the public in each account. This amount would be paid to the person who successfully predicts the date of that individual's death. An individual would send to this agency, an encrypted envelope containing some digital cash encrypted with the organisation's public key. Inside this envelope would be another, containing his prediction for the date on which a particular official would die. The second envelope is encrypted using the person's private key and hence cannot be opened. The organisation would open the first envelope with its private key and discover the digital cash. It would not, however, be able to open the second envelope without the public key which the predictor retains. It thus does not know whose death has been predicted and when. People aggrieved by an individual could also send the organisation some digital cash to be paid to the person who correctly predicts that individual's death. When the prediction is proved right, the predictor wins the reward which has been posted, for anyone who correctly predicts the death of that individual. Bell suggested that the use of (PKC) and digital pseudonyms would ensure absolute anonymity. This would prevent people being targeted for criminal activity by government agencies like the 226 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 FBI. In any case, no one would be carrying out any illegal activity because people would merely be predicting the dates on which some particular individuals would die. No one would be incited to carry out a killing. The reward would be due whether the person died a natural or unnatural death. Preventing Frivolous Predictions In Bell's system, the name of the official and the date of his predicted death are both encrypted using PKC and cannot be read. The prediction would be posted on the bulletin board. In order to ensure that frivolous predictions are not sent in, individuals would also have to enclose some digital money. This money would be added to the amount sent in by all those who have also predicted or wish the death of that particular individual. There would be nothing to indicate the identity of the person sending the prediction. The amounts contributed for the death of a particular person would be publicly posted on the bulletin board. Protecting Identity If the prediction comes true, the person who has correctly anticipated the death of the particular individual would send the organisation the key to decode his prediction. The organisation would open his envelope and discover the name and date of death correctly predicted. The individual would also send another public key which the organisation would use to encrypt the reward. The public key would be posted to enable anyone else, who wishes to do so, to send money to the successful predictor. The use of PKC, digital pseudonyms and blind signatures would ensure the anonymity of the successful predictor. Further, no one would know what role, if any, he had played in the demise of the individual. Even if it wished to, the organisation could not assist any authority which wished to trace the successful predictor. Even the digital cash would not be traceable to its source. This is the essence of Jim Bell's system. He summarises its advantages as follows: The prediction can be made in total anonymity. Since the prediction itself is encrypted and revealed only on the death of the `target', the target cannot be warned. The predictor need not reveal his prediction, unless he chooses to. He need not claim the reward either. He can transfer it to anyone else since it can be blinded. The organisation, too, does not know the contents of any prediction and therefore cannot be held liable for any criminal activity. However, for the system to work, a potential predictor would also have to be convinced that the money posted would actually be paid for a successful prediction. Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 227 How It Works Assume that a citizen is upset with a government official or politician who is corrupt or violates his rights. He mails the individual's name and his predicted date of death to the organisation along with any amount of money that he considers appropriate. If even 1 per cent of the population of India were willing to contribute Rs 1/- towards the reward, the amount collected would total Rs one crore. The successful predictor could collect his money knowing that his identity is safe and not dependent on the benevolence of the organisation. The money he receives would also be untraceable to its source.29 Governments could target the organisation for promoting criminal activity. However, Bell argues that the organisation could not be charged with criminal activity because it is merely forwarding mail. It also could not be charged with being an accessory after the fact since it would not know what information is contained in the encrypted digital envelopes. It would not itself be engaged in any criminal activity. There would be no conspiracy because there are no co- conspirators. All participants would be anonymous. The predictions are themselves encrypted and the name of the target unknown. However, one interpretation of the law suggests that the organisation could be considered to be acting criminally in `endeavouring to persuade' people to murder. However, Bell suggests that the organisation would, in fact, become global and therefore, difficult to target under national laws. It would then bear comparison with international terrorist networks. Further, the mere fact that no laws now exist to combat such organisations does not mean that this will always be the case. It is more than likely that specific laws would be drafted to target any group planning to enter this `niche' business. Revolutionising Society Bell suggests that the implementation of his scheme would revolutionise society.30 He goes so far as to suggest that even the police and military could be abolished. Leaders of bellicose states could be removed without the dangers of war. No leader would be immune. In most cases, it is the general population which has the most to lose from war. The availability of such a system would ensure that countries are not pushed into unpopular wars. Bell feels that this would result in a de-bellicisation of international politics and even remove the need for large armies. He suggests that why this has not happened so far is because it has been left to the leaders themselves. Earlier, a deed could be done but the doer could not be rewarded without fear of discovery. 228 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 The perpetrator could be traced and punished by the police. The beauty of his system is that successful predictors could be rewarded without any risk of discovery. The random nature of the whole process ensures a disconnect between predictor and target. Such a system would also ensure that no judges or prosecutors would be willing to take up any case on behalf of an unpopular government since they could also be targeted. Any dishonest organisation (one which failed to pay the promised reward for a successful prediction) which goes into this business could itself be targeted or forced out of the market by a similar, but more honest organisation. The ethics of the marketplace! Self-Regulated Policing Bell also suggests that crime itself would reduce. According to him, the police are generally unable to prevent serious crime and prefer to target `victimless' crimes like pornography, prostitution or gambling. However, the cost of maintaining a police force is enormous. He suggests that a self-regulating system could be created for a fraction of this cost. He feels that people would be willing to contribute a small sum in order to predict the death of a malefactor, say a car thief. Even insurance companies would be willing to reward successful predictors, in order to reduce losses caused by payouts for car theft claims. This would result in car theft becoming a risky proposition. Competition from Criminal Organisations The other fear is of criminals using similar methods to set up an organisation targeting law-abiding people -- a modern-day variation of extortion. However, with an unethical organisation, there is no guarantee that payment would let you off the list. Such an organisation would be willing to target anyone, not just wrong- doers.31 The advantage of the legitimate organisation is that it would target only evil-doers. The monetary incentive for terminating evil-doers would therefore be higher than for targeting an ordinary individual in whose death hardly anyone would have any interest, The criminal organisation therefore may not continue long in business. The ethical organisation would survive. The Viability of Digital Assassination From cryptography to the elimination of intrusive government the police, the military and war itself, is truly a giant leap. But does this system stand up under Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 229 examination? It is true that PKC, digital pseudonyms and blind signatures would enable identities to be kept secret. However, it presupposes that, given the public key, determining the private key would be difficult. PKC depends to a large extent on the huge amount of time that it takes to factorise very large numbers. However, computers continue to become smaller and faster. It is also not impossible that mathematical algorithms enabling faster factorisation of huge numbers could be developed. These could significantly reduce the time factor. However, it is equally likely that PKC would then use much larger numbers and also that different encryption methods using asymmetric keys could be developed. The kind of scheme Bell proposes is likely to threaten established forms of government. It is unlikely that an establishment, aware of the threat such a system would pose to itself, would allow its creation. Such an organisation would need to be visible, accessible and with public support. The technology proposed to be used is only likely to be found in advanced countries which presumably have an active citizenry concerned about governance and civil liberty. The system also assumes widespread awareness among the public of advances in cryptography and electronic banking. But people in most countries are wary of the claims advanced for new technology. Further, new technology is generally controlled by capital which already owns the technology currently in use. New technology will therefore, generally be suppressed until society has been sufficiently prepared for its introduction -- the aim being to maximise profits. Thus, for example, we may be reasonably certain that the replacements for fossil fuels, as and when they arrive, will be controlled by the likes of Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon, which controlled fossil fuels in the first place. The fact that this system requires the availability of advanced technology rules out its adoption in the developing world which would possibly benefit the most from the implementation of such a system. It is unlikely that it could work with the kind of primitive infrastructure that is available in most of the developing world. In fact, it is highly likely that it would be an attractive proposition for adoption by criminal organisations in the developing world, given the lack of activist interest in issues of governance and the difficulty of mobilising public opinion. It therefore seems that Bell's scheme will remain an interesting study in the use of technology for the abolition of intrusive government and be added to the many schemes for world government that have cropped up in the past. Bell does not specify who will run this organisation. It will need capital, equipment and, most important of all, personnel. How will it be funded? It will 230 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 obviously need to keep a percentage of the donations people send it for its own operating expenses. The key to the organisation is its personnel and their integrity, since it is they who would maintain the website and post the rewards. The Terrorism Futures Market In late July 2003, news broke that the Pentagon was researching a scheme called the Futures Market Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP). 32 The idea had been broached by Admiral John Poindexter, National Security Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a prominent casualty in the Iran-Contra affair. The budget for the program was apparently US$ 8 million. The program was part of the Total Information Awareness Program and was coordinated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Admiral Poindexter, who has a PhD in nuclear physics, has had a controversial career.33 He has apparently specialised in offering unorthodox solutions to difficult problems. In the Iran-Contra affair, he and Col. Oliver North sold weapons to Iran, then under US sanctions for holding American hostages. With the proceeds, he financed the Contra insurgents to overthrow the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Poindexter's latest idea is to allow investors to bet on their predictions of likely terrorist actions to help law and intelligence agencies anticipate better where the next outrage could take place. This system is supposedly modelled on the Delphi method of forecasting, pioneered by the RAND Corporation. The assumption is that, investors acting en masse, could pool their bits of information together to create a far better picture of reality than they could individually. A better picture of the future of the stock market or the national economy should thus emerge. The Iowa Electronics Markets This principle is already being used in the Iowa Electronics Markets to predict the outcome of presidential elections. The Iowa Electronics Markets are small- scale real money markets run by the University of Iowa Business School. The most well-known of these is the Presidential Futures Markets, which aims to predict winning candidates in the Presidential elections. Essentially, traders are asked to answer which candidate they think people would vote for on election day. A cocktail of options is offered. The system uses classical statistics, a representative sample of voters and assumes truthful responses to arrive at a prediction of the result.34 This is done on a daily basis. Trading is frozen on the night before the Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 231 election and the results compared with the actual results. Each market is linked to a specific future event. Traders are offered a bundle of contracts, each contract relating to a particular subset of the main event, for example, the likelihood of a particular Democratic candidate winning against any Republican candidate, or a particular candidate being nominated by a particular party. Each bundle consists of one of each contract available in the market. The bundles are bought and sold by the system at a price which is the aggregate pay- off for that outcome as determined by the market. The system merely introduces contracts into the market. Traders can exchange these at prices that they decide. Traders only know the best bid and ask for prices and the last trade price. They do not know the quantities available at these prices. Joyce Berg and her fellow researchers at the University of Iowa have discovered that the system is fairly accurate as regards US Presidential elections. Accuracy is enhanced when the event is high profile and arouses general interest by market volume. They have also discovered that markets with fewer contracts, i.e., fewer variables (candidates) are more accurate. FutureMAP With FutureMAP, Poindexter attempted to extrapolate the Iowa Presidential markets system to the prediction of terroristic events. Each of these outcomes would become a contract. It was assumed that the information available to various players in the market could be used to determine the likelihood of an event and might even yield information on terrorist attacks. The probability would be proportional to the price. Since people would be betting with cash, it was assumed that they would be more truthful. The assumptions underlying FutureMAP were that human beings are rational economic players and that markets accurately predict the future. The model also assumed that information distribution processes are highly efficient, readily leveraged by players and that markets are free from manipulation.35 All these assumptions may be questioned. Moreover, unlike Presidential polls, which are scheduled to occur on a known date, the schedule for terror attacks is known only to the terrorists. Even if we assume that the target is known and that the terror event is certain to occur, the day would still be uncertain. The peak price would be no indication, since we would not know that it is the peak. Further, to assume that the information is so 232 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 widespread that it has filtered into the market, is contrary to what we know of the way terrorists operate. If they allowed this to happen, they would be giving away information which could jeopardise their plans. A more probable scenario would be one where terrorists pretend to be interested in a particular target. This would enable them to divert attention from the actual target and also enable them to manipulate the odds and the market. Research however indicates that attempts to skew the market only have a momentary impact. The scheme could also be used by government to enable players to predict the death of enemy leaders like Saddam Husein. In such a case, the resemblance to Jim Bell's scheme would become very marked. In this case, players would attempt to bet on whether Saddam, Fidel Castro or Osama bin Laden would be alive on a certain date. In this case, the government's role would not be passive. It must be presumed that this would be linked to active attempts by intelligence agencies to hasten the demise of these individuals. The facts in this case would be known to the government and individuals would be betting on death dates. This would raise the same ethical arguments as Bell's scheme. The exposure of Poindexter's scheme resulted in a huge outcry in Congress. The scheme was dropped like a hot potato, essentially on moral grounds.36 However, some analysts feel that it could have been useful as a trend indicator and should have been continued, though perhaps not in the context of terrorism. In a study published by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Professor Abramowicz concludes that information markets could help refine administrative agency predictions about government policy if the possibility of manipulation can be overcome. It, therefore, seems likely that FutureMAP may eventually resurface in an entirely different context as a policy analysis tool. Conclusion Jim Bell has suggested a scheme to punish corrupt officials which he calls DigitaLiberty. This presumes the existence of an organisation, which would allow those who correctly predict the death of such officials to be rewarded with untraceable cash, while keeping their identities secret. Discussion of his scheme and the eventual abolition of government, which he hopes it will bring about, require some rudimentary understanding of cryptography. Salient encryption systems have therefore been examined to understand better the issues at the heart of cryptology. Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 233 Bell's idea hinges on the use of PKC to preserve the anonymity of individuals who participate in the scheme. It also requires the availability of digital cash and digital pseudonyms on the lines suggested by David Chaum. Asymmetric cipher systems together with the Internet form the cornerstone of Jim Bell's scheme of DigitaLiberty. It is truly revolutionary. It is a moot point whether it will be implemented. The dangers it poses to existing systems of command and control will probably ensure that it will never be. Bell argues that the system is not criminal. However, since implementation is likely to threaten elites, it seems very likely that laws will be updated to make such activity illegal. The heavy dependence on advanced technology ensures that the system is not likely to be used in the developing world. While we cannot deny the devilish ingenuity of Bell's scheme, it seems most likely that it will merely be an interesting appendix in a book on the elimination of governments. The Futures Market Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP) propounded by Admiral John Poindexter seems to have been inspired by Jim Bell's `Assassination Politics'. The distinction is that it would be operated in the interest of national security. It would allow punters to bet on the occurrence of certain terrorist events like the likelihood of a terrorist attack, the assassination of a leader or the death of a wanted terrorist to obtain actionable intelligence on likely events. Unlike Presidential elections, the time-table for terror events cannot be predicted. Terrorists are unlikely to be influenced by market decisions. That FutureMAP was under serious consideration only highlights the fact that no idea is too outrageous to be considered. References/End Notes 1 "Amid Furor, Pentagon kills terrorism futures market" , 30 July, 2003, at http://www. cnn.com /2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market 2 Ibid. 3 Schlegel, Alex, "Jim Bell and Assassination Politics", at http://alex.creartivity.org/ articles/art-200109-assassination_politics.html updated July 30, 2003 4 Ibid. 5 Kahn, David, The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing. 1966. Weidenfeld and Nicolson; London. p. xvi. 6 Ibid. pp. xiii-xv 7 Singh, Simon, The Code Book. 1999. Fourth Estate; London. p. 30 234 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 8 Kahn, David, no. 5, p. xiii. 9 Ibid., p. xv 10 Singh, Simon, no. 7, p. 31 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., p. 17 13 Kahn, David, no. 5, p 84 14 Ibid., p. 46 15 Ibid., p. 49 16 Ibid., p. 51 17 Ibid., pp. 208-213 18 A working model of the Enigma is available at the site indicated below and will serve to give a good idea of how it functioned. See "Working Model of Enigma ciphering machine", Java Applet by Russell Schwager at http://www.ugrad.cs.jhu.edu/ ~russell/classes/enigma/enigma.html 19 Singh, Simon, no.7, p. 136 20 Ibid., p. 251 21 Ibid., pp. 264-265 22 Ibid., pp. 274-275 23 Ibid., p. 300 24 Chaum, David, Achieving Electronic Privacy. Scientific American. August 1992, pp. 96-101 25 Ibid., pp. 97-98 26 Ibid., pp. 98-99 27 McCullagh, Declan, "Crypto-Convict Won't Recant", April 14, 2000 at http:// www.antioffline.com/apol.html 28 Bell, Jim, Assassination Politics", April 03, 1997 at http://jya.com/ap.htm. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 "Amid Furor, Pentagon Kills Terrorism Futures Market", July 30, 2003 at http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market 33 "John M Poindexter" at http://www.warblogging.com/tia/poindexter.bio.html 34 Berg, Joyce, et al, "Results from a Dozen Years of Election Futures Markets Research", University of Iowa, November 2000, at http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/ archive/BFNR_2000.pdf Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 235 35 Ritholtz, Barry L., "Terrorism Futures Market: Much Ado about the Wrong Thing"; The Big Picture: Macro Perspectives on the Capital markets, Economy Geopolitics, August 02, 2003 at http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2003/08/ terrorism_futur.html 36 "Terrorism Futures Market Plan Cancelled", Fox News Channel, July 29, 2003 at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C93190%2C00.html Wg Cdr R. Sukumaran is a Research Fellow at IDSA. He is an Air Force fighter pilot and has operated on both INS Vikrant and INS Viraat. His research interests include military history, technology and the use of air power. Errata: The name `Lt Cdr Frank Taylor of the Royal Navy' on page 50 of the Jan-Mar 2004 issue of Strategic Analysis should read `Lt Cdr David R. Taylor of the Royal Navy'. -- Editor 236 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004
Yes, Sukumaran's essay is by far the most competent treatment of my Assassination Politics idea and essay. Jim Bell On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:45 AM, grarpamp<grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: http://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf Sukumaran, R. (2004). "Cryptology, digital assassination and the terrorism futures markets" (PDF). Strategic Analysis. 28 (2): 219–236. doi:10.1080/09700160408450129. S2CID 154847137. Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets R. Sukumaran Abstract A recent news item indicated that the US Government had been planning a website that would enable people to place bets on the likelihood of terrorist events. It was hoped that a study of market trends would enable intelligence agencies to anticipate and prevent such events. The idea was mooted by Admiral John Poindexter, head of the Total Information Awareness Program and bears some resemblance to a scheme mooted by Jim Bell. Bell, an MIT graduate had proposed a scheme which uses cryptography and the Internet in order to eliminate corrupt public officials. His scheme rewards those who correctly predict the date of death of such officials. However, the identities of the successful predictors were to be kept secret by using public key encryption methods. Bell claims that his scheme, if universally adopted, would lead to the elimination of government itself. Society would regulate itself by the threat of assassination of those acting inimical to its interests. No other regulatory mechanism, he claims, would be required. This paper attempts to understand Jim Bell's concept which requires some knowledge of cryptology. It briefly discusses some concepts in cryptology and electronic banking which are essential to the working of the scheme. It also discusses the Iowa Electronic Markets which have been fairly successful in predicting US Presidential elections. It uses an approach similar to that proposed by Admiral Poindexter's group. The paper analyses the practicality of both Bell's and Poindexter's schemes. --*-- Introduction In late July 2003, the US media was rocked by news that the Pentagon was planning to open a website that would enable investors to place bets on the probability that a particular event -- a terrorist attack or assassination -- would Strategic Analysis, Vol. 28, No.2, Apr-Jun 2004 Revised paper received © Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses on May 8, 2004 Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 219 take place.1 The programme, called the Futures Market Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP), was part of the Total Information Awareness Program and was coordinated by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The key figure in the plan was retired Admiral John Poindexter, a prominent actor in the Iran-Contra scandal that bedevilled the Reagan administration. Its purported aim was "to explore new ways to help analysts predict and thereby prevent the use of futures market mechanisms."2 The terrorism futures market bears a certain resemblance to a scheme called `Assassination Politics', propounded by Jim Bell, a disgruntled American cyberpunk and MIT graduate.3 Jim Bell has used the ideas of cryptography and e-banking to develop a concept he calls `Assassination Politics' or `DigitaLiberty'. He conceives of an organisation that would assist in eliminating corrupt officials and oppressive politicians through a system of rewarding those who correctly predict the date on which a particular official or leader will die. The identities of the successful predictors would be kept secret using encryption. Bell believed that the successful implementation of his system would result in the eventual abolition of all forms of state control and even war. Interestingly, Jim Bell was imprisoned in 1997 for threatening a US federal agent following the publication of his scheme. This, coupled with his refusal to pay tax demands he considers illegal, brought down on him the wrath of the Internal Revenue Service (the American equivalent of the Income Tax Department).4 The apparent co-option of his scheme by the Pentagon therefore deserves closer scrutiny. The Basics of Cryptology Codes, Ciphers and Frequency Analysis In order to understand Bell's system, we digress a little into cryptology -- "the science of rendering signals secure and extracting information from them."5 This comprises both cryptography -- "rendering information unintelligible to outsiders by various transformations of the alphabet", and cryptanalysis -- the method of breaking down or extracting the message from the intercepted signal.6 Technically, substitution at the word level is known as encoding.7 Thus, if we replace `I am here' by `1 2 3', where 1 represents `I', 2 represents `am' and 3 represents `here', we would have encoded the message. Substitution at letter level is enciphering. This can be done by transposition, where the letters constituting the message are re-arranged, thus forming an anagram or by 220 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 substitution in which each letter of the alphabet is replaced by another according to a certain pattern.8 If we replaced each letter of a message by another in a certain pattern, we would have enciphered it. Many encryption schemes use a combination of transposition and substitution incorporated in a specific pattern, controlled by a key.9 Encoding messages requires a code-book, which contains an equivalent for every possible word that could be used.10 It would therefore be a fairly hefty tome. Every person in the transmission-reception chain would need a copy. The loss or capture of a code-book would be catastrophic and preparing and distributing a replacement would be a nightmare. Around the 16th century, codes were therefore replaced by ciphers. Ciphers need to cater only for the limited number of letters in the alphabet, instead of for the entire lexicon of words.11 Around the 8th century, the Arabs discovered that some letters of the alphabet occur more often than others in any message.12 They also found that the frequency of the occurrence of these letters is independent of the message, provided it is long enough. In English, the letter `E' occurs most often, followed by `T' and `I'. the Arabs were possibly the first to use frequency analysis to decipher messages, without knowing the `key'. Mono and Poly-Alphabetic Ciphers The simplest form of substitution ciphers are called Caesar ciphers after Julius Caesar who is believed to have used them.13 These involve replacing each letter in the message by another a fixed number of places away in the alphabet (called a Caesar shift). If `a', `b' and `c' were replaced by `d', `e' and `f' respectively, we would be using a Caesar shift of three. The English alphabet permits Caesar shifts of up to 25. The alphabet re-arranged according to the Caesar shift is called the cipher alphabet. However, we need not stick to simple Caesar shifting. We could also rearrange the letters of the alphabet randomly to form different cipher alphabets. This would give rise to an enormous number of permutations making deciphering much more difficult. Simple and even random substitution ciphers are however vulnerable to frequency analysis. This led to the development of poly-alphabetic ciphers.14 Here, each letter of the message is enciphered using a different cipher alphabet.15 This is determined by the keyword chosen. Depending on its location in the message and the length of the keyword, the same letter could be enciphered differently. This form of encryption, known as poly-alphabetic encryption, is immune to normal Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 221 frequency analysis. While the enciphering technique might be common knowledge, how the process works depends on the keyword. The Importance of the Keyword The 16th century de Vigenere cipher was poly-alphabetic. This meant that the cipher changed with every letter of the message. The pattern was decided by the keyword. Keeping the keyword secret therefore became the cryptographic problem. It had to be agreed beforehand by both parties. The keyword decides which particular cipher alphabet of the de Vigenere Table will be used to encrypt each letter. The encrypted message thus contains as many cipher alphabets as the number of non-repeating letters in the keyword. The longer the keyword, the more secure the cipher. The receiver uses the keyword again to decipher the message. The de Vigenere cipher was considered to be practically unbreakable for the next four hundred years since it was invulnerable to simple frequency analysis.16 When it was eventually broken by Charles Babbage and Friedrich Kasiski in the 19th century, deciphering was made possible because of restrictions imposed by the keyword selected.17 One possible solution was not to use meaningful words as keywords. Another was to use keywords as long as the message itself. However, there still remained the problem of informing the receiver what the keyword was. Many different approaches were used to provide strong encryption. The German Enigma enciphering machine designed by Arthur Scherbius and patented in 1918, used poly-alphabetic ciphering. The Enigma used three scramblers, which meant that every letter went through three stages of substitution. Interchanging the scramblers further increased the number of possible scrambler arrangements. It also had a plugboard, which interchanged six pairs of letters (transposition).18 The total number of arrangements possible on the Enigma was a staggering ten million billion (1015).19 Despite all its features, the Enigma encipherment was eventually broken because it used a key for setting the scrambler positions. Solving the Key Distribution Problem: The Advent of Public Key Cryptography The main problem the sender and receiver had was that of agreeing on a key. If the key were intercepted, the message could be read. The problem of how to agree on a common key, without an eavesdropper being able to intercept the key, is known as the key distribution problem.20 222 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 In 1976, Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman of Stanford University, proposed a solution to the key distribution problem involving the use of one-way mathematical functions. When a number is input, these functions produce a unique output. However, the process is not reversible. Two persons, A and B, use a one-way function of the form yx (modp).21 They agree on values for y and p over an open line, but choose values for x that they keep secret. Both now insert their values for x into the one-way function and exchange their results. These values are inserted in place of y in the one-way function and the result again calculated. The results are identical. This becomes the key and it can be used to operate a symmetrical cipher. A and B have therefore managed to agree, without meeting, on a common key which they can use for enciphering and deciphering messages. To take a simple example, an eavesdropper would know that A and B have agreed to use the values y=7 and p=11, in the function yx (modp), but would be unable to work out their respective values of x. The values of y and p actually used are very large, thus making life more difficult for any eavesdropper. Asymmetric Keys Thus far, all keys had been symmetric -- the same key being used for both enciphering and deciphering. Whitfield Diffie therefore visualised a system which would use an asymmetric key. One key, widely publicised, would be used for enciphering and another key, solely in the possession of the receiver, would be used to decipher the message. However, Diffie did not have an example of a function that could work in the manner he envisaged. The problem was solved in 1977 by Rivest, Shamir and Adelman, who evolved what is now called the RSA system, after their initials. Public Key Cryptography -- the RSA System Rivest, Shamir and Adelman used a one-way function. One-way functions are non-reversible. Just by knowing the function used and the output obtained, one cannot work backwards to obtain the input. Rivest and his colleagues used a one-way function based on modular arithmetic. The message is digitised and put into the function which generates another number called the ciphertext. The system essentially uses the fact that it is exceedingly difficult to factor the product (N) of two very large primes. N is called the public key.22 To send a message to A, B inserts her public key and the message into the one-way function and sends the result to A. Merely knowing A's public key is not enough for anyone to decipher the message. He also requires A's private key. The private key is related to the Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 223 primes that A multiplies together to obtain the public key. However, it is difficult to factorise a very large number into the two large primes that are its factors. If the prime numbers used are of the order of 1065, the number N would be of the order of 10130. Factorising such a number could take a 1 GHz Pentium with 128 MB of RAM several months. Actually, the values of N used in important transactions tend to be much higher. Hash Functions and Digital Signatures Digital signatures were originally suggested by Diffie and Hellman as a method of verifying that a message had not been tampered with and that it had indeed been sent by the purported author.23 These are generated using hash functions. A hash function H takes the message m and transforms it into a sequence of fixed length, whatever the size of the original message. This is called the hash value h (i.e., h = H(m)). Reversing the process should not yield the message m or its length. Hash functions employed in cryptography are usually chosen to be collision- free, i.e., no two messages will result in the same hash value. Further, neither the message nor its length can be extracted from the hash value. A first encrypts a message using B's public key and sends it to him. B uses his private key to read the message. In order to generate a digital signature, A inputs her message into a hash function. She then encrypts the resulting hash value using her private key and sends the result to B separately. B extracts the hash value using A's public key. He then applies A's hash function to the original message. If the resulting hash value is the same, it proves that the message has not been tampered with and that it was genuinely originated by A. Privacy and e-Banking Digital Cash Personal privacy is now a major public concern. Increased computerisation has resulted in credit card companies and banks creating huge databases on customer preferences and spending patterns. Despite assertions to the contrary, this information is often sold to other commercial interests and can also be linked to virtually build up a dossier on any particular individual. This information can be misused by various agencies, including the government. Increased computerisation has resulted in the development of digital cash. These are essentially numbers which represent a certain sum of money. A bank would sign (superimpose) a particular series of notes with its digital signature 224 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 (private key).24 All notes signed with this particular key would have a certain value. These bank notes could be authenticated using the bank's public key. Thus, if A wishes to withdraw a dollar from her bank, she first generates a random number, signs it with her private key and sends it to the bank. The bank verifies her signature with the public key she has earlier agreed for transactions with the bank. It then removes her signature, signs the number with its own private key, certifying that it is worth one dollar and returns the now valid note after debiting her account by one dollar. This note can now be used by A to pay for goods in B's shop. B can verify the note by checking the bank's digital signature. He then sends the note to the bank. The bank verifies its own signature and the note number and notes that it has been spent by A. It then credits B's account with one dollar, simultaneously debiting A's account by the same amount. The note cannot now be double-spent. However, the system described does not have privacy since the electronic notes can be tracked. Blind Signatures and Digital Pseudonyms In a paper published in the Scientific American in August 1992, David Chaum and his colleagues outlined a scheme to prevent such digital cash being traced. They developed a system they called `blind signatures'.25 When sending a note to the bank, its number is multiplied by a random factor. The bank therefore does not know its number. It only knows that A has sent it. Once the bank has signed and returned it, A removes the blinding factor. Since the bank has no knowledge of the actual note number, transactions cannot be linked. The notes cannot be traced since the blinding factor is unknown. In the same article, David Chaum also described a concept called a `digital pseudonym' which would ensure privacy while at the same time-enabling a person's identity to be validated. A person could choose different digital pseudonyms for every organisation that he/she does business with. This would be done by using `electronic representatives' and `electronic observers'.26 An electronic representative would reside on a smart card with a keypad and display. It would control all electronic transactions that its owner makes, all data input and generate the private and public keys required for a transaction. This would ensure total privacy and untraceability of transactions. `Electronic observers' would prevent double-spending of digital banknotes and protect the interests of banks. The observer would reside on the smart card along with the electronic representative and monitor its behaviour. Observer and Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 225 representative would be programmed not to trust each other. In order to protect its owner's interests, the representative would be in overall control and ensure that unauthorised transactions are not carried out. Observers would be validated by validating authorities. These would also authenticate the various digital pseudonyms that a person requires for transactions with different agencies. The validating process would assure any agency transacting business that a genuine person exists behind the digital pseudonym. Assassination Politics or DigitaLiberty An American anarchist named Jim Bell has integrated all these aspects, into a system for the elimination of corrupt Government officials.27 Jim Bell is an MIT graduate, presently serving a term in prison for threatening a US federal agent. His original grouse seems to have been that he was unfairly taxed. His scheme, which he calls DigitaLiberty, has been published on the Internet under the title "Assassination Politics".28 The effectiveness of Jim Bell's scheme hinges on the concept of digital cash and digital pseudonyms, as envisaged by David Chaum and on securing personal anonymity through the use of Public Key Cryptography (PKC). It envisages an organisation which would act as a combination of bulletin board, mail forwarder and lottery manager. It would maintain a list of particularly disliked public officials and separate accounts for each person. The organisation would also display details of the money that it has received as contributions from the public in each account. This amount would be paid to the person who successfully predicts the date of that individual's death. An individual would send to this agency, an encrypted envelope containing some digital cash encrypted with the organisation's public key. Inside this envelope would be another, containing his prediction for the date on which a particular official would die. The second envelope is encrypted using the person's private key and hence cannot be opened. The organisation would open the first envelope with its private key and discover the digital cash. It would not, however, be able to open the second envelope without the public key which the predictor retains. It thus does not know whose death has been predicted and when. People aggrieved by an individual could also send the organisation some digital cash to be paid to the person who correctly predicts that individual's death. When the prediction is proved right, the predictor wins the reward which has been posted, for anyone who correctly predicts the death of that individual. Bell suggested that the use of (PKC) and digital pseudonyms would ensure absolute anonymity. This would prevent people being targeted for criminal activity by government agencies like the 226 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 FBI. In any case, no one would be carrying out any illegal activity because people would merely be predicting the dates on which some particular individuals would die. No one would be incited to carry out a killing. The reward would be due whether the person died a natural or unnatural death. Preventing Frivolous Predictions In Bell's system, the name of the official and the date of his predicted death are both encrypted using PKC and cannot be read. The prediction would be posted on the bulletin board. In order to ensure that frivolous predictions are not sent in, individuals would also have to enclose some digital money. This money would be added to the amount sent in by all those who have also predicted or wish the death of that particular individual. There would be nothing to indicate the identity of the person sending the prediction. The amounts contributed for the death of a particular person would be publicly posted on the bulletin board. Protecting Identity If the prediction comes true, the person who has correctly anticipated the death of the particular individual would send the organisation the key to decode his prediction. The organisation would open his envelope and discover the name and date of death correctly predicted. The individual would also send another public key which the organisation would use to encrypt the reward. The public key would be posted to enable anyone else, who wishes to do so, to send money to the successful predictor. The use of PKC, digital pseudonyms and blind signatures would ensure the anonymity of the successful predictor. Further, no one would know what role, if any, he had played in the demise of the individual. Even if it wished to, the organisation could not assist any authority which wished to trace the successful predictor. Even the digital cash would not be traceable to its source. This is the essence of Jim Bell's system. He summarises its advantages as follows: The prediction can be made in total anonymity. Since the prediction itself is encrypted and revealed only on the death of the `target', the target cannot be warned. The predictor need not reveal his prediction, unless he chooses to. He need not claim the reward either. He can transfer it to anyone else since it can be blinded. The organisation, too, does not know the contents of any prediction and therefore cannot be held liable for any criminal activity. However, for the system to work, a potential predictor would also have to be convinced that the money posted would actually be paid for a successful prediction. Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 227 How It Works Assume that a citizen is upset with a government official or politician who is corrupt or violates his rights. He mails the individual's name and his predicted date of death to the organisation along with any amount of money that he considers appropriate. If even 1 per cent of the population of India were willing to contribute Rs 1/- towards the reward, the amount collected would total Rs one crore. The successful predictor could collect his money knowing that his identity is safe and not dependent on the benevolence of the organisation. The money he receives would also be untraceable to its source.29 Governments could target the organisation for promoting criminal activity. However, Bell argues that the organisation could not be charged with criminal activity because it is merely forwarding mail. It also could not be charged with being an accessory after the fact since it would not know what information is contained in the encrypted digital envelopes. It would not itself be engaged in any criminal activity. There would be no conspiracy because there are no co- conspirators. All participants would be anonymous. The predictions are themselves encrypted and the name of the target unknown. However, one interpretation of the law suggests that the organisation could be considered to be acting criminally in `endeavouring to persuade' people to murder. However, Bell suggests that the organisation would, in fact, become global and therefore, difficult to target under national laws. It would then bear comparison with international terrorist networks. Further, the mere fact that no laws now exist to combat such organisations does not mean that this will always be the case. It is more than likely that specific laws would be drafted to target any group planning to enter this `niche' business. Revolutionising Society Bell suggests that the implementation of his scheme would revolutionise society.30 He goes so far as to suggest that even the police and military could be abolished. Leaders of bellicose states could be removed without the dangers of war. No leader would be immune. In most cases, it is the general population which has the most to lose from war. The availability of such a system would ensure that countries are not pushed into unpopular wars. Bell feels that this would result in a de-bellicisation of international politics and even remove the need for large armies. He suggests that why this has not happened so far is because it has been left to the leaders themselves. Earlier, a deed could be done but the doer could not be rewarded without fear of discovery. 228 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 The perpetrator could be traced and punished by the police. The beauty of his system is that successful predictors could be rewarded without any risk of discovery. The random nature of the whole process ensures a disconnect between predictor and target. Such a system would also ensure that no judges or prosecutors would be willing to take up any case on behalf of an unpopular government since they could also be targeted. Any dishonest organisation (one which failed to pay the promised reward for a successful prediction) which goes into this business could itself be targeted or forced out of the market by a similar, but more honest organisation. The ethics of the marketplace! Self-Regulated Policing Bell also suggests that crime itself would reduce. According to him, the police are generally unable to prevent serious crime and prefer to target `victimless' crimes like pornography, prostitution or gambling. However, the cost of maintaining a police force is enormous. He suggests that a self-regulating system could be created for a fraction of this cost. He feels that people would be willing to contribute a small sum in order to predict the death of a malefactor, say a car thief. Even insurance companies would be willing to reward successful predictors, in order to reduce losses caused by payouts for car theft claims. This would result in car theft becoming a risky proposition. Competition from Criminal Organisations The other fear is of criminals using similar methods to set up an organisation targeting law-abiding people -- a modern-day variation of extortion. However, with an unethical organisation, there is no guarantee that payment would let you off the list. Such an organisation would be willing to target anyone, not just wrong- doers.31 The advantage of the legitimate organisation is that it would target only evil-doers. The monetary incentive for terminating evil-doers would therefore be higher than for targeting an ordinary individual in whose death hardly anyone would have any interest, The criminal organisation therefore may not continue long in business. The ethical organisation would survive. The Viability of Digital Assassination From cryptography to the elimination of intrusive government the police, the military and war itself, is truly a giant leap. But does this system stand up under Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 229 examination? It is true that PKC, digital pseudonyms and blind signatures would enable identities to be kept secret. However, it presupposes that, given the public key, determining the private key would be difficult. PKC depends to a large extent on the huge amount of time that it takes to factorise very large numbers. However, computers continue to become smaller and faster. It is also not impossible that mathematical algorithms enabling faster factorisation of huge numbers could be developed. These could significantly reduce the time factor. However, it is equally likely that PKC would then use much larger numbers and also that different encryption methods using asymmetric keys could be developed. The kind of scheme Bell proposes is likely to threaten established forms of government. It is unlikely that an establishment, aware of the threat such a system would pose to itself, would allow its creation. Such an organisation would need to be visible, accessible and with public support. The technology proposed to be used is only likely to be found in advanced countries which presumably have an active citizenry concerned about governance and civil liberty. The system also assumes widespread awareness among the public of advances in cryptography and electronic banking. But people in most countries are wary of the claims advanced for new technology. Further, new technology is generally controlled by capital which already owns the technology currently in use. New technology will therefore, generally be suppressed until society has been sufficiently prepared for its introduction -- the aim being to maximise profits. Thus, for example, we may be reasonably certain that the replacements for fossil fuels, as and when they arrive, will be controlled by the likes of Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon, which controlled fossil fuels in the first place. The fact that this system requires the availability of advanced technology rules out its adoption in the developing world which would possibly benefit the most from the implementation of such a system. It is unlikely that it could work with the kind of primitive infrastructure that is available in most of the developing world. In fact, it is highly likely that it would be an attractive proposition for adoption by criminal organisations in the developing world, given the lack of activist interest in issues of governance and the difficulty of mobilising public opinion. It therefore seems that Bell's scheme will remain an interesting study in the use of technology for the abolition of intrusive government and be added to the many schemes for world government that have cropped up in the past. Bell does not specify who will run this organisation. It will need capital, equipment and, most important of all, personnel. How will it be funded? It will 230 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 obviously need to keep a percentage of the donations people send it for its own operating expenses. The key to the organisation is its personnel and their integrity, since it is they who would maintain the website and post the rewards. The Terrorism Futures Market In late July 2003, news broke that the Pentagon was researching a scheme called the Futures Market Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP). 32 The idea had been broached by Admiral John Poindexter, National Security Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a prominent casualty in the Iran-Contra affair. The budget for the program was apparently US$ 8 million. The program was part of the Total Information Awareness Program and was coordinated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Admiral Poindexter, who has a PhD in nuclear physics, has had a controversial career.33 He has apparently specialised in offering unorthodox solutions to difficult problems. In the Iran-Contra affair, he and Col. Oliver North sold weapons to Iran, then under US sanctions for holding American hostages. With the proceeds, he financed the Contra insurgents to overthrow the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Poindexter's latest idea is to allow investors to bet on their predictions of likely terrorist actions to help law and intelligence agencies anticipate better where the next outrage could take place. This system is supposedly modelled on the Delphi method of forecasting, pioneered by the RAND Corporation. The assumption is that, investors acting en masse, could pool their bits of information together to create a far better picture of reality than they could individually. A better picture of the future of the stock market or the national economy should thus emerge. The Iowa Electronics Markets This principle is already being used in the Iowa Electronics Markets to predict the outcome of presidential elections. The Iowa Electronics Markets are small- scale real money markets run by the University of Iowa Business School. The most well-known of these is the Presidential Futures Markets, which aims to predict winning candidates in the Presidential elections. Essentially, traders are asked to answer which candidate they think people would vote for on election day. A cocktail of options is offered. The system uses classical statistics, a representative sample of voters and assumes truthful responses to arrive at a prediction of the result.34 This is done on a daily basis. Trading is frozen on the night before the Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 231 election and the results compared with the actual results. Each market is linked to a specific future event. Traders are offered a bundle of contracts, each contract relating to a particular subset of the main event, for example, the likelihood of a particular Democratic candidate winning against any Republican candidate, or a particular candidate being nominated by a particular party. Each bundle consists of one of each contract available in the market. The bundles are bought and sold by the system at a price which is the aggregate pay- off for that outcome as determined by the market. The system merely introduces contracts into the market. Traders can exchange these at prices that they decide. Traders only know the best bid and ask for prices and the last trade price. They do not know the quantities available at these prices. Joyce Berg and her fellow researchers at the University of Iowa have discovered that the system is fairly accurate as regards US Presidential elections. Accuracy is enhanced when the event is high profile and arouses general interest by market volume. They have also discovered that markets with fewer contracts, i.e., fewer variables (candidates) are more accurate. FutureMAP With FutureMAP, Poindexter attempted to extrapolate the Iowa Presidential markets system to the prediction of terroristic events. Each of these outcomes would become a contract. It was assumed that the information available to various players in the market could be used to determine the likelihood of an event and might even yield information on terrorist attacks. The probability would be proportional to the price. Since people would be betting with cash, it was assumed that they would be more truthful. The assumptions underlying FutureMAP were that human beings are rational economic players and that markets accurately predict the future. The model also assumed that information distribution processes are highly efficient, readily leveraged by players and that markets are free from manipulation.35 All these assumptions may be questioned. Moreover, unlike Presidential polls, which are scheduled to occur on a known date, the schedule for terror attacks is known only to the terrorists. Even if we assume that the target is known and that the terror event is certain to occur, the day would still be uncertain. The peak price would be no indication, since we would not know that it is the peak. Further, to assume that the information is so 232 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 widespread that it has filtered into the market, is contrary to what we know of the way terrorists operate. If they allowed this to happen, they would be giving away information which could jeopardise their plans. A more probable scenario would be one where terrorists pretend to be interested in a particular target. This would enable them to divert attention from the actual target and also enable them to manipulate the odds and the market. Research however indicates that attempts to skew the market only have a momentary impact. The scheme could also be used by government to enable players to predict the death of enemy leaders like Saddam Husein. In such a case, the resemblance to Jim Bell's scheme would become very marked. In this case, players would attempt to bet on whether Saddam, Fidel Castro or Osama bin Laden would be alive on a certain date. In this case, the government's role would not be passive. It must be presumed that this would be linked to active attempts by intelligence agencies to hasten the demise of these individuals. The facts in this case would be known to the government and individuals would be betting on death dates. This would raise the same ethical arguments as Bell's scheme. The exposure of Poindexter's scheme resulted in a huge outcry in Congress. The scheme was dropped like a hot potato, essentially on moral grounds.36 However, some analysts feel that it could have been useful as a trend indicator and should have been continued, though perhaps not in the context of terrorism. In a study published by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Professor Abramowicz concludes that information markets could help refine administrative agency predictions about government policy if the possibility of manipulation can be overcome. It, therefore, seems likely that FutureMAP may eventually resurface in an entirely different context as a policy analysis tool. Conclusion Jim Bell has suggested a scheme to punish corrupt officials which he calls DigitaLiberty. This presumes the existence of an organisation, which would allow those who correctly predict the death of such officials to be rewarded with untraceable cash, while keeping their identities secret. Discussion of his scheme and the eventual abolition of government, which he hopes it will bring about, require some rudimentary understanding of cryptography. Salient encryption systems have therefore been examined to understand better the issues at the heart of cryptology. Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 233 Bell's idea hinges on the use of PKC to preserve the anonymity of individuals who participate in the scheme. It also requires the availability of digital cash and digital pseudonyms on the lines suggested by David Chaum. Asymmetric cipher systems together with the Internet form the cornerstone of Jim Bell's scheme of DigitaLiberty. It is truly revolutionary. It is a moot point whether it will be implemented. The dangers it poses to existing systems of command and control will probably ensure that it will never be. Bell argues that the system is not criminal. However, since implementation is likely to threaten elites, it seems very likely that laws will be updated to make such activity illegal. The heavy dependence on advanced technology ensures that the system is not likely to be used in the developing world. While we cannot deny the devilish ingenuity of Bell's scheme, it seems most likely that it will merely be an interesting appendix in a book on the elimination of governments. The Futures Market Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP) propounded by Admiral John Poindexter seems to have been inspired by Jim Bell's `Assassination Politics'. The distinction is that it would be operated in the interest of national security. It would allow punters to bet on the occurrence of certain terrorist events like the likelihood of a terrorist attack, the assassination of a leader or the death of a wanted terrorist to obtain actionable intelligence on likely events. Unlike Presidential elections, the time-table for terror events cannot be predicted. Terrorists are unlikely to be influenced by market decisions. That FutureMAP was under serious consideration only highlights the fact that no idea is too outrageous to be considered. References/End Notes 1 "Amid Furor, Pentagon kills terrorism futures market" , 30 July, 2003, at http://www. cnn.com /2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market 2 Ibid. 3 Schlegel, Alex, "Jim Bell and Assassination Politics", at http://alex.creartivity.org/ articles/art-200109-assassination_politics.html updated July 30, 2003 4 Ibid. 5 Kahn, David, The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing. 1966. Weidenfeld and Nicolson; London. p. xvi. 6 Ibid. pp. xiii-xv 7 Singh, Simon, The Code Book. 1999. Fourth Estate; London. p. 30 234 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004 8 Kahn, David, no. 5, p. xiii. 9 Ibid., p. xv 10 Singh, Simon, no. 7, p. 31 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., p. 17 13 Kahn, David, no. 5, p 84 14 Ibid., p. 46 15 Ibid., p. 49 16 Ibid., p. 51 17 Ibid., pp. 208-213 18 A working model of the Enigma is available at the site indicated below and will serve to give a good idea of how it functioned. See "Working Model of Enigma ciphering machine", Java Applet by Russell Schwager at http://www.ugrad.cs.jhu.edu/ ~russell/classes/enigma/enigma.html 19 Singh, Simon, no.7, p. 136 20 Ibid., p. 251 21 Ibid., pp. 264-265 22 Ibid., pp. 274-275 23 Ibid., p. 300 24 Chaum, David, Achieving Electronic Privacy. Scientific American. August 1992, pp. 96-101 25 Ibid., pp. 97-98 26 Ibid., pp. 98-99 27 McCullagh, Declan, "Crypto-Convict Won't Recant", April 14, 2000 at http:// www.antioffline.com/apol.html 28 Bell, Jim, Assassination Politics", April 03, 1997 at http://jya.com/ap.htm. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 "Amid Furor, Pentagon Kills Terrorism Futures Market", July 30, 2003 at http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market 33 "John M Poindexter" at http://www.warblogging.com/tia/poindexter.bio.html 34 Berg, Joyce, et al, "Results from a Dozen Years of Election Futures Markets Research", University of Iowa, November 2000, at http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/ archive/BFNR_2000.pdf Cryptology, Digital Assassination and the Terrorism Futures Markets 235 35 Ritholtz, Barry L., "Terrorism Futures Market: Much Ado about the Wrong Thing"; The Big Picture: Macro Perspectives on the Capital markets, Economy Geopolitics, August 02, 2003 at http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2003/08/ terrorism_futur.html 36 "Terrorism Futures Market Plan Cancelled", Fox News Channel, July 29, 2003 at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C93190%2C00.html Wg Cdr R. Sukumaran is a Research Fellow at IDSA. He is an Air Force fighter pilot and has operated on both INS Vikrant and INS Viraat. His research interests include military history, technology and the use of air power. Errata: The name `Lt Cdr Frank Taylor of the Royal Navy' on page 50 of the Jan-Mar 2004 issue of Strategic Analysis should read `Lt Cdr David R. Taylor of the Royal Navy'. -- Editor 236 Strategic Analysis/Apr-Jun 2004
Let the record reflect Jim Dumb-bell Dolton has now washed his hands of ' Section 10 ' of his 1995 Essay on Assassination Politics. His idea now boils down to a technocratic ' Black Box ' scheme involving strict secrecy and a scheme to be promoted by elitist specialists and apparently enjoyed only by the far-libertarian Right. He is no longer an anarchist, and judging by the Neo-Nazi criminals he associates with in the last few years he really hates anarchism. On Monday, 30 August 2021, 05:09:43 am AEST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: Yes, Sukumaran's essay is by far the most competent treatment of my Assassination Politics idea and essay. Jim Bell
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:45 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
http://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf
I withdraw nothing of my Assassination Politics essay. Jim Bell On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 6:22 PM, professor rat<pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote: Let the record reflect Jim Dumb-bell Dolton has now washed his hands of ' Section 10 ' of his 1995 Essay on Assassination Politics. His idea now boils down to a technocratic ' Black Box ' scheme involving strict secrecy and a scheme to be promoted by elitist specialists and apparently enjoyed only by the far-libertarian Right. He is no longer an anarchist, and judging by the Neo-Nazi criminals he associates with in the last few years he really hates anarchism. On Monday, 30 August 2021, 05:09:43 am AEST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: Yes, Sukumaran's essay is by far the most competent treatment of my Assassination Politics idea and essay. Jim Bell
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:45 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
http://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf
Oh please. You just said this Suk paper was the best take you'd seen on your essay and it elided section 10 completely. You know you really sound brain-damaged ever since you talked to Jeff Berwick. You could probably use some professional help. On Monday, 30 August 2021, 12:12:37 pm AEST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: I withdraw nothing of my Assassination Politics essay. Jim Bell
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 6:22 PM, professor rat <pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Let the record reflect Jim Dumb-bell Dolton has now washed his hands of ' Section 10 ' of his 1995 Essay on Assassination Politics. His idea now boils down to a technocratic ' Black Box ' scheme involving strict secrecy and a scheme to be promoted by elitist specialists and apparently enjoyed only by the far-libertarian Right. He is no longer an anarchist, and judging by the Neo-Nazi criminals he associates with in the last few years he really hates anarchism.
On Monday, 30 August 2021, 05:09:43 am AEST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, Sukumaran's essay is by far the most competent treatment of my Assassination Politics idea and essay. Jim Bell
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:45 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
http://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf
To say it is "by far the best" treatment is obviously a comparison, not an absolute scale. All in all, the public's handling of my AP essay has been atrociously incompetent. For people who claim they love freedom and hate tyranny, I've described the solution. People have had 26 years to disprove or just cast doubt on AP, and nobody has accomplished that. AP will work, when tried. Jim Bell On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 7:25 PM, professor rat<pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote: Oh please. You just said this Suk paper was the best take you'd seen on your essay and it elided section 10 completely. You know you really sound brain-damaged ever since you talked to Jeff Berwick. You could probably use some professional help. On Monday, 30 August 2021, 12:12:37 pm AEST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: I withdraw nothing of my Assassination Politics essay. Jim Bell
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 6:22 PM, professor rat <pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Let the record reflect Jim Dumb-bell Dolton has now washed his hands of ' Section 10 ' of his 1995 Essay on Assassination Politics. His idea now boils down to a technocratic ' Black Box ' scheme involving strict secrecy and a scheme to be promoted by elitist specialists and apparently enjoyed only by the far-libertarian Right. He is no longer an anarchist, and judging by the Neo-Nazi criminals he associates with in the last few years he really hates anarchism.
On Monday, 30 August 2021, 05:09:43 am AEST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, Sukumaran's essay is by far the most competent treatment of my Assassination Politics idea and essay. Jim Bell
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:45 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
http://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072985/ PAM Futures
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/07/save-the-pentagon-futures-market... http://www.policyanalysismarket.org/ Hey, Wait A Minute Damn the Slam PAM Plan! Canceling the Pentagon’s futures market is cowardly and dumb. By James Surowiecki July 30, 2003 6:39 PM If you go to the Policy Analysis Market, or PAM, Web site, you’ll find nothing but a blank page. You don’t even get one of those “This page cannot be found” screens. Thanks to the publicity firestorm started by Sens. Byron Dorgan and Ron Wyden on Monday, the Defense Department’s plan to run an experimental futures market to forecast conditions in the Middle East is dead. And we’re all worse off as a result. That may be hard to believe, given the unanimity with which PAM has been denounced. In that Monday press conference, Wyden and Dorgan called the plan “harebrained,” “offensive,” and “useless.” The press generally followed their lead, acting astonished that anyone could ever have imagined that such a ridiculous scheme would work. But for all the grandstanding and moral posturing, the most important question has been absent from the discussion: Would the market have worked? In other words, would it have improved American intelligence capabilities and enhanced national security? All the evidence suggests that it would have. As Daniel Gross and Brendan Koerner mentioned in their Slate pieces yesterday, similar markets have proven surprisingly good at predicting the outcome of presidential elections, box-office results, and even the fall of Saddam Hussein. We now have more than a decade of empirical results to back up the idea that “decision markets” can work, in addition to the reams of data on the efficacy of traditional futures markets, such as those for corn or interest rates. (There’s evidence, for instance, that orange-juice futures do a better job of predicting the weather in Florida than traditional weather forecasts do.) Even when traders are not necessarily experts, their collective judgment is often remarkably accurate because markets are efficient at uncovering and aggregating diverse pieces of information. And it doesn’t seem to matter much what markets are being used to predict. Whether the outcome depends on irrational actors (box-office results), animal behavior (horse races), a blend of irrational and rational motives (elections), or a seemingly random interaction between weather and soil (orange-juice crops), market predictions often outperform those of even the best-informed expert. Given that, it’s reasonable to think a prediction market might add something to our understanding of the future of the Middle East. PAM might also have been effective because traders in a market have no incentive other than making the right prediction—that is, there are no bureaucratic or political factors influencing their decisions—so they eliminate many of the hurdles that limit the flow of information within organizations. That’s especially important in the case of the intelligence community because we know that, for example, in the case of 9/11 there was lots of valuable and relevant information available before the attack took place. What was missing was a mechanism for aggregating that information in a single place. A well-designed market might have served as that mechanism. Sen. Wyden dismissed PAM as a “fairy tale” and suggested that DARPA would be better off putting its money into “real world” intelligence. But the dichotomy here is a false one. No one has suggested replacing traditional intelligence-gathering with a market. PAM was intended to be simply another way of collecting information. And in any case, all the information that traders would be trading on would presumably be from the “real world.” Otherwise it’d be hard to see how they could make accurate bets. Of course, the real attack on PAM had nothing to do with how effective it would or would not be. The real problem with it, Wyden and Dorgan made clear, was that it was “offensive” and “morally wrong” to wager on potential catastrophes. Let’s admit there’s something ghoulish about betting on an assassination attempt. But let’s also admit that U.S. government analysts ask themselves every day the exact same questions that PAM traders would have been asking: How stable is the government of Jordan? How likely is it the House of Saud will fall? Will Mahmoud Abbas still be head of the P.A. in 2004? How many more casualties will the United States take in Iraq? If it isn’t immoral for the U.S. government to be asking these questions, it’s hard to see how it’s immoral for people outside the U.S. government to ask them. Especially since the point of having traders ask the questions was to gather information to prevent catastrophes from happening. Perhaps what’s immoral, though, is that PAM would allow people to make money from predicting catastrophe. But CIA analysts don’t volunteer their services. We pay them to predict catastrophes. Is that morally wrong? We also pay informants—like the guy who turned in Odai and Qusai—for valuable information. Again, are we wrong to do so? Or consider our regular economy. The entire business of a life-insurance company is based on betting on when people are going to die (with a traditional life-insurance policy, the company is betting you’ll die later than you think you will, while with an annuity it’s betting you’ll die sooner). There may be something viscerally unappealing about this, but most of us understand that it’s necessary. This is, in some sense, what markets often do: harness amorality to improve the collective good. If the price of getting better intelligence is having our sensibilities bruised, we should be willing to pay it. Wyden suggested that getting involved in an “academic discourse” about whether prediction markets were accurate was missing the point because it was just “morally wrong” to use them. But surely if PAM would have made America’s national security stronger, it’d be morally wrong not to use it. There were, to be sure, problems that PAM would have had to overcome. As Daniel Gross pointed out yesterday, if the market was accurate, and the Defense Department acted on its predictions to stop, say, the assassination of the king of Jordan, it would make the traders’ predictions false and thereby destroy the incentives to make good predictions. A well-designed market would probably have to account for such U.S. interventions, presumably by making the wagers conditional on U.S. action (or, alternatively, traders would start to factor the possibility of U.S. action into their prices). But of course this would be a problem only if the market was in fact making good predictions. Had PAM ever become a fully liquid market, it would also have probably had the same problems other markets sometimes have, like bubbles and gaming. But you don’t have to believe that markets work perfectly to believe that they work well. As for the much-bruited idea that PAM would have allowed terrorists to bet on themselves, thereby letting them profit from their own misdeeds, this was a pure red herring. A terrorist betting on his own impending action would, in effect, be informing on himself. This seems unlikely at best. But, if it did happen, it would be a good thing, since intelligence agencies generally welcome informants. Would we prefer it if the would-be terrorist kept the knowledge of his future actions secret? In any case, for all the hype about “terrorism futures,” the vast majority of the “wagers” that PAM traders would have been making would have been on more mundane questions, like the future economic growth of Jordan or how strong Syria’s military was. At its core, PAM was not meant to tell us what Hamas was going to do next week. It was meant to give us a better sense of the economic health, civil stability, and military readiness of Middle Eastern nations, with an eye on what that might mean for U.S. interests in the region. That seems like something about which the aggregated judgment of policy analysts and would-be Middle Eastern experts (the kind of people who would likely have been trading on PAM) would have had something valuable to say. Wyden and Dorgan scornfully compared the Policy Analysis Market to a “betting parlor.” It’s a telling (and troubling) comparison, because we know one thing about betting markets: They’re eerily good at predicting the future.
Lately the world and the internet has been asking... When will Putin die? And more generally... when will invaders, authoritarians, tyrants, despots, rulers [and bodies of rulers] ruling, their murderers and thievers, their [en]forcers of their will against free-living non-forcing peoples, their system built upon the immoral evil wrong of original force initiated against peaceful others, etc... die? Are there any predictions? Any novel peaceful mechanisms waiting yet untried? Any answers to the world's askings?
"I'm only accepting that machine the pentagon rejected - PAM FutureMaps - to state the obvious, they don't need any 'prediction market'. US govcorp can murder anyone they want at any time. - Rat" "...the US Government had been planning a website that would enable people to place bets on the likelihood of terrorist events. - R.Sukumaran. 2004" "A sufficiently large market predicting an individual's death is also, necessarily, an assassination market - N.Szabo. 2015"
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072985/ PAM Futures
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/07/save-the-pentagon-futures-market... http://www.policyanalysismarket.org/
Assassination is not new. Kings Princes and Governments are the biggest assassins in all of history literally through to present day, and have and will surely always be first to procure, order, patent, and deploy assassination technologies... be it weapons and intel, to compensation expenses bounties rewards gold brides and positions of power paid, to Letters Marque and Reprisal, from Permits to Pirate and Plunder, to paying coders to develop RFP bid submission sites for Blackwater contractors, and markets for same, if Govt's can figure out a winning angle over each other, they will do it. Behold thus!, it was not any cypherpunks who first invented and used assassination... though some do claim to have figured out a way to end Govt's use, and or monopoly use, of it. Govt's also like to scream "copycat killer", people online are debating for years will Govt's tech lead in such matters be copied by free markets as defense and or peaceful influence? Here are two recent stone cold assassinations done by Govt's, surely bound to spark many future killings in the endless stream of thousands years and thousands killings undertaken between Govt's, often at expense of civilian lifes and resulting into the millions via wars thus sparked... Israel Informs US It Killed Iranian IRGC Colonel, Officials Infuriated Over Media Leak https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-leak-fingering-israel-in-iranian-colonels-d... https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/iranian-officer-killed-in-tehran-was-involv... https://news.yahoo.com/irans-revolutionary-guard-says-determination-08053362... Israeli defense and intelligence officials have owned up to the brazen assassination of a senior Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officer, which took place in Tehran on Sunday. A pair of unidentified gunmen drove up to IRGC Col. Hassan Sayyad Khodaei as he sat in his car outside his home. The Quds Force colonel was shot five times, and his death was quickly blamed on Israeli intelligence given prior similar killings. The NY Times days later reported that "The Israelis told the Americans the killing was meant as a warning to Iran to halt the operations of a covert group within the Quds Force known as Unit 840, according to the intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information." Banner of the slain IRGC colonel in Tehran after his killing, via AP. It described, "Unit 840 is tasked with abductions and assassinations of foreigners around the world, including Israeli civilians and officials, according to Israeli government, military and intelligence officials." Col. Khadaei was reportedly the deputy head of the covert unit. The Israelis didn't comment for the story, however the Times stressed "But according to an intelligence official briefed on the communications, Israel has informed American officials that it was behind the killing." The Israeli government is now said to be infuriated by the leak and are calling for an internal US intelligence investigation. Knesset member Ram Ben Barak, who heads the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said "It mainly harms trust." "We have very many close relationships and a lot of cooperation between us, which all depend on trust, and when it is violated in some way then it damages future cooperation," he said in an Israeli radio interview Thursday. "I hope the Americans investigate the leak and figure out where it came from and why it occurred." There's currently speculation that the assassination was intended to highlight Iranian covert efforts to kill Israeli officials and civilians, something which Tehran has rejected. The timing, some pundits have said, was meant to further disrupt the stalled nuclear talks between Tehran and world powers in Vienna. A separate follow-up Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal suggests the slain Quds Force colonel was part of Iranian efforts to take out an Israeli diplomat, however this cannot be confirmed. Iranian IRGC colonel assassinated in downtown Tehranhttps://t.co/X0HAADGqut — The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) May 22, 2022 "An Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officer shot and killed outside his Tehran home led the group’s efforts to assassinate opponents of Iran around the world, including recent failed plots to kill an Israeli diplomat, an American general and a French intellectual, according to people familiar with the matter," WSJ writes citing anonymous sources. President Ibrahim Raisi had vowed in a Monday speech revenge on Israel, after semi-official ISNA news agency claimed that the Guards uncovered and arrested spies backed by Israeli intelligence. The reports were not commented on by Israel. "The thugs and terrorist groups affiliated with global oppression and Zionism will face consequences for their actions," Raisi had said. The assassination is being widely viewed as the biggest foreign sponsored attack inside Iran since the killing of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020. Israel was widely acknowledged as behind that killing which also took place in a Tehran suburb. Israeli Forces Murdered Star Al Jazeera Journalist: CNN https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeast/shireen-abu-akleh-jenin-killing-in... Al Jazeera journalist and US citizen Shireen Abu Akleh was “shot dead in a targeted attack by Israeli forces,” according to a new CNN investigation. Mainstream U.S. media isn’t exactly known for casting a critical eye at Israel, which makes CNN’s report all the more explosive. Abu Akleh, a star reporter in the region, was shot in the head by Israeli forces on May 11 in the West Bank town of Jenin. She and her al Jazeera crew were there to report on an Israeli raid on a refugee camp. Ten journalists contributed to CNN’s painstaking forensic investigation, which drew on 11 videos, eight eyewitness accounts and consultations with weapons and forensic audio experts. In an anonymous interview with CNN, a senior Israeli security official denied that Abu Akleh was deliberately killed: "In no way would the IDF ever target a civilian, especially a member of the press.” While CNN didn’t note it, according to Reporters Without Borders, Israel has killed at least 30 journalists since 2000, including two Palestinians shot by IDF snipers while reporting on protests near the Gaza-Israel border in 2018. We interviewed 8 eyewitnesses, reviewed 11 videos from different angles and worked with an experienced forensics team. All the evidence points in one direction.@CNN https://t.co/pHwOk3VsCe — Celine Alkhaldi سيلين الخالدي (@celinealkhaldi) May 25, 2022 In the aftermath of Abu Akleh’s death, an Israeli military spokesman said she was "filming and working for a media outlet amidst armed Palestinians. They're armed with cameras, if you'll permit me to say so.” Later on the day of the incident, Israeli Foreign Ministry tweeted a video of Palestinians wildly firing down alleys in Jenin, and wrote, “Palestinian terrorists, firing indiscriminately” were the likely killers of Abu Akleh. However, CNN geolocated the images in the tweeted video to a spot 300 meters from Abu Akleh, and, based on various factors, firmly concluded “the shooting in the videos couldn’t be the same volley of gunfire that hit Abu Akleh and her producer.” Indeed, CNN concluded “there was no active combat, nor any Palestinian militants, near Abu Akleh in the moments leading up to her death.” Weapons expert and British Army veteran Chris Cobb-Smith studied images of bullet impacts on the tree where Abu Akleh stood before she was killed. They form a relatively tight shot group. "The number of strike marks on the tree where Shireen was standing proves this wasn't a random shot, she was targeted," Cobb told CNN. CNN’s study of acoustic evidence is even more damning: According to the Israeli army's initial inquiry, at the time of Abu Akleh's death, an Israeli sniper was 200 meters away from her. CNN asked Robert Maher, professor of electrical and computer engineering at Montana State University, who specializes in forensic audio analysis, to assess the footage of Abu Akleh's shooting and estimate the distance between the gunman and the cameraman, taking into account the rifle being used by the Israeli forces. The video that Maher analyzed captures two volleys of gunfire; eyewitnesses say Abu Akleh was hit in the second barrage, a series of seven sharp "cracks." The first "crack" sound, the ballistic shockwave of the bullet, is followed approximately 309 milliseconds later by the relatively quiet "bang" of the muzzle blast, according to Maher. "That would correspond to a distance of something between 177 and 197 meters," or 580 and 646 feet, he said in an email to CNN, which corresponds almost exactly with the Israeli sniper's position. Video shows a relaxed scene moments before gunfire erupted. Jenin residents smile, make small talk and smoke cigarettes as they watch the al Jazeera crew led by Abu Akleh. Like others on her crew, Abu Akleh, a 51-year old Palestinian-American Christian who’s beloved in Jenin for her work dating back to the 2002 Intifada uprising against Israeli occupation, was wearing a blue helmet and blue protective vest, each marked “Press.” "There was no conflict or confrontations at all. We were about 10 guys, give or take, walking around, laughing and joking with the journalists," said Salim Awad, who shot a 16-minute video that helped capture the circumstances of Abu Akleh’s death. "We were not afraid of anything. We didn't expect anything would happen, because when we saw journalists around, we thought it'd be a safe area." The al Jazeera crew thought they were exercising due caution. "We stood in front of the Israeli military vehicles for about five to ten minutes before we made moves to ensure they saw us,” reporter Shatha Hanaysha told CNN. “And this is a habit of ours as journalists, we move as a group and we stand in front of them so they know we are journalists, and then we start moving.” After fire erupted, killing Abu Akleh and wounding Al-Quds newspaper journalist Ali Samodi, gunfire continued to rain down on those who tried to render aid. Israel’s violence toward Abu Akleh didn’t stop with her death. Reportedly triggered by a Palestinian flag draping her coffin, Israeli police “surg[ed] toward her funeral procession before grabbing and roughing up some of the mourners, including those carrying the coffin,” reported CBS News. In the mayhem, pallbearers dropped the casket. Fifty-seven House Democrats signed a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and FBI Director Chris Wray requesting a U.S. investigation of the incident, writing, “As an American, Ms. Abu Akleh was entitled to the full protections afforded to U.S. citizens living abroad.”
Assassination technologies
https://nypost.com/2022/07/08/shinzo-abe-assassin-used-homemade-gun/ Commercial factory produced? No. 3D-Printed? No. Guns and ammo banned? Yes. Homemade? Yes. Pipe, wood, duct tape, zip ties, batteries, glow coils, black powder, projectiles... crude, effective, unstoppable. Models included a nine-barrelled zombie disruptor.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/08/shinzo-abe-assassin-used-homemade-gun/
Speaking of Assassins and Communism... The 1960 Assassination of Inejirō Asanuma That Saved Japan From Communism http://5qg6inrpkyipshsgmtitizxyc6cew6m6az4rkxqmm7lepjibvepme5yd.onion/2022/0... Video: On 12 October 1960, Inejirō Asanuma (浅沼 稲次郎, Asanuma Inejirō), chairman of the Japan Socialist Party, was assassinated at Hibiya Public Hall in Tokyo. During a televised debate, a 17-year-old right-wing ultranationalist named Otoya Yamaguchi charged onto the stage and fatally stabbed Asanuma with a wakizashi (a type of traditional short sword).
any thoughts on relevance of AP today given increased difficulty in retaining anonymity when there is a significant power disparity?
Apologies that I have not been keeping up with this thread, so my commentary may be disruptive. I've kind of been just using the list as a notepad in spam threads, which might be disrespectful. I'm thinking of anonymity and AP. Democracies need anonymity, so if democracy sticks around, we'll need to improve how information spreads from citizens, anyway. In the meantime, murder is legal in many contexts such as self defense in many areas, by government workers such as law enforcement, or probably with support of a major group already participating in it in some way. I imagine such things have been mentioned or thought of before. Seems like "legitimate" assassination fould be a way to rebootstrap things in a surveilled situation. But really we need anonymity anyway. I wonder how targeted people could support rebuilding common anonymity.
Anonymity is only needed if a society is intolerant, abusive to individuals / subcultures / ethnicities / etc., has draconian or overbroad laws that are applied in racist, classist, ageist, etc. ways, and similarly broken dynamics. We need it less than we used to, but the need is uneven around the world and fluctuates. It is of course best for society, with or without anonymity, to eliminate all of those society shortcomings. And that is precisely what liberal & progressive politics (in most ways), social justice, civil rights, and other movements have been promoting & achieving. You used to need anonymity if you wanted to have sex out of wedlock, gay anything, interracial anything, use marijuana, talk to people in certain parts of the world, etc. The flip side is that many things considered, and often legally considered, to be bad are enabled by anonymity: fraud, abuses of various kinds, underage sex targeting, extremist indoctrination of those without sufficient mental firewalls who are weak to manipulation, conspiracies for terrorism / overthrowing government / murder / mayhem, etc. Many people want those stopped at any cost, including deanonymising as needed. A lot of old & new laws are about this. Sometimes they seem fair, sometimes not. In recent years & decades, many problematic situations have resolved, laws negated. We just took a step backward, in the majority of people's minds, where suddenly a big category of anonymity has become important again. I already had a personal rule never to discuss anyone's abortion with anyone but them forever for just this kind of reason. I felt it was just too hot of a topic and I didn't want anyone to feel unwanted scrutiny or shame-based regret. Probably it was bad that many people did that as people could, in their mind, build up this idea that it was rare, bad, abused, not a normal thing, etc. which helped boost, especially in immature & less thoughtful people, that it should be outlawed. People often think that they are anonymous in various ways, when they are not. People think their votes are secret, and that is true in a limited way, but the bar is fairly low. I ran for city council in a city in Silicon Valley. As part of that, I found that for <$100 I could buy a DVD with a file with all of the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of all registered voters in Santa Clara County, including how they voted in 5 races. Anyone with a justifiable reason, which is a low bar I think as anyone can say they are starting a PAC which I think is a valid justification, can buy such a database for any county in the US. (I hesitate to point this out here, but surely this is widely known. Keep in mind: the GOP operatives legally have this for every county in the US, and that they shared it with the Russians for voter targeting via Facebook et al. That seems like it should be illegal, but apparently was not.) So the FBI & others have sometimes abused their powers & access in the past. And they may sometimes now, although it is much more difficult presumably, with some kind of auditing & checks. And certainly many want to avoid their scrutiny out of principle, etc. But most people, when they directly or indirectly vote and otherwise insist on perfect security & safety from bad actors shooting up a school, poisoning a community, or crashing a plane, are endorsing government agencies deanonymising as needed. And, given tight controls & narrow usage, with auditing and actual consequences for consequential abuse, I am OK with that. It is OK if someone somewhere (and their AI / ML booster systems) see 'too much' if they never share or do anything bad with that information. It has long been the case that we have to trust the IRS with a lot of detailed information, which even includes stating income from illegal activities which they are restricted by law from sharing with law enforcement. Their are certain other cases where we firewall to gain a greater good. And that counts for large entities with widespread access, even more so: I've talked to many people who are suspicious of Google, Amazon, et al wrt smart speakers, email, browsing data, advertisement tracking, etc. It always puzzled me why random people feel the details of their lives are so important that companies valued in the trillions would deliberately betray trust in any way for some hard to fathom minuscule benefit. Some leaking, uncomfortable situations have happened, but they are often corrected or at least they are clear & normalized as necessary. I have been wanting to create a new approach to communications, social networking, and general information sharing. One problem to be solved is supporting encryption, identity, security, etc. while also avoiding things like extremist / criminal abuses, and things like the India Villiage Rumor Killings gossip problem. I have some ideas for that, and I've been watching what WhatsApp is doing with limiting forwards. I actually mentioned one of my ideas to solve this with the WhatsApp team when I interviewed with them a couple years ago. Stephen On 7/10/22 12:31 PM, Karl Semich wrote:
Apologies that I have not been keeping up with this thread, so my commentary may be disruptive. I've kind of been just using the list as a notepad in spam threads, which might be disrespectful.
I'm thinking of anonymity and AP.
Democracies need anonymity, so if democracy sticks around, we'll need to improve how information spreads from citizens, anyway.
In the meantime, murder is legal in many contexts such as self defense in many areas, by government workers such as law enforcement, or probably with support of a major group already participating in it in some way. I imagine such things have been mentioned or thought of before. Seems like "legitimate" assassination fould be a way to rebootstrap things in a surveilled situation.
But really we need anonymity anyway. I wonder how targeted people could support rebuilding common anonymity.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:58:03 -0700 Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
Anonymity is only needed if a society is intolerant,
yet another piece of US, braindead, fascist shit, arguing against anonimity, on a list allegedly devoted to anonimity. no wonder he's replying to his coworker jewnazi karl.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1546198627814498304 Apparently DC Democrat Operatives are paying $200 to anyone in service industry (restaurant, retail, etc) calling out the realtime locations of their political enemies (judges, probably soon to be others) so they can target them for... harassment flashmobs.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1546198627814498304 Apparently DC Democrat Operatives are paying $200 to anyone
https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1549417453922316288 SWITZERLAND: “Wanted” posters for the elites belonging to the World Economic Forum. https://twitter.com/NerumWim/status/1548425493648588804 Switzerland is awake. Wanted posters for Great Reset criminals being displayed in style at a protest. Who should be added? https://media.gab.com/system/media%5C_attachments/files/111/260/079/playable... Wanted Posters for WEF'rs etc "Could it be Switzerland doesn't want these technocrat con artists and fascist globalist monopolist neo-Communists using their country as an HQ anymore."
SWITZERLAND: “Wanted” posters for the elites belonging to the WEF
Rep. Lee Zeldin Attacked On Stage By Knife-Wielding Assailant Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) was attacked by a man with a blade on Thursday evening during a campaign stop in Fairport, NY, near Rochester, WROC reports. Zeldin, the NY Republican gubernatorial candidate, was giving a speech about bail reform when a man walked on stage, began yelling, "wrestled with him a bit, and pulled a blade out," before AMVETS national Director Joe Chenelly stopped him. Here is video of the attack involving Rep. Zeldin from witness Cody Crippen pic.twitter.com/Ur1CfpkdsS — Nick Reisman (@NickReisman) July 22, 2022 According to a statement from Zeldin's campaign, "a man climbed on stage and attempted to stab Congressman Lee Zeldin (R-NY) ... Congressman Zeldin grabbed the attacker's wrist to stop him until several others assisted in taking the attacker down to the ground." Group of men immediately jumped on stage and subdued the man. @News_8 @13WHAM @nypost @news10nbc @FoxNews @cnnbrk pic.twitter.com/d1ryz4F9fU — Ian Bradley (@bornawinner92) July 22, 2022
Notable uptick within the world's political sphere over recent years in both mentions / rhetoric, and of actual completed assassinations. That old game of thrones. Here's another one... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/member-irans-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corp... https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/08/10/crypto-payments-implicated-in-all...
Notable uptick...
Stay out of the crossfire. Biden (US Gov) murdered Al-Zawahiri (Islam Gov). Matar (Islam Gov) attempted Rushdie (FreeSpeech Gov). Yamagami (re Cult Gov victim) murders Abe (re Unification Church Cult Gov). Chail (Sikh Gov) attempted Elizabeth (UK Gov). Windsor Castle intruder admitted he was there ‘to kill the Queen’ https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/windsor-castle-intruder-admitted-plan-to-kill-... https://nypost.com/2022/08/02/windsor-castle-intruder-charged-with-threateni... https://nypost.com/2021/12/29/windsor-castle-crossbow-wielding-intruder-hate... https://nypost.com/2021/12/25/intruder-arrested-at-windsor-castle-amid-queen... The hooded and masked intruder who busted into Windsor Castle with a high-powered crossbow on Christmas Day had filmed a video bragging of his plans to “assassinate” Queen Elizabeth II, a court heard Wednesday. Jaswant Singh Chail, 20, recorded the video just before he entered the castle grounds — while the 96-year-old monarch was inside celebrating the holiday, prosecutors told London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court. “I am sorry for what I have done and what I will do. I am going to attempt to assassinate Elizabeth, queen of the royal family,” he said in the video, in which he was seen holding a crossbow and wearing a terrifying-looking face covering. Screenshot from video Chail filmed before intrusion.Jaswant Singh Chail was carrying a powerful crossbow and had a hood and mask that a cop said looked like a Halloween outfit, his court hearing heard.The Sun UK “This is revenge for those who died in the 1919 massacre,” Chail said, referring to an incident when British troops shot dead nearly 400 Sikhs in their holy city of Amritsar in northwestern India. “It is also revenge for those who have been killed, humiliated and discriminated on because of their race,” he said in the video. Chail managed to get to an area where he would have access to the private quarters of the castle — where the Queen was celebrating with her eldest son, heir apparent Prince Charles — before he was spotted at 8:10 a.m. by a royal protection officer, the court heard. “I am here to kill the Queen,” he allegedly told the cop, who immediately drew a Taser and ordered the intruder to drop to his knees, prosecutors said. Britain's Queen Elizabeth IIChail allegedly told a cop who spotted him that he was “here to kill the Queen.”POOL/AFP via Getty Images The officer described Chail as looking like something out of a vigilante film or dressed for Halloween, and the “Supersonic X-bow” he had on him is capable of fatal injuries, the prosecution said. Windsor Castle intruder busted with a crossbow charged with trying to ‘injure or alarm’ Queen Elizabeth II Searches of Chail’s home in Southampton also found a gas mask and rope, the court was told. His electronic devices also showed he’d applied to the UK’s Ministry of Defence and the Grenadier Guards in an effort to make contact with the royal family, the court heard. Chail is charged under the Treason Act with intending to “injure the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, or to alarm her Majesty.” He has also been charged with threats to kill and possession of an offensive weapon. He was not asked to enter a plea at Wednesday’s hearing, where he appeared remotely from Broadmoor, a high-security psychiatric hospital. He was ordered detained until his next court appearance on Sept. 14. Charges under the Treason Act of 1842 are rare. In 1981, Marcus Sarjeant was charged under the act after firing blank shots at the Queen as she rode on horseback in the Trooping the Color parade in London. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison. Court artist sketch of Chail appearing virtually Wednesday.Chail has been charged under the rarely used Treason Act with intending to “injure the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, or to alarm her Majesty.” Elizabeth Cook/PA Images/Alamy I A more serious and even older Treason Act — from 1351 — has not been used since World War II, when William Joyce, a propagandist nicknamed Lord Haw Haw, collaborated with the Nazis. He was hanged in 1946. Indians have long demanded a formal apology from Britain for what is also known as the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre, when British troops opened fire on unarmed civilians who had gathered to protest against a colonial law. Queen Elizabeth II laid a wreath at the site of the massacre during a visit to India in 1997 and referred to it as a “distressing example” of “difficult episodes” in the past.
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
Putin Ally Assassination Attempt Reportedly Ends In Daughter's Death https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11130731/Daughter-Ukraine-war-maste... https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1561098991382589440 The daughter of Alexander Dugin - a close ally and adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin - has reportedly been killed in an assassination attempt meant for her father. Darya Dugin was 'blown to pieces' near Moscow suburb of Bolshiye Vyazyomy, according to reports, which say taht Alexander had originally planned to travel back with her from a festival before deciding to ride in a separate car, according to the Daily Mail and other outlets.
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
Russian Oil Oligarch Who Criticized Ukraine War 'Falls' Out Of Hospital Window To His Death https://www.interfax.ru/moscow/860208 https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-all-the-russian-oligarchs-mysterio... https://ria.ru/20220901/maganov-1813637122.html https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-obtains-warrant-seizure-45-mill... https://www.lukoil.com/PressCenter/Pressreleases/Pressrelease?rid=577636 https://www.businessinsider.com/lukoil-oligarch-fell-fell-out-of-window-died... https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-gazprom-linked-executive-found-dead-... https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-oligarch-death-novatek-doubts-sergey-... Ravil Maganov, the vice president and chair of the board of directors of Russian oil giant Lukoil, died after falling out of a sixth floor hospital window in Moscow on Thursday, state-controlled media reported. Maganov was in Moscow's Central Clinical Hospital - reportedly a top-notch medical facility that serves senior Russian officials and other elite clients - when he "fell out of the window" and died from his injuries, an unnamed "informed source" told Russian news agency Interfax. The state news agency RIA Novosti followed up with confirmation from a representative of the presidential administration, which manages the hospital campus. A law enforcement source told the outlet that the death was likely a suicide. Maganov's death comes hours after the US Justice Department announced a warrant to seize a $45 million Boeing aircraft belonging to Lukoil. Perhaps most notably, Maganov's death comes almost six months to the day after Lukoil released a statement expressing "deepest concerns" about Putin's war in Ukraine. In a joint statement to shareholders, staff, and customers, the company's board of directors said that it was "calling for the soonest termination of the armed conflict. We express our sincere empathy for all victims, who are affected by this tragedy. We strongly support a lasting ceasefire and a settlement of problems through serious negotiations and diplomacy." Falling short of naming it as an invasion - which is outlawed in Russia - the statement was nonetheless a striking departure from the Kremlin's messaging. Lukoil confirmed Maganov's death, stating that it came "after a lengthy serious illness," and there is speculation that the 67-year-old may have taken his own life after receiving bad news about his condition. However, as Insider notes, Maganov's death is the latest in a string of unexplained or untimely deaths of Russian magnates connected to the energy industry in the last months.
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
Argentina VP Survives Point-Blank Assassination Attempt https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62762421 https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Argentina.pdf https://twitter.com/LautaroMaislin/status/1565506730661904384 https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-vp-unharmed-after-assailant... https://apnews.com/article/caribbean-buenos-aires-argentina-3583b98f34338e70... Argentinian vice president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner survived an astonishingly close encounter with death on Thursday night, as a would-be assassin pointed a loaded pistol at her head and seemingly pulled the trigger with no effect. The gun was loaded with five rounds, according to President Alberto Fernández. "Cristina remains alive because, for a reason not yet technically confirmed, the gun, which contained five bullets, did not fire," he said in a nationwide television broadcast, describing the attack as "the most serious incident since we recovered democracy” in 1983. Amidst a throng of supporters outside her home, Vice President Fernández was exiting her vehicle when a pistol emerged from the crowd -- the muzzle just inches from her face. A video captured the astounding incident -- and, it seems, even the click of the would-be assassin's trigger pull: El video del arma contra @CFKArgentina pic.twitter.com/8j1xpMnPoe — Lautaro Maislin (@LautaroMaislin) September 2, 2022 Fernández de Kirchner blinked and ducked down as first the crowd and then her security detail reacted. The assailant was quickly apprehended as he stood amongst her backers. Though his name has not yet been released, authorities say he is a 35-year old of Brazilian origin. Fernández de Kirchner is embroiled in controversy: "The attack came as the vice president is facing a trial for alleged acts of corruption during her 2007-2015 presidency — charges that she vehemently denies and that have led her supporters to surround her home in the upscale Recoleta neighborhood of Argentina’s capital," reports the Associated Press. She stands accused of defrauding the government and corruptly awarding public works projects to her political base in Patagonia. Prosecutors are seeking a 12-year sentence and a lifetime ban from politics. As Senate president, however, she enjoys immunity, which could end with her losing a late-2023 election or if the Supreme Court ratifies her sentence. Mere inches separated Cristina Fernández de Kirchner from near-certain death (Television Publica Argentina via AP) "We can disagree, we can have deep disagreements, but hate speech cannot take place because it breeds violence and there is no chance of violence coexisting with democracy," President Fernández said. Another angle shows the pistol extended as Fernández de Kirchner exits her vehicle (Reuters via BBC) In what might be a seen as an exploitation of the event, Fernández declared Friday a national holiday so that Argentines could "express themselves in defense of life, democracy and in solidarity with our vice president." Witnesses of the assassination attempt console each other in the aftermath (AP photo/Natacha Pisarenko)
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
CIA office holders etc planned to murder Journalist Assange for exposing impropriety. US Democrat office holder Robert Telles murders Journalist German for exposing impropriety in office thus losing re-election... https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/homicides/police-arrest-county-official-... https://www.foxnews.com/us/police-search-home-democrat-official-connection-s... https://newscinema.in/journalist-published-footage-of-democrat-official-havi...
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
Two more... Pelosi gets sordid attempted whack by DePape... Khan feels the sting days later... Imran Khan Undergoes Surgery After Surviving Assassination Attempt, Shooter Confesses Pakistan security services have confirmed an attempted assassination against the country's ex-Prime Minister Imran Khan earlier in the day at a political rally. https://twitter.com/Samurai19801/status/1588192645116985345 CCTV camera footage of the shooter who shot Imran Khan. The shooter was subsequently arrested by PTI members and handed over to Pakistani Police. pic.twitter.com/zrHSs8kq4m — Soviet -Afghan Wars Samurai 1980 (@Samurai19801) November 3, 2022 https://indianexpress.com/article/pakistan/imran-khans-shooter-on-camera-wan... https://twitter.com/HassanAyub82/status/1588156758932889601 “I wanted to eliminate him because he (Imran Khan) was misleading the people. I tried to shoot him and nobody else. I made the decision when he left from Lahore. I acted alone, nobody else is involved,” the alleged shooter was heard saying in a video uploaded by Pakistan journalist Hamid Mir. "Six others, including politician Faisal Javed Khan, were also reportedly injured in the attack," the report adds. Thus it appears a mass shooting and significant assassination attempt on the former head of state and his top officials. As details are emerging, it is not as yet clear who or what group was behind the shooting. https://twitter.com/iihtishamm/status/1588145363529105408 Footage of the firing. Assassination attempt on Imran Khan. pic.twitter.com/fmSgI2E8jc — Ihtisham Ul Haq (@iihtishamm) November 3, 2022 https://twitter.com/MusaNV18/status/1588140040529526789 Imran Khan was shot in the leg but was stable while being taken to hospital.I saw the assassin while firing from top of container, he fired a burst from his pistol & he was on the left side. He celebrated after firing so it was a planned assassination attempt. pic.twitter.com/OcNJhHTNcg
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
Going after Figureheads always leaves the Pols from which replacement Figureheads will continue to be drawn. Yet another... Man With Bomb & Knife Arrested Trying To Enter Lula's Inauguration Celebration https://news.sky.com/story/lula-inauguration-man-carrying-explosive-device-a... Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sworn in as Brazil's next president Sunday, and was greeted to cheers by hundreds of thousands of celebrating supporters packing the streets of the capital of Brasilia, after he defeated far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro in what was the tightest presidential race in over three decades. "Our message to Brazil is one of hope and reconstruction," Lula said in an inaugural speech to Congress’ Lower House as his first act as president. "The great edifice of rights, sovereignty and development that this nation built has been systematically demolished in recent years. And to re-erect this edifice, we are going to direct all our efforts." Image via Associated Press Thus he's vowing to heal a deeply divided nation, and at a moment many of Bolsonaro's most die-hard supporters are still pushing for the Lula victory to get overturned. The Associated Press observed Sunday, "Many have gathered outside military barracks since, questioning results and pleading with the armed forces to prevent Lula from taking office." And further, the Left is labelling some Bolsonaro supporters who believe the election was fraudulent as 'terrorists': His most die-hard backers resorted to what some authorities and incoming members of Lula’s administration labeled acts of "terrorism" – something the country had not seen since the early 1980s, and which has prompted security concerns about inauguration day events. Security was especially beefed up in response to a mid-week incident wherein a man, now in custody, was believed plotting to assassinate the president-elect. But on Sunday, another potential assassination plot was foiled, the military described, as a man was reportedly caught with a bomb trying to gain entry to inauguration day celebration events. President-elect @LulaOficial makes his constitutional commitment in Congress and is sworn in as the 39th President of the Federative Republic of #Brazil. pic.twitter.com/Kx22r2WhbF — Gurbaksh Singh Chahal (@gchahal) January 1, 2023 As Sky News reports, "A man carrying an explosive device and a knife has been arrested while attempting to enter the inauguration of Brazil's new president, according to military police." "The man was trying to enter Brasilia's esplanade for the inauguration of President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, according to a spokesperson from the city's military police force," the report details. Journalists present in the capital on Sunday estimated some 300,000 were gathered along the esplanade to take part in the party in aftermath of Lula's swearing-in ceremony.
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
Governments Politicians and Corporations around the world assassinate, and plot to assassinate, directly or via proxy, many people every year, some of whom are innocent civilians, journalists, demonstrators for causes, competitors, etc. Such acts have been well documented by historians. These entities have also written papers debating assassination markets, including suggesting them for their own use. A next generation of AI, and AI Chat-GPT Oracle Services, NetBots, and 3D Drones, has recently appeared, and the entities are salivating for their every potential use of it. Beware their crossfire. A Computer Generated Swatting Service Is Causing Havoc Across America https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z8be/torswats-computer-generated-ai-voice-... https://www.vice.com/oembed.vice.com/itnAcZa?playerjs=1 https://www.vice.com/oembed.vice.com/nKdrAAE?playerjs=1 https://www.vice.com/oembed.vice.com/qrqVHig?playerjs=1 by Joseph Cox April 13, 2023 Hacking. Disinformation. Surveillance. CYBER is Motherboard's podcast and reporting on the dark underbelly of the internet. As the U.S. deals with a nationwide swatting wave, Motherboard has traced much of the activity to a particular swatting-as-a-service account on Telegram. Torswats uses synthesized voices to pressure law enforcement to specific locations. "Hello, I just committed a crime and I want to confess," a panicked sounding man said in a call to a police department in February. "I've placed explosives inside a local school,' the man continued. "You did what?!" the operator responded. "I've placed explosives inside a local school," the man said again, before specifying Hempstead High School in Dubuque, Iowa, and providing its address. In response to the threat, the school went on lockdown, and police searched the school but found nothing, according to a local media report. The bombs weren't real. But, crucially, neither was the man's voice. The panicked man's lines sound artificially generated, according to recordings of the swatting calls reviewed by Motherboard. It is unclear how exactly the caller generated the voice, be that some form of artificial intelligence tool or another speech synthesis program. The result, though, is a voice that sounds very consistent across multiple calls. In fact, Motherboard has found, this synthesized call and another against Hempstead High School were just one small part of a months-long, nationwide campaign of dozens, and potentially hundreds, of threats made by one swatter in particular who has weaponized computer generated voices. Known as "Torswats" on the messaging app Telegram, the swatter has been calling in bomb and mass shooting threats against highschools and other locations across the country. Torswat's connection to these wide ranging swatting incidents has not been previously reported. The further automation of swatting techniques threatens to make an already dangerous harassment technique more prevalent. Swatting is when someone calls in a bogus threat in an attempt to direct law enforcement resources to a particular home, school, or other location. Often, swatting calls result in heavily armed police raiding an innocent victim's home. At least one case has resulted in police killing the unsuspecting occupant. Torswats carries out these threatening calls as part of a paid service they offer. For $75, Torswats says they will close down a school. For $50, Torswats says customers can buy "extreme swattings," in which authorities will handcuff the victim and search the house. Torswats says they offer discounts to returning customers, and can negotiate prices for "famous people and targets such as Twitch streamers." Torswats says on their Telegram channel that they take payment in cryptocurrency. In the Hempstead High School case, authorities have charged a 16-year old boy who allegedly ordered the threats with making a threat of terrorism. But Torswats remains operational, publishing a steady stream of recordings of their crimes as recently as last week. Arguably, Torswats' use of synthetic voices allows them to carry out swatting threats at scale with relatively little effort, while also protecting what their own voice sounds like. Motherboard has determined that Torswats` other targets include a CBD shop in Florida; the corporate headquarters of a Bethesda, Maryland, intelligence company that tracks extremism; and multiple private residences across Virginia, Massachusetts, Texas, California, and more. "The FBI takes swatting very seriously because it puts innocent people at risk," Steve Bernd, public affairs at FBI Seattle, told Motherboard in an email. Bernd said FBI Seattle was aware of the threats made against Hempstead High School. "These calls are dangerous to first responders and to the victims. The callers often tell tales of hostages about to be executed or bombs about to go off. The community is placed in danger as responders rush to the scene, taking them away from real emergencies, and the officers are placed in danger as unsuspecting residents may try to defend themselves." Motherboard's reporting on Torswats comes as something of a nationwide swatting trend spreads across the United States. In October, NPR reported that 182 schools in 28 states received fake threat calls. Torswats' use of a computer generated voice also comes as the rise of artificial intelligence poses even greater risks to those who may face harassment online. In February, Motherboard reported that someone had doxed and harassed a series of voice actors by having an artificial intelligence program read out their home addresses. Motherboard has also long reported on the threat posed by deepfakes, which are artificially generated videos of people, often without their consent. Deepfakes started as a tool to create non-consensual pornography of specific people. On their Telegram channel, Torswats has uploaded at least 35 distinct recordings of calls they appear to have made. Torswats may have made many more swatting calls on others' behalf, though: each filename includes a number, with the most recent going up to 170. Torswats also recently shuttered their channel before reappearing on Telegram in February. In all of those 35 recordings except two, Torswats appears to have used a synthesized voice. The majority of the calls are made with a fake male sounding voice; several include a woman which also appears to be computer generated. Torswats is seemingly able to change what the voice is saying in something close to real-time in order to respond to the operator's questions. These sometimes include "where are you located," "what happened," and "what is your name?" Motherboard listened to dozens of calls uploaded by Torswats and cross-referenced them with local media reports to determine some of the impact and geographical spread of the swatter's threats. The media reports did not mention Torswats or the use of a computer generated voice, but Motherboard was able to link multiple reported swatting incidents to the recordings uploaded by Torswats. (Motherboard redacted some private information in some of the calls embedded in this piece.) "In this specific case, the calls to 911 were placed with an automated or synthesized voice." In other cases, Motherboard used the address in the swatting call to identify the target. One example was SITE Intelligence Group, a private intelligence company that tracks extremism. In the Torswats uploaded call, the male synthetic voice claims they are making the threat in the name of the Order of the Nine Angles, a satanic neo-Nazi group. It is not clear if the claimed link to the group is genuine or misdirection. In March, SITE published a report about Telegram users who offer bomb threats and swatting calls for money. SITE did not respond to a request for comment. In the case of Hempstead High School, Brendan Welsh, public information officer at the Dubuque Police Department, which responded to the incident, confirmed to Motherboard that an automated voice was used. "In this specific case, the calls to 911 were placed with an automated or synthesized voice. On a grander scale though, this investigation continues as we believe our local student was working with another subject outside of our jurisdiction to plan and make these threats," he told Motherboard in an email. Welsh added that the Cedar Rapids FBI field office assisted the investigation, and that FBI Seattle is working on a portion of the investigation as well. Last month, VICE News reported that multiple schools in Pennsylvania were shut down after what were believed by authorities to be "computer-generated swatting calls." It is not entirely clear if those threats were made by Torswats or another entity. In August, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed to have been swatted. A "computer generated voice" took credit for the call, according to a police report obtained by the Daily Dot. At the end of March, authorities charged a 20 year old man, Ashton Connor Garcia, for allegedly making more than 20 swatting calls in the U.S. and Canada. The Associated Press reported prosecutors believe that Garcia used "voice-over-internet technology." Earlier this month, Torswats allegedly changed their tactics: they claimed to have made a swatting call using their own voice. "One of the first swattings I`ve done with my own voice in a long time ***," they wrote on their Telegram channel. Motherboard cannot verify if this audio does indeed contain Torswats' own voice, but the call does not appear to be using a synthesized voice. In the subsequent recording, they start with much the same script as their automated voice. "I've done something really bad and want to kill myself," they tell the operator. They then claim they came out to their parents as a transgender woman, that they have an AR-15, and will shoot any police who respond. "Forgot to cut off my laugh at the end," Torswats wrote on Telegram. After publication of this article, Torswats deleted the audio recordings from their Telegram channel and claimed they were stopping the service for at least one month. "Time to dip a bit," they wrote on the channel. Update: This piece has been updated to include that Torswats has now deleted the recordings. Tagged: CYBERSWAT Harrassment Artificial Intelligence AI Text to Speech Order of the Nine Angles Privacy Do you know anything else about how AI-powered voices are being abused? We'd love to hear from you. Using a non-work phone or computer, you can contact Joseph Cox securely on Signal on +44 20 8133 5190, Wickr on josephcox, or email joseph.cox@vice.com.
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
Ukrainian partner portal of "Spiegel" and BBC publicly calls for the murder of Russians Lord Bebo @MyLordBebo https://t.me/myLordBebo Big Ukrainian news portal UNIAN conducts a poll which Russian journalist to kill next. -> This portal has a big audience and is in partnership with the “who is who” of the MSM including BBC, The Times and Bloomberg. 1/ The poll is still up and you can vote … -> Nazis don’t hide it … that poll caused a backlash … they still keep it up 2/ https://t.me/ Soloviev 55%, Somonyan 16%, Krasovsky 13%, Pegov 8%, Mardan 5%, Kiselev 3%
Notable uptick... Stay out of the crossfire.
Two more violent SocComs expose themselves as such... https://crypto.news/china-allegedly-offers-bitcoin-bounty-to-murder-australi... Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands): "Trump needs to be shot." Hey Chairman Xi aka Winnie the Pooh... go fuck yourself with Stacey's strapon. China allegedly offers bitcoin bounty to murder Australian CCP critic According to an 60 Minutes Australia report, a so-called "bounty email" surfaced that purportedly offers $50,000 bounty in bitcoin (BTC) for the "termination" of Vanessa Pavlou, mother of outspoken Chinese Communist Party (CCP) critic and human rights activist, Drew Pavlou. The emails targeting Vanessa Pavlou were allegedly sent to major shopping centers in Brisbane — in an alleged attempt to reach her employer. No in-person aggression has been reported by 60 seconds. The email, allegedly from CCP actors, also accuses Vanessa Pavlou of running an illicit prostitution ring and being a cocaine addict. However, it remains unverified if this email truly originated from CCP entities, or if this is an intimidation tactic or an actual threat. Bitcoin, a decentralized cryptocurrency, is favored in many illicit activities due to its relative anonymity and lack of central authority able to stop and reverse transactions. Although each transaction is logged on a public ledger known as the blockchain, the identities of those involved remain obscured by pseudonymous addresses that expert users can cash in from without linking them to their identities. Thus, its use in this alleged bounty raises questions regarding the sender's motives and identity, as tracing back such transactions is difficult, but not impossible. This event follows a string of accusations from Australians who criticize China's government, with reports of harassment and threats of violence. One such instance highlighted by Australian media involves a television commentator critical of the CCP who was taken into custody and questioned, following an erroneous accusation of him sending a threatening email to a Chinese-Australian journalist. Although he was released without charge, his case is purportedly indicative of the alleged tactics used to suppress dissent, even outside China's borders. 60 Minutes Australia's report brought attention to the allegations that China is covertly operating a network of illegal outposts, labeled Chinese Overseas Police Service Stations, in at least 53 countries with some sources reporting more than double. These stations, reportedly run out of private residences and small businesses such as restaurants, are staffed by Chinese public security agents and are suspected of tracking and intimidating critics who have escaped China's jurisdiction. Public documentation reportedly suggests that these overseas police stations have been established without the consent of the host countries, and are illegal. The stations' defenders claim that those stations exist to provide innocuous services like driver's license renewals, which critics argue is a facade for China's international shadow police force that targets dissidents who have fled the mainland and Chinese nationals and foreigners who criticize the Chinese government. The report also brought to light two alleged stations in Australia, including one in suburban Sydney. The 60 Minutes Australia report alleges that China's National Supervision Commission established these stations, not only to enforce domestic anti-corruption campaigns but also to monitor Chinese nationals abroad and intimidate those who voice dissent against the CCP. The Chinese embassy in Australia dismissed these claims as "malicious," and Australian federal police have denied the existence of such stations in the country. As tensions continue to mount, it remains to be seen how the Australian government will respond to the growing concerns of its citizens who face potential threats for their vocal criticism of the CCP.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 02:31:02 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Assassination technologies
https://nypost.com/2022/07/08/shinzo-abe-assassin-used-homemade-gun/
Guns and ammo banned? Yes. Homemade? Yes. black powder, projectiles
everything can be 'banned' and WILL be banned, thanks to technonazi turds like jim bell, youserlf and the rest. Everything will be 'digitally controlled' through arpanet 'aware', 'embedded systems' etc. As to that japanese monkey-politician, MAYBE he was killed by an actual japanese 'patriot' or MAYBE that was a, you know, "false flag attack". of course a cop like you will never mention any of what I just mentioned.
Assassination Politics (1997) (jya.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32790951 http://jya.com/ap.htm 56 points by Tomte 14 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 35 comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Analysis_Market https://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2013101261A1.html neilv 14 days ago | next [–] I met the author, Jim Bell, once or twice, when he came by the computer store I was working in as a kid. He seemed OK, in the few words we exchanged, and maybe a techie/radio hobbyist (IIRC, his car had many antennae on it). At that time, in the 1980s, someone remarked that Bell had "had one good idea" (the SemiDisk persistent storage card). Later on, it looks from Wikipedia like Bell had a lot of troubles. The light joke about "one good idea" IMHO took on new, darker meaning, after some of the choices during the troubles, including the horrifying idea that's the topic of the post. I suppose a good SF writer could've started with that idea, and explored an (IMHO likely) scenario of it playing out as a tool of the most corrupt and the most insane, and then the dystopia that results in. I haven't read much of Bell's writings, so I don't know whether at some point he shifted to a cautionary "we should figure out how to prevent things like this, because they would be bad". thomassmith65 14 days ago | parent | next [–] Sheesh, so the article isn't satire? I assumed the whole thing was making fun of libertarians. santoshalper 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–] The line between espousing libertarian beliefs and satirizing them is so thin. droopyEyelids 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–] The line dissolves when you ask a libertarian where property rights come from, and how they apply to land. asah 14 days ago | prev | next [–] Lol. So many flaws... but nobody knew in 1997... For one thing, life imprisonment (LiP) is a pretty big deterrent, and among the few willing to risk it, defense tech and the surveillance state are generally winning the arms race against individual actors and small groups ("terrorists"). Lots of people want to kill world leaders and yet assassination attempts (let alone successes!) are quite rare. This leaves the question of less-defended people, and there it's more mixed: it's much easier to do but 10^6-10^10 fewer people want to kill them which makes it a lot easier to catch the conspirators simply by tracking who had motive. Finally, everyday victims don't usually have haters with enough capital to motivate someone to risk LiP - again, making it easy to track down the perps by motive. impossiblefork 14 days ago | parent | next [–] I don't think that's true, that it's fear of imprisonment etc. Such things definitely matter, but I think the reason for the lack of political assassinations is the same as why we don't get horrible viruses that spread like wildfire and kill Ebola (which I believe to be that bioscience professors aren't usually very evil). People who could easily murder politicians and others just don't want to. Perhaps they don't hate them all that much, perhaps they like democracy even though it puts people they dislike into high positions, perhaps they're opposed to murder. We don't see mortar or drone attacks using image recognition (instead of radio control which could conceivably fail if basic precautions had been taken) on presidents and prime ministers in Europe even though such attacks would be trivial and the perpetrators would probably have a decent chance of getting away. It's because people don't hate them all that much and because the people who hate them a lot don't see such attacks as politically productive. Presumably the reason unfriendly countries don't perform such attacks against those governments that oppose them is that it's not politically productive and would lead to a negative reaction instead of just removing the people the unfriendly country would like to be rid of. Teever 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–]
People who could easily murder politicians and others just don't want to. Perhaps they don't hate them all that much, perhaps they like democracy even though it puts people they dislike into high positions, perhaps they're opposed to murder.
I've wondered what makes unstable Americans conduct school shootings but not targeted assassinations? Like, there is a part of the population that has no problem killing, and killing for shock value, but for whatever reason their targets are children and not politicians. The 1960s and 1970s were full of assassinations and plane hijackings by all kinds of people but they seem to have been replaced by the mass murder of children. impossiblefork 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–] I think it's fear of a power negative media reaction-- that the murder would lead to success for the political position that the murderer attempted to strike at. sekh60 14 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [–] I think political assassination teens to make little sense most of the time. There is a sort of gentleperson's agreement to not do it, is someone breaks that then no one feels safe and leaders will be assassinating other leaders left and right. At least I think that is the great. Teever 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [–] Deterrents only work if they're enforceable. Will you be able to catch someone if they use a drone to take out a target? After watching what is going with the use of consumer drones in Ukraine I've come to the conclusion that we will soon see this in America. People will start to fight back against corrupt law enforcement sooner or later. Imagine the world where people in a community brutalized by law enforcement crowd source drone strikes to take out particularly menacing law enforcement officers after they've been let off with paid vacation for the nth time. The police will quickly come to the determination that it's safer for their members to actually put through the legal system as offenders than walking free on the street. zardo 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–]
The police will quickly come to the determination that it's safer for their members to actually put through the legal system as offenders than walking free on the street.
I don't think that's how this scenario would turn out. Policing would just move explicitly to counter insurgency operations. Laws would change as necessary to give authorities whatever tools they need to do it. Teever 13 days ago | root | parent | next [–] But will that be sufficient to stop a technology like off the shelf drones? I have a feeling that we're about to find out. reply Tostino 13 days ago | root | parent | next [–] Depends on how much rights those in power want to strip away in the name of "safety". reply Teever 13 days ago | root | parent | next [–] It's not so simple. If a parent vigilanted an incompetent cop in Uvalde and the political response was to enact the next patriot act people would lose their shit. Politicians can't be so overt about this kind of thing because American society is sitting on a powderkeg and pile of guns. reply fifticon 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [–] Thought: The day-to-day situation in Mexico, for a number of decades, give a sinister data-point for the rate at which someone is willing to murder rather ordinary citizens. pjc50 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–] Indeed. I'd add that quite a lot of the US mass shootings seem to be "political" in character, in that their perpetrator leaves some kind of manifesto or messageboard postings explaining their motive, but the victims are either random or attending the same school as the perpetrator. There's (fortunately) nobody with an organized program of political violence. michaelscott 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [–] It definitely makes a lot of assumptions that I don't think hold true in practice. As you say, many world leaders would even want to have one another killed (as individuals with both motive and a lot of power to make it happen) and yet it doesn't happen very often. The practicalities of actually _using_ the digital cash, should you win, in a way that wouldn't point the finger at you are also not so simple. It's an interesting thought experiment though. Would probably make for a cool novel! jim_kreggis 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [–] Yeah, there's no way this would lead to minimal government, the exact opposite would happen. dang 14 days ago | prev | next [–] Related: Assassination Politics (1997) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6544251 - Oct 2013 (62 comments) Assassination Politics (by Jim Bell) + Bitcoin = ? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2500781 - April 2011 (8 comments) Assassination Politics - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=327329 - Oct 2008 (1 comment) Assassination Politics - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=119173 - Feb 2008 (1 comment) blantonl 14 days ago | prev | next [–] It's downright terrifying to think this was written 25 years ago, and now many of the tools that the author describes as being enablers in some of the described activities are readily available to the average person, let alone nation states and governments. LiquidSky 14 days ago | parent | next [–] You should feel the opposite: this was written 25 years ago, was stupid when it was written, and as these tools have become ever-cheaper and more ubiquitous, nothing at all like this has ever happened, showing how hopelessly naive Bell was (and, judging from his subsequent activity, still is). This was the idiotic rambling of someone with a bit of technical skill and a complete and utter lack of understanding of people, politics, or society. This is something a 14 year old computer geek might come up with hanging out with his friends. jovial_cavalier 14 days ago | prev | next [–] Somewhat related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Analysis_Market leashless 13 days ago | prev | next [–] I've known about AP and the problems it poses since it was published. I was also the release coordinator for the 2015 Ethereum launch, and wondered if we would see any attempts to implement AP on our infrastructure. I spent some time thinking about how to fix it. I think the answer is a large anonymous fund, a public good, which simply lists anybody who starts an AP server on a public blockchain on their own AP server. I think the game theory is sound, which says nothing about either morality, reasonableness, or legality. reply some_random 14 days ago | prev | next [–] I love this kind of political writing, unique and incredibly naive. VHRanger 14 days ago | prev | next [–] The author was raising huge red flags citing Waco Texas & Ruby Ridge as a reason to have government employees assassinated. That's the same rhethoric behind Oklahoma city bombing for those at home. It's the same sort of stochastic terrorists that end up in the QAnon hole these days. I don't know why we pay their talking points any attention. HideousKojima 14 days ago | parent | next [–] Just because Timothy McVeigh was a mass murderer doesn't mean the ATF and FBI agents at Ruby Ridge and Waco weren't murderers too. I realize who did what at Waco is highly disputed, but the rules of engagement being used at Ruby Ridge were straight up murder: "If any adult in the area around the cabin is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement had been made, deadly force could and should be used to neutralize the individual." VHRanger 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–] Waco and Ruby ridge were effectively the same. The end result of their actions was "How would you execute a warrant against El Chapo" and both forced the feds to act in such a way. There's an initial crime (sex with 12yr old for David Koresh, and selling illegal weaponry to white supremacist criminal orgs for Randy Weaver). Then they don't engage the legal system normally by hiring a lawyer and fighting the charges -- they hide in a hole hoping to be forgotten about. When the feds inevitably try to serve a warrant, in both cases they respond in a hostile manner and kill a LEO. At this point you can basically be expected to be treated like a drug lord -- you're facing charges and responding to warrants by killing officers. So you get besieged like a drug lord. The main difference for Ruby Ridge is that the government took a bunch of decisions (procedural mistakes, over-eager sniper and rules of engagement) that made them unsympathetic. But even with this, it's a little absurd to come out and defend the Weavers for playing very stupid games and winning stupid prizes. You kill a law enforcement office in a hostile manner, don't expect to be treated with courtesy. There's hundreds of cases where LEOs are recklessly killing innocents in manners that should get them lambasted, but Ruby Ridge ain't it. HideousKojima 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–]
There's an initial crime (sex with 12yr old for David Koresh, and selling illegal weaponry to white supremacist criminal orgs for Randy Weaver).
Then they don't engage the legal system normally by hiring a lawyer and fighting the charges -- they hide in a hole hoping to be forgotten about.
Weaver was acquitted on all charges, with the exception of a charge for failing to appear in court for the original charge that lead to the siege. And the rules of engagement still are and were murder. VHRanger 14 days ago | root | parent | next [–] The charge could have been unpaid parking tickets, it wouldn't change anything. The point is they had a charge and they failed to engage with the legal system like functional adults. You can fight the charge like any other. Instead they keep trying to evade the legal system and inevitably get someone knocking at the door. If your response to that knock on the door is to shoot, you get what's coming to you. The other point is that this unsympathetic case is viewed in some special light when there's a ton of cases where the government is much much more clearly in the wrong. The difference is that in those other cases it's generally a "them" (ethnic minorities, urban poor, etc.) whereas for libertarian weirdoes like Weaver they somehow get lumped in the HackerNews zeitgeist's "us". helloworld11 12 days ago | root | parent | next [–] You truly are a disingenuous apologist for disgustingly murderous police tactics, which lacked all reasonable professionalism, duty to the basic idea of policing in a remotely free country or even loosely moral barometers. No, the correct response to the warrant being served against weaver wasn't to shoot his dog after secretly invading his property in tac gear and deliberately provoking a defensive response. No, the correct further axction is not to shoot his 14 year-old son in the back or to shoot through a window at a house in which you know a woman with a 10 month-old baby is standing. No normal notion of good legal procedure or even non-moronic, non-thuggish thinking can defend these and other acts. Even a number of police agree. Here's a claim from one of the U.S Marshalls on site: "Many of the people the USMS used as third party go-betweens on the Weaver case—Bill and Judy Grider, Alan Jeppeson, and Richard Butler—were assessed by the Marshals as more radical than the Weavers. When Deputy U.S. Marshal (DUSM) Dave Hunt asked Grider, "Why shouldn't I just go up there ... and talk to him?", Grider replied, "Let me put it to you this way. If I was sitting on my property and somebody with a gun comes to do me harm, then I'll probably shoot him." Or how about the deputy assistant director of the FBI at the time, writing in a memo that: "Something to Consider 1. Charge against Weaver is Bull S___. 2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting. 3. Vicki has no charges against her. 4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was barking at. Some guys in camys [camouflage] shot his dog. Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the shooting. He is in pretty strong legal position." As one of the comments above states: Let the reader decide what constitutes a reasonable attempt to serve a warrant". reply tb_technical 13 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [–] "You get what's coming to you" is the language of fascists looking for an excuse to play with their new toy guns. They shot a kid in the back, and shot a woman holding a baby through a window. This case is a barometer for whether or not a person likes the taste of boot leather. reply SlickNixon 13 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
When the feds inevitably try to serve a warrant, in both cases they respond in a hostile manner and kill a LEO.
From the Ruby Ridge wiki:
"On August 21, 1992, six Marshals were sent to scout the area to determine suitable places away from the cabin to apprehend and arrest Weaver. The marshals, dressed in military camouflage, were equipped with night-vision goggles and M16 rifles. DUSMs Art Roderick, Larry Cooper, and William F. "Bill" Degan formed the reconnaissance team, while DUSMs David Hunt, Joseph Thomas, and Frank Norris formed an observation post (OP) team on the ridge north of the cabin. At one point, Roderick threw two rocks at the Weaver cabin to test the dogs' reaction. The action provoked the dogs; Weaver's friend, Kevin Harris, and Weaver's 14-year-old son, Samuel ("Sammy"), emerged and followed the dog "Striker" to investigate. Harris and the younger Weaver said that they were hoping the dog had noticed a game animal as the cabin was out of meat. The recon team (Roderick, Cooper, and Degan) initially retreated through the woods in radio contact with the OP team, but later took up hidden defensive positions. Later, the OP team and the Weavers claimed the dogs were alerted to the recon team in the woods after neighbors at the foot of the mountain started their pickup truck. The recon team retreated through the woods to a "Y" junction in the trails 500 yards (460 m) west of the cabin, out of sight of the cabin. Sammy and Harris followed Striker on foot through the woods while Randy, also on foot, took a separate logging trail; Vicki, Sara, Rachel, and baby Elisheba remained at the cabin. The OP team were anxious at first, but then relaxed. Randy encountered the Marshals at the "Y"; Roderick claimed to have yelled, "Back off! U.S. Marshal!" upon sighting Weaver, and Cooper said he had shouted, "Stop! U.S. Marshal!" By their account, Sammy and Striker came out of the woods about a minute later. When the Marshals' position was revealed by the dog "Striker", a yellow Labrador Retriever, DUSM Roderick shot the dog dead. Seeing this, Sammy Weaver reacted by shooting in the direction of Roderick. DUSM Cooper then shot towards Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris, who both sought cover. Harris, once finding cover behind a tree stump, then returned fire with one unaimed shot, which eventually killed DUSM William Francis "Bill" Degan. Sammy Weaver, now retreating up a hill was then shot in the back and killed by DUSM Cooper." It will be left as an exercise to the reader to determine if the above constitutes an "attempt to serve a warrant". reply chasd00 14 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [–] wasn't Randy Weaver's wife killed by a sniper with nothing but an infant in her arms? That's pretty bad. coldtea 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [–] Perhaps because reality doesn't stop existing if you don't pay attention to it. Nor do actual threats become any less threatening (if anything, the opposite). So not paying any attention to the talking points, i.e. not reading TFA, wont have any effect. Not to mention that the people "sane" enough head the advice and not read it, are the ones who wouldn't do anything shady even if they read it anyway... eggsome 13 days ago | prev [–] Does anyone know if there is any merit to his patent? https://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2013101261A1.html reply
Assassination Politics (1997) (cryptome.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6544251 http://cryptome.org/ap.htm 39 points by kilroy123 on Oct 13, 2013 | hide | past | favorite | 62 comments https://twitter.com/pro2rat/status/389410900832038912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resi... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64KcZsD82E https://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/as-always-stand-up... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/civil-disobedience-san... https://www.amazon.com/Machine-Kills-Secrets-EmpowerWhistleblowers-ebook/dp/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200/ https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Times-Revised-Edition-Perennial/dp/0060935502 https://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/07/in_case_of_revo.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575308440143301092.h... https://assmkedzgorodn7o.onion/ cryptome on Oct 13, 2013 | next [–] Jim Bell is out of prison after 10 years and remains defiant and is posting again on one of his original fora, cypherpunks. The archives has Jim's recent posts: http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/ Subscribe to cpunks: https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks Then there is CJ, Carl Johnson, who was sent to prison for supporting Bell. He is on Twitter among other places, also still promoting AP defiantly: https://twitter.com/pro2rat Neither are interested in remaining anonymous. anthonyb on Oct 14, 2013 | parent | next [–] Not just AP, but nuking people you don't like, too: https://twitter.com/pro2rat/status/389410900832038912 triplesec on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] This is the biggest issue with AP. Where down the line you stop, in assassinating leaders? With what criteria? rdl on Oct 14, 2013 | prev | next [–] I got "invited" to federal court over this (I ran the mailing list archive at MIT which USG used as evidence). I was outside the US at the time, working on anon ecash in the Caribbean, so it was a request, not a demand. I met Jennifer Granick as a result, and learned the "if you can possibly avoid it, never ever set foot inside federal court" rule, which has subsequently served me quite well. Jim Bell probably tops weev as an unsympathetic defendant. angersock on Oct 14, 2013 | parent | next [–] I met Jennifer Granick as a result, and learned the "if you can possibly avoid it, never ever set foot inside federal court" rule, which has subsequently served me quite well. Would you be able to elaborate on that any further? rdl on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] I was outside the USA, and it was just a request with no legal weight. I stayed on a tiny island in the Caribbean for the duration of the trial. (It wasn't a big deal to FBI, either -- I answered their questions through counsel, and the whole thing was essentially a formality. Jim Bell was posting to a public list for which I maintained public archives, so I had no legal or moral duty to him or anyone else. I was 18 or 19, and almost went because it would have been a free trip to DC and potentially interesting, but the correctly raised concern is that I could have been ordered to remain available if I had been there. Not worth the risk, especially since I wasn't particularly helpful to anyone (I would have been fine with helping IRS CID when a guy was posting personal threats on people publicly) I actually tried to explain to both sides that my archiver wasn't assured to be canonical; it was just a regular list subscriber, with a simple to discover email address, and no inbound filtering (since cp list addresses were distributed and constantly changing), so anyone could post random messages to it. Even worse, sending a forged message id with new content would overwrite the original message. fiatmoney on Oct 13, 2013 | prev | next [–] The saga of Jim Bell after the publication of that essay provides an excellent case study in why people like "Satoshi" have an interest in remaining as anonymous as possible. csense on Oct 13, 2013 | parent | next [–] I wasn't familiar with this, but Wikipedia knows of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell There are many excellent reasons for remaining anonymous or pseudonymous, both online and offline. That being said, there's a vast difference between inventing a disruptive technology and advocating (even in jest) the killing of government officials. I'm not taking the position that governments never unjustly harass disruptive technologists. Nor am I taking the position that the treatment of this particular jesting assassination advocate was fair or proportionate. Nor am I taking the position that government officials are incapable of crimes worthy of a death sentence [1] (think of the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War 2). I'm simply saying that the situations of Satoshi and Jim Bell aren't really comparable. [1] Although, even for people who really deserve it, I'd really rather not have death sentences recommended and carried out by the totally lawless process Mr. Bell jestingly advocated in a country I have to live in. fennecfoxen on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] First of all, based on that essay, it's entirely plausible to believe that Jim Bell is in fact guilty of felony tax evasion (and possibly more). However, it seems kind of crappy that the government response to a controversial exercise of first-amendment rights is to look really hard at you, dig up some dirt, and get you sent to jail. (Or make some dirt -- or at least trump up the charges if the dirt's not enough.) (A similar revenge case may have been brought against the CEO of Qwest, for a more 4th-amendment/NSA angle; in this case the charges that may have been trumped up were insider-trading charges, and certain evidence about the government's motives was excluded from the trial by the judge. Here's an article we've discussed in these fora before: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30... ) _delirium on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] Part of the issue with Bell is that it's not clear to anyone that it was really in jest, or even just a hypothetical future proposal. He proposed an assassination market, and was collecting home addresses of IRS and FBI officials, coincidentally. aidenn0 on Oct 14, 2013 | prev | next [–] If you and contribute funds to pay an anonymous assassin, you've committed attempted murder. If the anonymous assassin succeeds, you can be tried for murder even if they never locate the assassin. anthonyb on Oct 14, 2013 | parent | next [–] Interesting that the libertarian solution to someone violating your rights seems to be to violate their rights back in even more spectacular and violent fashion. msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] In a just world do you lose rights when you violate another's? Most people would accept that it's moral for someone who's threatened with a gun by another to kill that other person, thus preserving their own life. Many would still accept as moral the same situation, but where the assailant has a knife. Many would again accept as moral everything the same, except instead of someone intent to kill with a knife, an assailant who only intended to rob. Robbery is taking a thing against the wishes/desires/rights of another. Some might argue that the government collecting taxes is robbery by that definition and thus they have the moral right to defend their property with deadly force. The government certainly will use force to ensure that it gets it's taxes. They won't shoot you but they will take away your freedom and the only way they can do that is with force or the threat of force. At what point do you disagree with that line of thinking? Why? I'm not trolling you, genuinely curious. anthonyb on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] In this case, there is no overt threat - the government employee is not holding a gun to your head, so you have no right to kill him. Most people are not very even handed when they feel that their rights have been violated, so it tends to lead to escalation, and tribal/gang style violence, tit-for-tat. It's much better IMO for a society to deal with disputes by legal means, not by stalking, harassing and killing each other, eg. if I shoot you in self defence, then that's 1 person's worth of productivity lost to the world, similarly if I harass you and threaten you at your home address (0.5 x PP?). And yes, if you consistently violate other people's rights, or act with poor judgement, then you should lose rights. For example, if you're in the US and threaten people with a gun, you should lose the right to carry a gun, or the right to not be searched. msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] So immediate threats aren't OK but eventual ones are? I guess I can see how a person might think that way. What if the US had a post-earning tax where the tax collector had to physically come to your house and demand the money that the government said you owed it. And he was armed. And he made the threat of violence personally rather than through a large bureaucracy? Would that change things? Why or why not? Again, not trolling but genuinely interested. Agree 100% that people don't react well when they feel their rights are being violated. The loss of agency and personal sovereignty is a really big deal. I'm with you on the loss of rights examples you give up to a point. I'm totally on board with situational loss of rights (I threaten you with a gun and you're in the right to shoot me) but I'm less in favor of doing that systematically. Mostly because of how safe things are these days (I think quite good) versus the potential for abuse (I think quite high). anthonyb on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. The Rule of Law is one of modern societies great inventions, as long as all parties agree to abide by it. When they don't, organised opposition (eg. protests) and negotiation are usually far better at instigating change than randomly shooting back. It's very much an i-win-you-lose mindset, I don't think it's really based much in reality and I'd rather not live anywhere near a society based on those principles. msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Because a gun is an excellent example of force, coercion or violence. If someone points a gun at you, you know exactly what it means. The laws, the courts, everything else is ultimately backed up by violence or the threat of violence. If you are convicted of a crime and you say you don't want to go to jail there are people whose job it is to MAKE you go to jail. If you cooperate, the threat of violence doesn't turn into actual violence but if you do not, it will materialize. It's probably the easiest way to cut out the myriad different ways that the state will back up it's laws with actions and cut to the chase: you can choose not to comply but you will pay dearly for it. anthonyb on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] All of which ignores that there are many different ways of interacting with the state without resorting to violence, in favour of a nice soundbite. "Libertarian or people pointing guns at you" is a false dichotomy. msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Yeah sure there's a million ways but ultimately if you don't do what you're supposed to, that threat is there. I'm not suggesting that false dichotomy, you are. What I am suggesting is that the state exists in it's current form largely because it does hold the monopoly on violence. The very definition of government is that it's the entity with the monopoly on violence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64KcZsD82E How many steps removed does the guy toting the gun have to be in order for the implicit threat of violence to be OK? Zero? Two? Eight? How does the abstraction of that implicit threat make it any more palatable? randallsquared on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–]
I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments.
Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face a gun which they did not bring. anthonyb on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Or legal action! Of course, shooting people over "legal action" sounds crazy, so to make yourself sound better you'd better keep talking about guns. Edit: Here's a good example of the alternative to shooting people, from Bob Brown, former leader of the Greens here in Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/as-... a) it works, and b) if you can't find 1000 people who are also willing to come and protest, perhaps your cause isn't that worthwhile? krapp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] Surely the libertarian model amounts to something more productive than "the state will shoot you if you aren't ready to shoot them first?" msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Yeah it's more about people interacting in a voluntary manner. The first and probably last rule of libertarian philosophy is that it's not OK to initiate aggression against others. So two individuals entering into a contract is OK but one person threatening another with violence is not. The fact that the state/government has a monopoly on violence means that your interactions with them aren't necessarily voluntary. Many people don't have a problem with paying for roads, or some semblance of a military, or schools or whatnot. But the very nature of a state is that if you don't do what it tells you to, you have no recourse. Someone might not put a gun to your head but you have to know that there's no negotiation. anthonyb on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–]
you have no recourse ... you have to know that there's no negotiation
Bullshit. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/civil-d... msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] If you perform civil disobedience you can and probably will get arrested. It happens all the time. Choosing to break an unjust law doesn't mean that a judge will understand the injustice of it and let you go free, nor is there any assurance that jury would acquit you. That's what I mean when I say "there's no negotiation" Once a police officers decides to arrest you all negotiations have ceased and they may do whatever the law tells them to, or whatever the law lets them get away with, or perhaps a bit more. krapp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] It's not really violence if it's the government you're killing, I guess... Though this might not be so much a libertarian solution as an example of the degree to which libertarian ideals can be twisted to achieve the sort of ends they claim to fight against. anthonyb on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] "Killing the government" is a euphemism. He's talking about killing government employees who implement things you don't like. What you're ultimately talking about is terrorism - if you're a government employee, don't do bad things* or we might "predict" your death. The choice they're presenting seems to be either bad, violent actors in government, or bad, violent lynch mobs. *Where "bad things" might be anything from "invading Iraq" to "free healthcare". krapp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] And it's no small leap to extend that to any government employee, to the party, to anyone who votes for the party, to anyone whose politics you just don't agree with... nandemo on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] It's not fair to call this "the" libertarian solution just because this guy proposes it and calls himself libertarian. I haven't seen Rothbard or Friedman advocating wanton killing of government employees. Houshalter on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] All forms of punishment "violate their rights". Most libertarians are not pacifists, and most people in general approve of some kind of consequences for criminals. betterunix on Oct 14, 2013 | parent | prev | next [–] That is why this sort of thing requires the sort of anonymity that modern cryptography can provide. An anonymous payment sent via an anonymity system, from some publicly accessible location, would be very hard to track. Zigurd on Oct 14, 2013 | parent | prev | next [–] If your contribution can be traced. Such a system would not be viable without at least, deniability if not outright anonymity. aidenn0 on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] I must have misread the article; I thought it was only anonymous for the assassin (I'm sorry, "predictor"). dmix on Oct 13, 2013 | prev | next [–] I first read about "Assassination Markets" in this brilliant book, that delves into the old 90s cypherpunks mailing list (members which included Julian Assange and most likely the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi): http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Kills-Secrets-EmpowerWhistlebl... I still haven't read this full article, mostly just a summary, so here are my rough thoughts: It seems like something straight out of an idealistic anarcho-capitalist society, but it seems to be dangerously crossing the line out of "non-aggression" and from skimming the article, seems full of flaws. For example:
Satisfying as it might be to declare war on asinine pop singers, Bell has a more civic-minded suggestion: Let's kill all the car thieves. He reasons that a very small number of career criminals are responsible for nearly all car thefts. If one million car owners in a given metropolitan area contributed just four dollars a year, it would create $10,000 a day in "prize money" for the "predictor" of any car thief's death.
Is preventing property theft really worth killing a bunch of petty criminals? I highly doubt it. This tough-love approach to preventing crime (especially to this extreme) has been a complete failure in the USA (see their full prison system or the war on drugs). I'm all for preventative self-defense, but most of this enforcement bulldozes over root causes of issues (socio-economic, mental illness, etc). The goal should be compensating victims (ala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice) and long-term solutions, not creating some esoteric possibility of safety/morality via threat of violence. Not only that, and just google "wrongful convictions" or "wrongful convictions death penalty". Accuracy of information needs strong information systems and due process (maybe the article discusses this?) but just having target lists + bets is wildly insufficient. There has also been a lot of literature against private law enforcement (counter to many anarcho ideologies) such as by Novick in his book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia": http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/...
TLDR: Protective agencies (judges/police) would be competing against each other. That competitive nature combined with their intended role of protecting us (and themselves) would lead to "an endless series of acts of retaliation and exactation of compensations". Also he demonstrates why the nature of both of the businesses would already create natural monopolies in each local jurisdiction.
So even though I personally lean towards libertarian/decentralized ideas, public courts/judges is likely still the best solution and anonymous assassination marketplaces sounds dangerously flawed. msandford on Oct 13, 2013 | parent | next [–] The idea of the assassination marketplace as I see it is to provide some means to balance the power of politicians. There's a powerful asymmetry at work in politics. Prosecutors can knowingly wrongly convict people and face no consequences. The President can authorize a temporary (or perhaps not temporary) war possibly resulting in thousand of deaths and the worst outcome he faces for it is not getting a second term. Given that voting people out of office is not a powerful enough disincentive to cause them to behave morally I welcome new thoughts on providing better incentives. I'm not saying that Assassination Markets are necessarily good but there's an interesting idea there: how to provide the mass of people recourse to politicians in a manner other than voting. _delirium on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Why a marketplace, though? One can already organize resistance against a regime one considers harmful enough to merit violent resistance, via militant groups. They can be right-wing groups like the militia movement or Greece's Golden Dawn, or left-wing groups like the Black Panthers or Germany's Red Army Faction. They do at various times assassinate prosecutors or politicians. An assassination market seems to change the barrier to entry: rather than personal commitment, it's money. Is that likely to produce better decisions, when it comes to extralegal assassinations? I don't see a strong a priori reason to believe that "people wanted dead by people who have money" is likely to be a good signal. That just seems like a formalization of the classic mob hit: if you've got enough cash, you can get anyone offed. msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Yeah all valid points. That's one of the unintended consequences of the system: someone with enough money can short-circuit the "voting" process to get anyone killed. Let me reiterate: There's a very interesting nugget in there. Namely one (possibly of many) ways for ordinary citizens to provide less asymmetric incentives to politicians and bureaucrats. I'm really interested in alternative methods of achieving similar goals. Rather than death, could we perhaps institute a petition-based vote of no confidence that could be binding? I'm not sure how that would work but it would be a way to kick someone out of office or position sooner than a term limit and which would also be tremendously damaging to their reputation; something which seems rather important to politicians. Maybe you've got other ideas? EDIT: To answer your question specifically the goal of a marketplace is similar to voting but one which isn't necessarily scheduled the way voting is. For example the guy after Obama could win by a 90% landslide, then immediately launch an all-out war against Iran, Syria and say Jordan. That might quickly turn the tide from 90% in favor to 80% against, but we'd have to wait at least 2 years to vote out a lot of people in the House, and four full years to vote the new President out, and a total of six years to get rid of people in the Senate. Given that it's not terribly easy to make a living in the US and that many people have jobs, kids, elderly parents, etc. to prevent a sizable fraction of those opposed to various things from making a serious public statement like a march on Washington, lowering the barrier to entry MIGHT get us better outcomes. meepmorp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–]
For example the guy after Obama could win by a 90% landslide, then immediately launch an all-out war against Iran, Syria and say Jordan
Or, to turn that around the other way, something happens just after the election which causes 80-90% of the electorate to support an attack on Iran, Syria, and Jordan. The president after Obama, after some consideration and discussion with people in her/his cabinet decides to not attack. With the threat of death over his/her head, might the president decide to make a decision, not based on deliberation and careful consideration, but just as a way to pander to the public lest s/he get killed. Is that a desirable outcome? hga on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Anyone who finds the concept potentially appealing really needs to read up on pre-WWII Japanese politics, where a culture of political assassination, plus a major flaw in their constitutions, couldn't form a government without the Army and Navy's assent/membership, pretty much made the following ugliness inevitable. You really, really don't want to let such a culture develop. Paul Johnson's Modern Times devotes a chapter to this: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Times-Revised-Edition-Perennial... strlen on Oct 15, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] This was a very enlightening chapter in Modern Times. I truly enjoyed Johnson's work, despite his clear (if transparent) bias towards British colonialism. In general, private armies, political assassinations, and other forms of political violence seldom lead to good outcomes: other examples would be Lebanon during and prior to the civil and (not to Godwin this) Weimar Germany with government-funded but ruthless and private and political Freikorps, as well as KPD/SPD/NSDAP/etc... paramilitary organizations. Finally, if a government enacts and enforces laws and decrees contrary to the constitution and human rights in general (i.e., it is no longer a constitutional state), introduction of political gives government forces both an excuse and the means to start acting fully extra-judicially. I'll note that I'm saying this as a individual with classical liberal/libertarian political leanings and as a strong supporter of a right to bear arms. My view is shared with by David Friedman, an anarcho-capitalist (a view that I don't subscribe to, but respect): http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/07/in_case_of_revo.... msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] An excellent point. I've always assumed that most people don't want to expend dollars and lives on wars but that doesn't necessarily hold true. Personally I'm more interested in the nugget of insight than necessarily the exact methods he outlines. For all the million little ways that the government involves itself in our daily lives there is huge asymmetry and thus plenty of opportunity for injustice. For the really big things there is also huge asymmetry. If something is a really big deal and even 10% of the US population went to Washington to protest you'd probably see a swift reaction. That's a really good thing and it's one of the reasons that many systems of representative government do work. The question in my mind is: What is the price for big freedoms in terms of little freedoms, and is this a good bargain? Personally I'd like to have my big freedoms AND my little ones too. So any kind of thought along those lines is interesting even if it's not ultimately good. The thing I took away from the article most is that there probably are ways to give the people more freedom on the little things without necessarily compromising on the big ones. Not necessarily via Assassination Markets, but SOMEHOW. _delirium on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] Recall elections are one way that's sometimes used to handle the "electee turns around and goes nuts" problem: if enough people petition, an early election is held, so people get another chance to vote on whether they want to keep the representative. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall... A downside of that is that it can intensify populism, since you are essentially always campaigning, never governing. One person wins, but instead of getting a few years to try their agenda, the opposite party is every day looking for openings to get them booted out of office early. An in-between idea is just the classic impeachment. It can remove someone from office early, but is supposed to be used only for serious breaches of trust or lawlessness, not mere political disagreement. If Obama totally went nuts, Congress could remove him from office, if they weren't also on board. Overall I think I'm more worried about constant campaigning (and the amplification of political advertising and PACs that entails), so these various measures strike me as more worrying than the problems they try to solve. msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Also an excellent point. I'm a libertarian and I'm thoroughly fed up with both parties; neither hold true to their supposed core ideology when faced with the choice to do the right thing or to accrete more power. As such I'm really interested in ways to scare the shit out of politicians in the hope that they'll think LONG and HARD about whether what's being proposed is RIGHT or EXPEDIENT. As such the whole notion has a certain appeal, it's a way to try and curb particularly egregious abuses of power. For example you might see $50mm worth of bounties on a lot of higher-ups at the NSA for letting this spying-on-innocent-as-well-as-guilty Americans business go on for so long. Those programs might then get shut down, or at the very least those people might retire to very private places immediately. Possibilities for abuse? Absolutely. Are those abuses worse than what the folks in power are currently doing to us? That all depends on your viewpoint. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on that one because it's really tough to figure out the exact magnitude of the unintended consequences of any change in policy. krapp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–]
For example you might see $50mm worth of bounties on a lot of higher-ups at the NSA for letting this spying-on-innocent-as-well-as-guilty Americans business go on for so long. Those programs might then get shut down, or at the very least those people might retire to very private places immediately.
Or you'll get bounties put out on postal workers because the Post Office is secretly reading everyone's mail. I would submit that out of the pool of people willing to participate in an assassination-for-hire marketplace, few are likely to be reasonable in what they would consider a killing offense. msandford on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] The Post Office example isn't very good because most mail carriers don't serve more than a few thousand people (maybe a lot less in the 'burbs) so it would be very hard to get enough money together to make it worthwhile to kill any one individual. But the greater point, that people could act irrationally and cause entirely innocent people to be killed is still a possibility and tough to refute. krapp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] I really do find it difficult to believe that an assassination-for-hire marketplace would be mostly utilized by reasonable people anyway. polarix on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] The point is deeper than this -- with such a system in place, one must never even attach their real name or address to controversial ideas. This would allow thought to proceed on pure merit, rather than social proof. krapp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] But such a system only has the purpose of having people killed for money. There wouldn't be any other ideas discussed, except maybe haggling over whether to use a gun or a knife or maybe anthrax if the price is right. An assassination program like this more or less defies the concept of 'ideas based on merit.' polarix on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Oh, but the effects would be wide-ranging: if an idea has enough of a likelihood of angering people past some threshold (either lots of people, or a few rich ones), then it will only be reasonable to air that idea under strong pseudonymity. Participating in this marketplace would be somewhat like voting, except it would have a tangible effect. krapp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] If you're talking about a marketplace of ideas and collective action, fine. I'm all for communication without oppression. But a marketplace for violence is just as bad or even worse than the implicit violence of the state in my opinion. While I believe that sometimes violence might be necessary to oppose tyranny, I don't know that I trust the 'justness' of a system which presumes anyone employed by the state should find themselves subject to that kind of threat. Eventually (inevitably) it would wind up being used as a tool for political and ethnic genocide. Or petty crime. tedks on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–]
One can already organize resistance against a regime one considers harmful enough to merit violent resistance, via militant groups.
Because successful states (i.e., not Greece) have vast amounts of institutional knowledge and training on how to infiltrate and destroy radical groups in the embryonic stage. There will never be anything remotely like the Red Army Faction in the USA or Europe as long as the FBI still has any amount of funding. Or even local police, for that matter. In the US, virtually every dissident group is guaranteed to be monitored by police, if not actively infiltrated. It's hard enough to organize unpermitted protests, let alone jailbreaks or breakfast programs. Assassination markets work around this by reducing the need for organized groups. afarrell on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] Volunteer for their campaigns and provide them with detailed technical and experiential insight into legislation. The reason that lobbyists are so powerful is that they can offer politicians what they need to keep their jobs do their jobs: - Information on legislation that they don't have the time to gather because a person cannot be a lawyer, an engineer of many types, a scientist of many types, a businessman in many industries, and a military officer. - Money so that they can pay for people to knock on doors and build their website and do all the gruntwork of managing a staff. And yes, the people writing legal code should be lawyers or at least highly knowledgable in the law. dredmorbius on Oct 15, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] The mechanism of impeachment was included in the US Constitution (at the insistence of Benjamin Franklin as I recall) to provide a specific alternative to assassination for removing politicians from office. It actually dates to 14th century England I learn just now checking Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#History Assassination is ... rather fraught. I'm growing increasingly concerned over the stalemate / obstructionist politics of the US and elsewhere, however. kilroy123 on Oct 14, 2013 | parent | prev | next [–] What's frighting to me, is someone could attempt to build an "Assassination Market" with: tor, bitcoins, and a single website. But I'm skeptical this would really work. Just look the 25 million dollar bounty on Osama bin laden, which no one tried claimed. (That's just reporting him) Maybe, it would work if you didn't go through a government to try to claim your reward, but I'm still skeptical. Still, I think if a "bounty" was out for someone on a tor website, that would make for some huge headlines. Plus spook the person enough to get their attention. AndrewKemendo on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Not for nothing Gary Brooks Faulkner supposedly "attempted" to assassinate Bin Ladin. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870400980457530... sanjuro on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] It has already happened. Here's my website: http://assmkedzgorodn7o.onion/ kilroy123 on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] I wouldn't mess around with this if I were you. It may have taken the FBI a while to bring down the Silk Road, but with this kind of thing, you'll have the CIA and NSA after you. techdragon on Oct 15, 2013 | root | parent | next [–] Now this is going to be a story to watch. I look forward to seeing if that guy ever posts again lol. krapp on Oct 14, 2013 | root | parent | prev | next [–] Anyone foolish enough to try it deserves what they'll get. sanjuro on Oct 14, 2013 | prev | next [–] I'm actually attempting to start such a market. Here's a link: http://assmkedzgorodn7o.onion/ If you don't have Tor installed you can also access the site by adding .to: http://assmkedzgorodn7o.onion.to/ techdragon on Oct 15, 2013 | parent | next [–] You sir are literally going to become a case study in how to/not to do this sort of thing. I have zero advice for you. Im sure you will be front page news soon enough. andyzweb on Oct 13, 2013 | prev [–] another cryptome/internet classic
Assassination Politics (archive.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=327329 http://web.archive.org/web/20041009113523/http://jya.com/ap.htm 5 points by eru on Oct 9, 2008 | hide | past | favorite | 1 comment eru on Oct 9, 2008 [–] Disturbing. Assassination Politics (outpost-of-freedom.com) http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm 3 points by byrneseyeview on Feb 19, 2008 | hide | past | favorite | 1 comment randallsquared on Feb 19, 2008 [–] Requires high-volume untraceable payments (digital cash), which everyone thought was around the corner in the late 90s, but never quite happened.
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=sanjuro user: sanjuro created: October 14, 2013 karma: 5 about: submissions comments favorites New directions in assassination markets (tor2web.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7765012 http://assmkedzgorodn7o.tor2web.org/blog/2014-05-18/new-directions-in-assass... 3 points by sanjuro on May 19, 2014 | hide | past | favorite | 3 comments justintocci on May 19, 2014 [–] This guy reminds me of the "lottery club" we had in my high school. After a few years of no one winning, they graduated off with the money. sanjuro on May 19, 2014 | parent | next [–] As I said, I've been doing this for 10 months at great risk to my mental health. If this was only a scam, I would be an idiot, as there are far easier ways to make money at a lower risk. The point of this update is mainly to allow people to get their money back. The old design did not allow for this and could easily allude to the scenario you're reminded of. Now it's hardly a lottery at all, except that the prediction mechanism reminds one of it. It's crowdfunding. krapp on May 19, 2014 | parent | prev [–] Would a "new direction" for an assassination market be one that actually worked as advertised?
https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2018/07/08/assassination-politics/ https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/author/troy/ Assassination Politics July 8th, 2018 | Author: Troy Note that I have started a fresh thread for this topic since we are evidently going to continue debating what I consider a frivolous topic. But I must do something to attempt to keep my aging brain alive and this is as good as any I suppose. Let me begin by illustrating what I consider one fatal flaw in Jim/Bill’s reasoning using a direct quote from the essay (emphasis added by me): Imagine for a moment that as ordinary citizens were watching the evening news, they see an act by a government employee or officeholder that they feel violates their rights, abuses the public’s trust, or misuses the powers that they feel should be limited… First, if “they†are watching the evening news, there is an almost certain probability that “they†are being misled to some extent. Second, feeling is the result of an emotional reaction, not a deliberate intellectual review of the facts, including attempts to verify said facts from multiple sources. This hardly constitutes the basis of a death sentence. Now, focus on this very moment in time – a number of Americans who watch the evening news, feel that President Trump is separating Hispanic children from their (possible) parents, presumably because hes does not like children/Hispanics/people in general, and is keeping them in dog kennel like cages. Never mind that the supporting photos of children in kennels were taken during the Obama administration. Would it not then follow that, given your AP proposal, Trump along with a number of Border Patrol personnel should be assassinated? What other conclusion could one arrive at? Yet, those who bother to examine the situation intellectually realize that Trump is merely enforcing laws duly passed by Congress and also enforced by previous administrations. Yes, perhaps Trump has added a degree of added vigor to the enforcement in an attempt to get the Congress off their collective butts and do something for a change. IMHO, in the situation under consideration, it is the Congress that richly deserves every bit of the blame for a sorry situation that has persisted for years – yet feelings prompted by distortions on the evening news lead to quite a different conclusion. You go on to talk about the utility of killing various despots, past and present, rather than engage in war with the nations they seem to control. Do you really believe that a few evil people can control a nation of millions without some level of consent from those millions, even though that consent may be passive or fear driven? If the only way to escape the yoke of a tyrant is by assassinating said tyrant, then, by definition, the United States could never have happened. But it did happen. And the Constitutional system of government bequeathed to us by our founders transformed a rag-tag collection of ex-colonies into the most free, most prosperous and most powerful nation in human history in the historic blink of an eye. Why not simply revert to the system they gave us before we became too spoiled to maintain it? Can you not see why such your AP proposal alarms me​? Think about it. Troy L Robinson 19 Responses to “Assassination Politics” â—„Daveâ–º says: July 8, 2018 at 5:31 pm I must do something to attempt to keep my aging brain alive… I am somewhat willing to assist you with this worthy endeavor, Troy; but it will be difficult to take you seriously, if you persist in labeling this topic frivolous, and categorizing it under humor rather than debate. Since I contend that it is inevitable, I reckon the subject infinitely more debatable, than anything one is likely to see discussed on CNN or MSNBC these days. If the only way to escape the yoke of a tyrant is by assassinating said tyrant, then, by definition, the United States could never have happened. Are you really suggesting that none of the colonial revolutionaries would have assassinated their tyrant, rather than fight his army, if that option had been open to them? Why not? Too “civilized”, perhaps? …into the most free, most prosperous and most powerful nation in human history… Free… prosperous… powerful… NATION? Belonging to a nation, is the antithesis of being free. Troy, you will never be able to take a discussion of this idea seriously, if you are unable to suspend your deeply ingrained statist viewpoint, long enough to at least consider the prospect of truly living a life of Liberty, at peace with your neighbors and the rest of the world. Why not simply revert to the system they gave us…? Because it was not Liberty. Limited government is, by default, limited freedom. Even if it were simple (or even possible) to revert to it, with or without a bloody civil war, it would only be a matter of time until it again evolved into tyranny. It could not be otherwise. All arguments against Jim Bell’s Assassination Politics (AP) that reference any aspect of the us-against-them paradigm, are missing the point entirely. AP, as first described here two years ago at: “Eliminating Authority,” is not about divisive politics, or reforming governments; it is about eliminating them. Remarkably, it appears to counter every objection anyone has ever made, regarding why a coercive government is necessary to implement and secure a cooperative society. I still await anyone who can expose the hidden flaw — in the idea, not its proponents, and without referencing any deleterious effects it would have on favored governments. Those are features, not bugs. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply Troy says: July 9, 2018 at 8:16 am Free… prosperous… powerful… NATION? Belonging to a nation, is the antithesis of being free. Troy, you will never be able to take a discussion of this idea seriously, if you are unable to suspend your deeply ingrained statist viewpoint, long enough to at least consider the prospect of truly living a life of Liberty, at peace with your neighbors and the rest of the world. Dave, I actually consider myself to be one of the freest people who ever enjoyed this life and I am anything but a statist. What I consider myself is a realist. Unlike you, I do recognize that too large a portion of the sheeple, are unwilling and/or unable to behave like free individuals. To assume that they will somehow see the light under your anarchist schemes is nothing more than a pipe dream. I don’t mean to sound overly critical, but you remind me of a committed socialist who clings to a belief, despite years of actual evidence that it simply does not work. At this point, I think it best to simply declare me a hopeless case before anyone says something regrettable. Troy 0 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: July 9, 2018 at 2:33 pm I am anything but a statist. I, fairly I think, use the broad term ‘statist’ as the opposite of anarchist. See the discussion in the Wikipedia: Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism. Minarchists prefer a minimal state such as a night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud with military, police and courts.[5] Some may also include fire departments, prisons and other functions.[5] The welfare state and other moderate levels of statism also exist on the scale of statism.[6][7] Totalitarians prefer a maximum, all-encompassing state.[8][9] I must note that your surprising advocacy of improved public schooling (indoctrination) and compulsory national service, bespeak a support for the coercive state well beyond libertarian minarchism. One can be one of the freest people ever, and still not have ‘Liberty,’ which is defined as: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. To me, ‘Liberty’ is simply the absence of ‘Authority’ in any form. â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply jim says: July 9, 2018 at 9:38 pm I want to respond to your original comment, but somehow I cannot find a “reply” button. So, I will respond here. You said, “First, if “they†are watching the evening news, there is an almost certain probability that “they†are being misled to some extent.” That’s certainly true. People are being subjected to some of the truth, and biased truths, and various grades of falsities. “Second, feeling is the result of an emotional reaction, not a deliberate intellectual review of the facts, including attempts to verify said facts from multiple sources.” Yes… “This hardly constitutes the basis of a death sentence.” But it will act, on average, as a wonderful deterrence to people who do wrong. “Now, focus on this very moment in time – a number of Americans who watch the evening news, feel that President Trump is separating Hispanic children from their (possible) parents, presumably because hes does not like children/Hispanics/people in general, and is keeping them in dog kennel like cages. Never mind that the supporting photos of children in kennels were taken during the Obama administration. Would it not then follow that, given your AP proposal, Trump along with a number of Border Patrol personnel should be assassinated?” As a practical matter, I think each and every employee, of each and every government, should fear being assassinated. (but, of course, not to the same degree.) And if they are bothered, they will quit their jobs and stop doing whatever it is that angers other people. ” What other conclusion could one arrive at?” So what? ” Yet, those who bother to examine the situation intellectually realize that Trump is merely enforcing laws duly passed by Congress and also enforced by previous administrations.” That does not make those laws legitimate. Yet, my goal primarily is not to see ‘them all’ dead: I want to ensure that they promptly resign. ” Yes, perhaps Trump has added a degree of added vigor to the enforcement in an attempt to get the Congress off their collective butts and do something for a change.” I do not generally object to Trump causing the government to enforce “the law”: I object to him, and all previous Presidents, and all current and previous government employees, from doing anything which violates the NAP (Non Agression principle; or NIOFP, Non-Initiation of Force Principle). I don’t claim that other people, ordinary people, don’t have different motivations. They can do so. On the average, people will simply force government employees to resign, and do so quickly. “IMHO, in the situation under consideration, it is the Congress that richly deserves every bit of the blame for a sorry situation that has persisted for years – yet feelings prompted by distortions on the evening news lead to quite a different conclusion.” Yes, but it won’t take a large percentage of the population to identify the CORRECT villains, and donate to get rid of them. 1% of the population should be plenty. “You go on to talk about the utility of killing various despots, past and present, rather than engage in war with the nations they seem to control.” And that’s why it wil work. “Do you really believe that a few evil people can control a nation of millions without some level of consent from those millions, even though that consent may be passive or fear driven?” If anything, I generally conclude that the “other” nation’s people are even more likely to want to get rid of their despots, than we would be. Generally, we have found that we get along well with the populations of former enemies, once the governments that ruled them (or us!!!) have been eliminated. ” If the only way to escape the yoke of a tyrant is by assassinating said tyrant, then, by definition, the United States could never have happened. ” I didn’t say it was the ONLY way. I said it was, by far, the most EFFICIENT way. If “we” could have assassinated Saddam Hussein for $10 million, and assassinated 100 of his successors for $10 million each, that would have been a total of $1 billion. Compared with that, the US spend about $100 billion/year for over 10 years, or about $1 trillion dollars. Would you rather spend $1 billion, or $1 trillion? “But it did happen. And the Constitutional system of government bequeathed to us by our founders transformed a rag-tag collection of ex-colonies into the most free, most prosperous and most powerful nation in human history in the historic blink of an eye. Why not simply revert to the system they gave us before we became too spoiled to maintain it?” You are implying that is possible. Do you know that’s true, or are you merely guessing? “Can you not see why such your AP proposal alarms me​?” I was far more “alarmed” when I thought of it! Eventually, I realized that it was not merely possible, but in fact inevitable. As I said in the AP essay: part 7: “As I pointed out in the essay, if I were running one of the organizations accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the violation of the “non-aggression principle.” But as a practical matter, there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated anonymously, as I anticipate the “Assassination Politics”-type systems will be. Thus, I’m forced to accept the reality that I can’t dictate a “strongly limited” system that would “guarantee” no “unjustified” deaths: I can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse of others. I genuinely believe, however, that the operation of this system would be a vast improvement over the status quo. This, I argue, is somewhat analogous to an argument that we should be entitled to own firearms, despite the fact that SOME people will use them wrongly/immorally/illegally. The ownership is a right even though it may ultimately allow or enable an abuse that you consider wrong and punishable. I consider the truth of such an argument to be obvious and correct, and I know you would too. I realize that this lacks the crisp certitude of safety which would be reassuring to the average, “pre-libertarian” individual. But you are not the “average individual” and I trust that as long-time libertarians you will recognize rights must exist even given the hypothetical possibility that somebody may eventually abuse them. I do not know whether I “invented” or “discovered” this system; perhaps it’s a little of both. I do genuinely believe that this system, or one like it, is as close to being technologically inevitable as was the invention of firearms once the material we now know as “gunpowder” was invented. I think it’s on the way, regardless of what we do to stop it. Perhaps more than anyone else on the face of this planet, this notion has filled me, sequentially and then simultaneously, with awe, astonishment, joy, terror, and finally, relief. Awe, that a system could be produced by a handful of people that would rid the world of the scourge of war, nuclear weapons, governments, and taxes. Astonishment, at my realization that once started, it would cover the entire globe inexorably, erasing dictatorships both fascistic and communistic, monarchies, and even so-called “democracies,” which as a general rule today are really just the facade of government by the special interests. Joy, that it would eliminate all war, and force the dismantling not only of all nuclear weapons, but also all militaries, making them not merely redundant but also considered universally dangerous, leaving their “owners” no choice but to dismantle them, and in fact no reason to KEEP them! Terror, too, because this system may just change almost EVERYTHING how we think about our current society, and even more for myself personally, the knowledge that there may some day be a large body of wealthy people who are thrown off their current positions of control of the world’s governments, and the very-real possibility that they may look for a “villain” to blame for their downfall. They will find one, in me, and at that time they will have the money and (thanks to me, at least partially) the means to see their revenge. But I would not have published this essay if I had been unwilling to accept the risk. Finally, relief. Maybe I’m a bit premature to say it, but I’m satisfied we will be free. I’m convinced there is no alternative. It may feel like a roller-coaster ride on the way there, but as of today I think our destination is certain. Please understand, we will be free. Your libertarian friend,” [end of long quote] +1 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: July 9, 2018 at 4:37 am …illustrating what I consider one fatal flaw… Only to a committed statist, not to a liberty-minded anarchist. Yes, the transition period will likely be rather chaotic, as noisy political activists of any stripe are winnowed out; but once the AP paradigm is fully implemented, the nature of “news” will be very different than the blatant partisan propaganda produced nowadays. News presenters will need to be extremely careful not to distort the news, or show any bias whatever, which might engender an emotional reaction in viewers toward themselves, else they could literally find themselves in a dead-end career. Personally, I wouldn’t even risk being famous. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply jim says: July 25, 2018 at 9:58 am I’ve just been alerted, by a posting on the Cypherpunks list, to an implementation of a new death-prediction market using the combination of Ethereum and Augur. https://www.ccn.com/first-assassination-markets-appear-on-gambling-platform-... I am not associated with this, and I didn’t learn about it until yesterday. Nevertheless, for a few years I have been anticipating such an event. Ethereum is a distributed computer system, implemented on potentially thousands of individual computers, potentially all over the world. Augur is a program designed to be run on Ethereum, a prediction market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur_(software) As fellow Cypherpunk Nick Szabo once said: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2015/05/small-game-fallacies.html “A sufficiently large market predicting an individual’s death is also, necessarily, an assassination market, and similarly other “prediction” markets are also act markets, changing incentives to act outside that market to bring about the predicted events.” 0 Reply Steel Phoenix says: August 1, 2018 at 5:25 pm The death prediction market is a very interesting concept. The real issue here is one of traceability and governance. The reason governments put so much effort into snooping on everything and maintaining a stranglehold on regulating commerce is the realization of what can happen if they don’t. If someone can really, honestly, come up with an untraceable way to do open commerce between the masses, then your AP would be one of the more minor emergent societal shifts. If there’s one thing I’d put my money on in this though, it’d be that damn near every nation on the planet will be united in doing whatever it takes to crush anything like this that looks likely to succeed, along with anyone associated with it. They’ve likely done so several times already. 0 Reply jim says: August 6, 2018 at 11:29 am Do a Google search for: ‘ethereum augur assassination’ A new system just appeared within the last two weeks to implement an approximation of my AP idea. Only an approximation, but I expect that the deviations from AP that are currently present will be corrected within months. 0 Reply jim says: July 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm I’m not ignoring this thread, but I have been very busy in the last day. I will respond shortly. +1 Reply jim says: July 9, 2018 at 2:05 pm “since we are evidently going to continue debating what I consider a frivolous topic.” One way to determine how serious you can reasonably be in calling AP “frivolous”, is to do a google search for ‘”assassination politics” “jim bell”‘. Can you find anybody seriously claiming that AP is “frivolous”? I certainly cannot, and I have been carefully reading the results of this search for the last 6 years. How “frivolous” can it be? I’ve claimed that it will eliminate tyrannies, all wars, taxes to support militaries, nuclear weapons, etc. Sounds improbable, of course, on first reading. But it is certainly true that if it would work, that would be very important for the future of society. If that is indeed the case, how can it be claimed that the AP idea is “frivolous”? Dave (correctly) points out something that I anticipated before writing and publishing the first part of AP: People won’t want to be “famous”!!! It could be called a very “boring” society. Some day, you will realize how astonished I was, long before I released the AP idea: I discovered something that would, in effect, “fix” every political problem that I was aware of. I delayed for weeks writing the essay, trying to figure out what was wrong, where my error was. I wondered, can I possibly be correct? Naturally, I wanted to avoid the enormous embarrassment that would presumably occur if I announced this system, and it was subsequently be identified as impossible. Eventually, I concluded that if AP were somehow flawed, it must be a very subtle flaw. So I published. 23 years later, I still have seen no more serious criticism than that by Robert P Murphy, who debated his (business?) partner Robert Vroman, about AP. Google search ‘robert murphy “assassination politics”‘ See a positive analysis, by R. Sukumaran. https://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf +1 Reply ClinicalThinker says: July 27, 2018 at 2:36 am Can you find anybody seriously claiming that AP is “frivolous†? Perhaps others have determined any number of other adjectives that apply to this system. Do you think discussing terminology is worth the effort? If so maybe others do not so they simply pass. I’ve claimed that it will eliminate tyrannies, all wars, taxes to support militaries, nuclear weapons, etc. Sounds improbable, of course, on first reading. But it is certainly true that if it would work, that would be very important for the future of society. If that is indeed the case, how can it be claimed that the AP idea is “frivolous†? Claims are simply that until tested. Gathering enough steam to even test the claim is most likely the biggest issue to over come. If you have ever served on a jury it becomes evident quickly … to get 12 people to agree on one simple thing is difficult. Getting a whole nation to go along with a program is most likely impossible. At which point in waltzes your friendly dictator and the sheep fall obediently in line. Why? Because until pushed to the absolute wall they are not willing to fight. As for “if”? My mother use to say “yes IF your aunt had balls she would be your uncle” … personally I fall into the “if pit” more often than I would like. After quick analysis I actually prefer “what is” to save time and energy. 0 Reply jim says: July 30, 2018 at 10:13 pm Well, I suppose you still don’t understand the AP concept. Fortunately, you have misunderstood in an obvious fashion. You said, ” If you have ever served on a jury it becomes evident quickly … to get 12 people to agree on one simple thing is difficult. Getting a whole nation to go along with a program is most likely impossible.” One of the most amazing characteristics of the AP concept is that it isn’t necessary to get more than a tiny fraction of society to employ it. Certainly not 50%, or even 5%. 20+ years ago, I knew full well that even as little as 1% of the population employing AP would be plenty to make it operate, quite well. It would only take those 1% to purchase the killings of the top 5-6 layers of government bureaucracy in America. And the rest won’t stick around, because they won’t be paid, and many of them will be hunted until they submit. Now do you understand why you misperceived the AP system? 0 Reply clinicalthinker says: August 1, 2018 at 8:42 am I knew full well that even as little as 1% of the population employing AP would be plenty to make it operate, quite well. Since you know full well (for over 20+ years) it is safe to say that needed 1% of the population is not interested in your AP for whatever reason. 😉 0 Reply jim says: August 4, 2018 at 5:18 pm No, a system based on my AP system has not been available during virtually all of the past 23 years. Only within the last two weeks has a system arisen, using the Ethereum distributed computer program, and the Augur prediction-market overlay, to implement a credible death-prediction marketplace. However, for a few technical reasons, this market, initiated by the “Forecast Foundation”, won’t work quite like I anticipated in my AP essay, at least without further modification. But they are getting very close to a “classic” AP system. They need a truly anonymous system for making and collecting bets, for one thing. Second, the current system seems to make bets akin to ‘Will this person die by the end of the year’. Generally, they will have to change things to a more-precise prediction, such as ‘Will this person die on September 1, 2018’, or any other date. 0 Reply Steel Phoenix says: August 11, 2018 at 5:38 pm This is a good opportunity for you. The difficulty in theories like yours is that you need to be extremely good at predicting the ramifications in a complex system as everyone’s behavioral changes alter that system and create a cascade of feedback loops. You’ve made a prediction that deviations from your theory will be corrected within months. If things do indeed go that direction it will work to your credit. If not, then it’s evidence that you’ve failed to account for something in the system or within human nature. +1 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: August 13, 2018 at 3:11 am Way too soon to judge fledgling efforts, Steel. The vast majority of mankind have not yet even heard of the Dark Web, Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, or Prediction Markets — much less understand or trust them. Until enough do trust them to be safely anonymous, AP will not be a significant threat to the powerful ensconced behind their Praetorian guards. Not until it becomes too risky to even be a guard, could the full effect of AP be realized. I am still convinced that it is ultimately inevitable; but we are nowhere close to experiencing it. â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply jim says: August 4, 2018 at 5:12 pm A market based on the Ethereum and Augur platforms has appeared, implementing a death-prediction marketplace. There has been a very large amount of publicity in the last week or two. I recommend that you do a Google search for ‘Ethereum augur assassination’ 0 Reply Chris says: August 6, 2018 at 7:23 pm I knew full well that even as little as 1% of the population employing AP would be plenty to make it operate, quite well. It would only take those 1% to purchase the killings of the top 5-6 layers of government bureaucracy in America. Ok I’ve been sitting on the sidelines for this one but seriously? That’s all I have to say on the subject. 0 Reply jim says: August 6, 2018 at 11:12 pm I guess you don’t realize that this is (or, at least, should be) a very old debate. I wrote AP in 10 parts, during 1995-96. Presumably, tens of thousands of people have read it. They have, therefore, had plenty of time to express any negative opinions of it that they want. You express doubt. Is it my AP essay, or is it just you? I suggest that you do a google search for: ‘ “assassination politics” “jim bell” ‘ and find any negative opinions. Also, much more recently, some people from the Forecast Foundation have implemented a death-prediction market on Ethereum and Augur: google search ‘ethereum augur assassination’ to see what people have said in the last couple of weeks. (It’s not exactly like my AP idea; and the details contain enough differences so it is currently rather de-fanged. But it is a good start.) If you can’t find much against it, the problem is not my essay. The problem is YOU.
https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2018/07/08/assassination-politics/
https://www.ccn.com/first-assassination-markets-appear-on-gambling-platform-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur_(software) https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2015/05/small-game-fallacies.html https://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf
https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2018/07/01/can-a-second-civil-war-be-avoided/ Can A Second Civil War Be Avoided? July 1st, 2018 | Author: Troy It should be quite clear to anyone paying any attention that the massive protests over everything Trump related get ever closer to outright violence. I lived through the Vietnam War protests and clearly remember students being shot by folks in uniform before the then president shirked his duty and surrendered. Even though the shots are not ringing out (yet), this seems to me a far more polarized situation than we have experienced since our first Civil War. One factor that the protesting progressives seem to have overlooked (despite the growing evidence) is that we clod-heads in “flyover country†are heavily armed and, usually, well skilled in the use of said arms. Do these coastal fools really think they can unseat a duly elected president and complete the destruction of our Republic without serious resistance? Not going to happen. Will there be a “winner†in the coming conflict? I can’t see how there could be. As soon as serious blood begins to flow, our enemies will be picking over our dead and wounded bodies worse than the Arabs during the WWII campaigns in North Africa. Then there is the matter of what our military will do once it hits the fan. My suspicion is that divisions of opinion within the military will mirror those of the nation in general. No idea how that will play out. Point is, I truly think we are heading into a situation that will produce only losses – losses that could be easily avoided by talking rather than screaming at each other. That said, the intentional destruction of our national education system is surely about to pay the predictable dividends. The fact that this is taking a bit longer to materialize than I predicted in earlier articles does not change the reality I think I see all around me. The other thing that I see is that the “good people†for the most part are silently hunkering down hoping the whole thing will simply go away. As it such problems ever do. Think about it. Troy L Robinson +1 Posted in Debate, Education, Liberty « Why I Quit The Libertarian Party Assassination Politics » 43 Responses to “Can A Second Civil War Be Avoided?” Jim Bell says: July 2, 2018 at 11:49 am I frequently point out that the MSM (mainstream media; at least, the liberal/Democrat part of it) probably gave Trump $1-2 billion in free publicity prior to the Republican convention in 2016. In effect, they threw the Republican nomination to Trump. This process was made easier because the Republicans started out with 17 candidates, rather than 2 or 3. At each stage, some candidate(s) was/were going to be winnowed, and usually that winnowing was caused by lack of money or interest. Trump was never going to lack money, whether or not he chose to spend it, and the MSM ensured that he had at least apparent interest. This was intentional. Not, of course, that the MSM wanted Trump to be elected; my hypothesis is that they wanted to have him be the easiest-to-beat candidate of those likely to be nominated. Well, they got what they asked for, even if they didn’t want him to be President. I say all this, in large part because I feel certain that the “civil war” talked about is far less likely to occur, if the MSM/Left/Democrats are outed as having been responsible for Trump’s nomination. And ultimately they bear responsibility for Trump’s eventual election. While I, as a lifetime libertarian, would have still voted for whichever libertarian the LP chose, I would have been much happier if the Republicans had chosen Rand Paul or maybe Ted Cruz. So, blame the MSM. I do. If the public is aware of how much, and which direction, they manipulated the nomination of Trump, they will be far less likely to blame each other for the ultimate outcome. +2 Reply Troy says: July 3, 2018 at 7:45 am I frequently point out that the MSM (mainstream media; at least, the liberal/Democrat part of it) probably gave Trump $1-2 billion in free publicity prior to the Republican convention in 2016. In effect, they threw the Republican nomination to Trump. I think this was mostly because Trump made “good copy”. What the MSM wants most of all is to be watched/read, taken seriously and covering Trump made that happen. I also think there is little doubt that the MSM mostly saw Trump as some sort of buffoon who would never be taken seriously in a general election — especially when running against the crown princess herself. Thankfully, a sufficient portion of the nation saw said crown princess as a generally unwashed self-serving crook who is incapable of telling the truth about anything. Like, perhaps, why her daughter is the spitting image of Webb Hubbell rather than her “husband” who is incapable of making babies. I’m thinking this sham “family” needed a child to complete the phony public image, Bill was shooting blanks (if, indeed, he ever even aimed Hill’s way in the first place), good old Webster had a poor sense of smell and no taste in women, and voila, problem solved! Gosh, I am a terrible person. Accurate but terrible. And, I will repeat for the umpteenth time, there is no “popular vote”. Our president is elected by the States, not by the mob. Just had to toss that in. Troy +2 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 2, 2018 at 12:09 pm Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have done better than what Trump has so far accomplished? 😉 +1 Reply jim says: July 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm “Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have done better than what Trump has so far accomplished?” [more on “Bill” later] You are apparently assuming that each candidate could, and would, have been elected, if nominated. That assumption seems valid enough, in hindsight. Yet, Trump ALMOST didn’t win! Had he lost, he wouldn’t have done “well”, obviously! We are fortunate that Hillary Clinton amassed so many serious scandals that she lost. I think that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have been more likely to win the election, against her. If we somehow “know” that the “Republican” candidate would definitely win, we can choose which one we’d prefer. I’d choose Rand Paul, because while he isn’t quite as libertarian as his father, Ron Paul, I think he’d do quite well. But, I think it was more likely that either Paul or Cruz would have won, which is why I would have preferred to see the Republicans run them. [on “Bill”: In my 60+ year life, when I am called by other than “Jim Bell”, it almost always is “Bill”. Interesting coincidence; but one time, about 30 years ago, my FATHER called me “Bill”.] +2 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 2, 2018 at 7:31 pm Sorry Jim… maybe in my old age Jim = Bill for some reason? You are correct it is an assumption that either Paul or Cruz would be chosen by the public over Clinton. My educated guess would be they would. It appears the public was simply fed up FINALLY. Perhaps it is divine providence if there really is such a thing. 😉 So the question stands do you think either of Paul or Cruz had the ability to out perform Trump as it stands today? +1 Reply Troy says: July 3, 2018 at 7:29 am “Bill do you still think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have done better than what Trump has so far accomplished?†While I really like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul (although my estimation of Rand has declined a bit lately), and, my name is not Bill (or Jim), I seriously doubt that either could have come near to Trump’s accomplishments. They are simply too “establishment” beholden. (For the record, I supported Governor Johnson in the last election and had serious doubts about Trump.) For whatever reason, Trump’s “take no prisoners” style seems to be exactly what the situation needed. If the progressives would just settle down a bit and start behaving like loyal citizens, we might actually get the nation back into working order. Then again, if elephants could fly… Troy +2 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 4, 2018 at 4:54 pm Paying attention to what Trump has accomplished so far I see no one who could have accomplished the same. I often wondered why business men were not running the country instead of lawyers (for the most part). To top that off Trump’s personality is perfect for what needed to be done. I look at him and am actually astonished he has not flipped a number of these guys the middle finger. There is little doubt in my mind he thinks that. I admire his restraint. It all is fun to watch actually. Especially the progressive media melt down. None of these half-wits appear to have a clue what fools they are making of themselves. I keep thinking at some point career self preservation will kick in … but apparently not. +1 Reply Chris says: July 5, 2018 at 4:46 am Either Cruz or Paul were capable of accomplishing what Trump has save one factor. Neither would have been able to withstand the kind of progressive leftist and media pressure that Trump has. Paul would have wilted like a spring flower and Cruz would have taken the Bush approach and ignored it assuring only one term. Some would say that the liberal gyrations are because it’s Trump. That’s a crock. Obama’s minions and Pac are behind it all with a complicit media. It would be happening no matter what republican were in office. Of course there wasn’t supposed to be. Nobody could outperform Trump because anybody else would be broken by now. +2 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 6, 2018 at 11:10 pm It would be happening no matter what republican were in office. Of course there wasn’t supposed to be. Nobody could outperform Trump because anybody else would be broken by now. I believe you are correct Chris. The powers THAT WERE somehow were overthrown unexpectedly. Clearly the shock remains today. Personally I find it immensely entertaining … almost as entertaining as the cute kitten themes on my browser which makes me smile with each change 😉 +1 Reply Chris says: July 12, 2018 at 7:16 am Entertaining? That dear lady is an understatement. I’ve been laughing so hard I have to go in for hernia surgery next month. +1 clinicalthinker says: July 2, 2018 at 12:21 pm I remember Kent state also. The moral of the story was it did not have to be repeated. I have said all along … put a sniper on a rooftop … pick off a couple protesters who are masked, dressed in black and see exactly how committed they are to beat the opposition over the head with locks for crow bars. It is called behavior modification actually. 😉 +1 Reply Troy says: July 3, 2018 at 7:14 am I have said all along … put a sniper on a rooftop … pick off a couple protesters who are masked, dressed in black and see exactly how committed they are to beat the opposition over the head with locks for crow bars. It is a known fact of war that, sometimes, killing a few avoids having to kill many. Troy +1 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: July 5, 2018 at 12:38 am Isn’t this precisely the principle behind the efficacy of Jim Bell’s elegant Assassination Politics proposal? Sacrifice a few particularly disagreeable state functionaries, to deter any further participation in tyranny by others, which then precludes the necessity of a more costly revolution/civil war (same thing)… 😉 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply Troy says: July 5, 2018 at 12:26 pm Dave, in the referenced comment, I was referring to an open state of conflict where the lives and property of potentially innocent people are already at risk. While you will, no doubt disagree, if only in an attempt to irritate me, this is different from political assassination which, IMHO, is always wrong. Let me try to explain with a simple illustration — you know from many past contributions that I truly think that Obama gave aid and comfort to our enemy, thereby committing high treason. We also know that the customary penalty for high treason is death by execution. Having said that, I would not perpetrate Obama’s execution, either with my own hands or by paying some murder-for-hire thug via pretend currency. Instead, I would propose that he be publicly confronted for what I believe are his crimes, in a court of law and subject to due process. My reason for this stance is that if the decision and its follow-on are left totally to me, there is simply too much chance that I might be wrong, however right I believe my conclusions to be. Obviously, I form my personal decisions without access to critical evidence and my opinions are biased by my own preconceived notions. That is why we have attempted to replace “vigilante justice” with due process under the law. Now you may well respond that the system is currently too corrupt to render justice for the powerful and you are probably correct. To me, the answer is to fix the system rather than to revert to the law of the jungle. At this point, I will drop out of what I think is a frivolous conversation. Troy +1 Reply jim says: July 5, 2018 at 1:51 pm ” To me, the answer is to fix the system rather than to revert to the law of the jungle.” You said, “the answer is to fix the system”. That reminds me of a joke, a few decades ago, of a (fictional) book Titled, “How to be a successful millionaire”. The first page of the book said, “First get a million dollars”. See the problem? Many things are easily stated: “fix the system”. But how? Can you explain how to solve the problem? How to “fix the system”? Prior to 1995, I had no easily explainable solutions. After I wrote my AP essay, I could point to it as a relatively straightforward way to “fix the system”. If you can actually describe ANOTHER way to “fix the system”, explain it and explain why it’s better than AP. If you can’t do that, then you don’t have a solution. You are merely hoping that another solution exists. +1 jim says: July 5, 2018 at 11:56 pm Let me add, that you said: “At this point, I will drop out of what I think is a frivolous conversation.” It isn’t “frivolous”. In the 20th century, governments killed an estimated 250 million people. (some people get a lower number by not counting people killed in wars: Why, it isn’t clear!}) Unless you think people HAVE to be killed by governments, then you are morally obligated to consider how to avoid that outcome. Do you have any proposed solution? Do you have any proposed solution to solve the problem represented by nuclear weapons? Thousands, maybe millions of very intelligent people have been thinking about how to solve that problem since 1945. No solution in sight. Except one. My AP essay. Tell me why you think it won’t work. If you concede it will work, explain why you aren’t advocating it right now. Do you have a better, faster, cheaper, safer alternative? Describe it. +1 â—„Daveâ–º says: July 6, 2018 at 2:52 am …via pretend currency. LOL! You know very well that ALL currency is pretend money, including and especially Federal Reserve Notes. US FRN’s, Zimbabwe Dollars, Venezuelan Bolivar, Mexican Pesos and stateless Bitcoins, are all just tokens, worth precisely and only what someone is ready and willing to trade for them. The moment traders refuse to accept any of them, they become utterly worthless, no matter how much their state promotes them as ‘money.’ See: “Money.” At this point, I will drop out of what I think is a frivolous conversation. A pity. It bespeaks a lamentable failure of imagination. You can’t imagine the possibility of a world without tyranny, while Jim and I permit ourselves to conceive of such, and are willing to explore, refine, and debate ideas for promoting a society without rulers. While I will grant that I will never see this miracle in my lifetime, as we discussed hereabouts two years ago, I contend that the chances of ultimately abolishing tyranny with technology, are infinitely greater than somehow ‘fixing’ the current Incumbrepublocrat mob-rule duopoly, while continuing to sanction the ruling class with enthusiastic participation in their sham elections. As for ‘vigilante justice’ and the ‘law of the jungle,’ I personally wouldn’t hesitate to join in any serious new revolution/civil war (same thing) effort to violently overthrow the tyranny ensconced in Sodom on the Potomac. It is infinitely more oppressive than King George’s ever was; but now as then, there are loyal Tories who wish to continue to try to petition for redress, rather than upset the status quo. I would suggest that there is now a considerable contingent of dissatisfied Americans, on both extremes of the political spectrum, who could be persuaded to join such an effort. With that in mind, I submit that Jim’s AP idea would be considerably less violent, with infinitely less bloodshed overall. It has the added benefit that it does not promote a new crop of tyrannical politicians, just itching to get their own hands on the levers of government, to dispense retribution, which would just perpetuate the ills of this society. I reckon it is worth a try. â—„Daveâ–º +2 Chris says: July 5, 2018 at 6:16 pm It may be necessary CT. Right now we see little ill prepared ANTIFA masked sissies (I’ll use that term in mixed company) that turn and run when confronted and aren’t capable of taking a punch without collapsing in a heap. They are useful idiots. It’s a bait and switch coming. These sissies are being used to desensitize people to the threat so nobody will take them seriously. Trust me the agitators have far more “competent” people at their disposal that will sooner or later be filtered in. How many inmates are now free from prison because of a certain “community organizers” early release program when he was president? How many of them left prison and found shelter and help within the nation of Islam? If it isn’t stopped it will get bloody and having the false sense of security that it will just be the nose of a yapping snow flake is delusional. They are just the primer. +2 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 6, 2018 at 9:56 pm I am afraid we are heading in that direction faster than any of us expected. This ramping up the mob rhetoric is not a good thing IMO. Mob/group action is an interesting thing. How one gets caught up in it is even more interesting to me … since it did in fact happen to me. Nothing more sinister than a self professed Shinto master coaxing a group of about 20 to walk across a bed of hot coals (i.e. firewalk). Sound stupid? Indeed it was! Much to the objection of my brother and my firefighting cousin … before I knew it I was trudging across a hot coal pit about 8 feet wide and 10 feet long. Landing in a puddle of mud being gently greeted by a Shinto helper who whispered something I will never forget. You completed a challenge most people will never try. He did not include “sane” in the sentence. When I got home my husband heard my brother recount the story. My husband said I never thought you would ever be that stupid. Frankly I never thought I would either. The interesting thing was I only suffered a tiny burn where a coal apparently got lodged under my little toe. My cousin Lorna got no burn at all … amazing … she must certainly been more spiritually minded than I was. That being said it hurt like hell. A solid reminder to never to that again. Lucky I have video of the whole thing or I would not believe I was that stupid either at this late date in life. The fascinating part of the whole incident for me was of the 4 of us. I my cousin Lorna, her brother and my brother … it was the 2 woman that for whatever reason actually did the walk. Had anyone ever said in the beginning … hey guys we are going to walk on bed of fire today there would have been a unanimous WE PASS from all of us! Walking around with my foot in a bucket of ice while preparing for a dinner party at my house that evening was not fun. It was however memorable in that I was now a firewalker. Through the years I have pondered that situation and why I actually chose to go through with the walk. No one pressured me (in fact the opposite from by brother and cousin telling us both we were crazy). I was fully cognizant of what was occurring. I was in the middle of a line where I could have stepped out of line at any time. Perhaps my cousin Lorna being directly ahead of me in line? I do not know. Before I realized it there I was facing a bed of hot coals and thinking best not panic now. So am I surprised at what happens in a large group or crowd? NO! It takes but one leader to start the charge and before you know it the sheeple will follow. The moral of the story you better decide to be a sheep dog ahead of time. +1 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: July 7, 2018 at 2:25 am Fascinating story, CT. Thanks for sharing. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º +1 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 8, 2018 at 5:32 am You are welcome Dave. 😉 For me there was a rather interesting psychological outcome I suppose. Challenge in life became less challenging some how. That is where I quite looking at life through an emotional prism and disciplined myself to make all further decisions from a clinical perspective. Funny how emotion seems to offer little or no solution to fixing things but clinical perspective offers an immediate fix every time. An adequate fix according to ??? I suppose would be the question. Clearly to the clinical thinking decision maker it would work. The rest of the world? Who knows and would it matter? For me? My perspective has changed to something simple. I am headed in this direction. If you want to come along we can walk hand in hand. If not I refuse to drag your ass. You might recall in the beginning a tiny discussion over how satisfied we all were with our current lives and I said mine was very good. It is that way because total freedom to be exactly what you choose in life is pretty heady stuff. Those who accept being free tend to get along and are happy. Those who do not make that choice … well they can freely move in a different circle. So where does Jim Bell’s AP fit into that scenario? In the long run universally? Probably perfectly for a sheepdog. For a sheep? Not so much. At that point we are headed in a whole different behavioral/psychological direction. Look at your own life Dave does any of what is going on out in the world alter your life at all? It certainly does not alter mine one whit. Long ago I adopted an outlook that is my creed so to speak. “The world is what you perceive it to be so why not let that be light?” (light being good according to my personal perspective.) So fair warning … lol … step into my world and muck up my UTOPIA and see clinically what happens to you. (You being anyone with the guts or means to try) Make sense? +1 clinicalthinker says: July 8, 2018 at 6:32 am BTW Dave if you did not catch Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan’s podcast it is always interesting to watch someone with a like mind IMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xc7DN-noAc Also Sam Harris will be on Ben Shipiro today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdUC8nRVyYY&t=9s Somehow I get the inkling Sam has left his tried and true atheist tangent into some new esoteric “how to live a better life” money making scam (that is hinged on “common sense” for FREE basics). I will see … lol +1 â—„Daveâ–º says: July 9, 2018 at 4:15 am I can’t thank you enough for the links, CT. Particularly the Rogan/Peterson one, which I think may have been the most riveting 3+ hours I ever spent in front of a screen. This new “long form”/”intellectual dark web” business is utterly fascinating, and the lengthy discussion of it on both videos was remarkable. Out of curiosity, I will be exploring it further. Thanks again! â—„Daveâ–º +1 Troy says: July 6, 2018 at 8:28 am Dave and Jim/Bill, OK – despite my better judgment, one more try… Unless I seriously misunderstand the AP proposal, it seems to be based on the notion that if you eliminate a few of what you consider the “bad guys†, the rest will suddenly wake up and think “wow, we had best clean up our act before they come for us too†. An interesting theory that just might work – in a vacuum. One major flaw that I see is that no one gets into a position of power without a constituency of some sort. And, the more corrupt the person in power, the more corrupt the constituency. So, what I really see happening is that you eliminate a “bad guy†and his/her constituency does not like it one bit. In fact, they will surely have to take out some on your side to even the score. And, on and on it goes and nothing has really changed except the excuse for the killing. The alternative is to repeat what happened in the American colonies and again in France where to common people stood together and to tell the powerful “we are not going to take it anymore†followed by whatever action best suits the circumstance. Our Founders stated such grievous claims, defeated the most powerful military of the time, then established a Constitution in an attempt to place rigid bounds around the inevitable government that followed. All that is required of the rest of us is that we defend the Constitutional notion and demand its strict enforcement. This we have failed to do for more reasons than I care to list. I honestly think that most of those reasons could be negated by a combination of a restored education system along with a return to compulsory national service (the latter as a way to instill much needed discipline into young plastic minds and bodies). And, no, such change will not be easy but, IMHO, without it, no other solution can have lasting effect. For those of you who prefer to shoot your way out of the problem, I say “fire away†– just don’t pretend surprise when the other guys fire back. As for the number of people killed in the last century’s wars, I might note that since mankind has used its ingenuity to reduce famine and epidemic but has done little to reduce the overall birth rate, war and climate seem to be nature’s only means of population control. Inference: if we stopped out-of-control reproduction, there would be far less reason to kill each other (or for nature to kill us) in the never-ending quest to control resources. Troy +1 Reply jim says: July 6, 2018 at 9:42 am “One major flaw that I see is that no one gets into a position of power without a constituency of some sort. And, the more corrupt the person in power, the more corrupt the constituency.” You seem to be assuming that in a post-AP world, there will be “positions of power”, just like current society. Why? There will be no “authority” that is deemed to be granted by the public, as in some sort of a vote. People will be able to get into positions (jobs) where they do things, but if they piss people off enough they will have to leave those positions. For a few months or years, there might be a bloodbath, where people who have grudges take their revenge, but I see nothing wrong with this concept. Soon enough, society will probably be very ‘boring’, at least their will be a minimum of dispute, no war as we know it. +1 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 6, 2018 at 10:20 pm For those of you who prefer to shoot your way out of the problem, I say “fire away†– just don’t pretend surprise when the other guys fire back. Actually I think the same thing every time I see Moron Maxine busy ramping up a riot against others. I seriously wonder how long it will be before someone burns a cross on her front lawn. Then she will really have something to gripe about. +1 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: July 7, 2018 at 2:19 am one more try… Thanks for continuing to engage, Troy; but I can see that you still don’t quite grasp the elegance of the remarkable potential for Jim’s idea. Unless I seriously misunderstand the AP proposal, it seems to be based on the notion that if you eliminate a few of what you consider the “bad guys†, the rest will suddenly wake up and think “wow, we had best clean up our act before they come for us too†. That is too simplistic. To me, the “bad guys” are any and all persons claiming authority to rule, regulate, and/or enforce their model of how the world should behave, over free, sovereign, independent, individuals, who choose not to recognize any such authority. This would necessarily include any coercive agents of any government, including all law enforcement officers or military personnel. Thus, “bad guys” would have to do more than just clean up their act for self-preservation, they would need to find a different line of work. In fact, they will surely have to take out some on your side to even the score. You seem to misunderstand that once implemented, there could be no “sides,” competing for power to rule over each other. Laissez faire would reign supreme. The alternative is to repeat what happened in the American colonies… Are you suggesting that another revolution would be a better alternative to AP? Why? Such, even if your preferred side won, would do nothing to end the us-against-them paradigm — only perpetuate it. …the inevitable government that followed. They desired to continue in international commerce on the high seas, so they deemed it wise to join their existing colonial governments into a federated nation for international respect. Since there was no international internet or cryptographic blockchain technology at the time, they must be forgiven for this failure of imagination. Today, technologically competent libertarians have no such excuse. 😉 I honestly think that most of those reasons could be negated by a combination of a restored education system along with a return to compulsory national service (the latter as a way to instill much needed discipline into young plastic minds and bodies). And, no, such change will not be easy but, IMHO, without it, no other solution can have lasting effect. Yikes! Improved compulsory indoctrination system and compulsory conscription? Are you sure you are still a libertarian? Besides, neither has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening anytime soon, so dreaming of them as some sort of lasting solution to what ails America is utterly futile. AP, on the other hand, not only offers a solution with a lasting effect, it is inevitable that it will eventually be implemented. As I predicted two years ago in “Eliminating Authority“: I reckon that it is only a matter of time, before a workable, automated, and unstoppable worldwide system is designed and implemented. If TOR can already circumvent the Great Firewall of China, how could it be stopped, and by whom? Moreover, while mass retirements of politicians, bureaucrats, police, and military officers would undoubtedly soon follow, I don’t see it as being limited to government functionaries. Why not Jihadist leaders and their radical imams? How about dishonest used car salesmen? There could easily be multiple prediction markets, to eliminate all manner of uncivilized behaviors. Being an unpleasant jerk and pissing people off, could become extremely dangerous. If one did something to provoke getting one’s name on a ‘hit’ list, with a sufficient reward to tempt a friend or associate, one’s life would never be the same again. Since the reward funds are donated up front, as anonymously as the ultimate recipient of them, there would be no way to cancel a ‘contract’ once initiated. Yikes! I predict a very polite society in the future of mankind. Those believing that gangs of thugs would naturally terrorize society in the absence of government, need to think again. They wouldn’t dare have any leaders either! Who could a gang leader possibly trust, with a sufficient price on his head? For their bloodthirsty lot, it wouldn’t even need to be a very high price, since it could be collected completely anonymously, with a few keystrokes on a smartphone. Once this genie is out of the bottle, and anonymous cryptocurrency use becomes ubiquitous worldwide, I predict that eventually all oppressive governments will fail, and all military organizations will cease to exist. I am unsure what individuals will then do with their lust for power, when none is available. I suppose they might have to settle for becoming well-paid assassins; but even that would be destined to become a dead-end career, as the survivors did their very best to avoid provoking anyone, in any way. Now, if you have absorbed Jim’s entire essay, please show me the hidden flaw. I can’t find it! â—„Daveâ–º So far, other than personal emotional outrage at the idea, no one has been able to expose a flaw. Perhaps there isn’t one… 😉 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply jim says: July 10, 2018 at 6:30 pm You don’t seem to want to reply, huh? You used the term “frivolous”, TWICE, but you cannot show that the issue (the problem of the existence of government) is of no or little consequence. Chances are you discovered that you couldn’t challenge the issue, both of importance, but also you couldn’t challenge the idea that if implemented, my AP idea would work. +1 Reply Troy says: July 11, 2018 at 7:31 am I have ceased participation in this conversation for several reasons: First, it has gotten far too contentious for my taste. I simply do not take myself (or anyone else) that seriously. Second, you have decided you are correct and will not consider any alternatives so why offer any? Third, this is simply not fun or mentally stimulating — the only reasons I participate in this blog. Troy 0 Reply jim says: July 16, 2018 at 8:55 am You started off by claiming, TWICE, that the subject was “frivolous”. I could define “frivolous” as being “without importance. Yet, do you really think that the issue of the ultimate elimination of government is “without importance? Governments killed 250 million people in the 20th century. Do you really think that the lives of those 250 million people are without importance? I think you were just trying to avoid the discussion, which you knew you would not win. “First, it has gotten far too contentious for my taste. I simply do not take myself (or anyone else) that seriously.” Another example of trying, under different words, to call the issue “frivolous”. “Second, you have decided you are correct and will not consider any alternatives so why offer any?” I suggest that this describes virtually any discussion or debate. And, the fact that I wrote my AP essay 23 years ago, and I have been carefully paying attention to references to it, certainly justifies me “deciding I am correct”. You also haven’t attempted to provide any “alternatives” yet. While people continue to die, you won’t explain how to solve that problem. “Third, this is simply not fun or mentally stimulating — the only reasons I participate in this blog.” Generally, it is painful for everyone to discuss on the losing end of a debate. 0 Reply Troy says: July 16, 2018 at 9:35 am I think you were just trying to avoid the discussion, which you knew you would not win. Jim, we have very different worldviews and concepts. To me, the notion of “winning” or “losing” suggests life is some sort of game. I refuse to accept this concept. For me, the main two reasons to live are: 1. To enjoy simply being alive, and, 2. To learn. Since I assume most others have some form of these same ideas, even though they may state them differently, I also adopt a “live and let live” approach which I try to implement through tolerance of people who do not think exactly like I do. Alas, I find myself lacking any grand solutions and, as stated elsewhere, I simply do not take anyone that seriously. I find it somewhat odd that while you bemoan the number of people “killed by governments”, your solution seems to be even more killing, albeit more selective killing than that done in war. Troy 0 clinicalthinker says: July 9, 2018 at 10:17 pm I think may have been the most riveting 3+ hours I ever spent in front of a screen. Any time Dave 😉 Peterson/Rogan was also my favorite. I have seen so much controversy over what Peterson says of late. Frankly what people think he is saying astounds me. It only reinforces my theory people hear what they want to hear no matter what is actually said to them. I was particularly intrigued when Peterson said something like “this is the first time in history where the spoken word is more important than the written word” … all because of the “intellectual dark web”. All of these guys are slowly putting newspapers and TV out of business. Rogan had an interview with Candace Owens and Ted Nugent this month too. Both interesting IMO. A 3 hour show with one person is pretty telling no matter how many short clips one has seen in the past. +1 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: July 11, 2018 at 2:51 am Just finished the JRE/Candace Owens one. Wow! Excellent… â—„Daveâ–º +1 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 11, 2018 at 9:56 pm Glad you enjoyed JRE/Candace Dave 🙂 . I have liked her from the beginning when she cropped up. This has been a rather interesting month for me … where suddenly I run across information that causes me to really think and wonder what if. Today was one of these special days. I have thought for a very long time … how egotistical for humans to believe we are the only thinking intelligence in the universe. Looks like perhaps not if one is to believe there is an actual area 51 and perhaps a crash at Rosewell in 1953. Somehow I happened onto a youtube video with Ron Garner talking about his life’s research of Area 51. It was his last interview before his death. One of the people he talked about was a Dr. Dan Burisch who reportedly has an IQ of 200, a trained microbiologist … recruited because of his skills to S-4 of area 51. Part of his job was the study of one of the crash victims called J-ROD who had a degenerative disease. This is a 1 to 12 part series of which I have watched the first 2 so far. Interesting IMO Perhaps to others here also 😉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uq9n7tpmd4 0 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 13, 2018 at 11:48 pm I have now watched episodes 1 – 2 – 6 – 7 and part of 9. I have given up watching because it appears that they have simply chopped up the rest into what was already covered. Burisch seems credible enough. I found it odd that the government allowed this to go on and on. Perhaps they have not since I find nothing after these interviews about him at all. By 6 – 7 things were getting a little far out. Time travel back and forth, multiple dimension slipping, mental telepathy all fascinating and possible I suppose. Most likely I would have to experience it myself to be a gung-ho believer. Perhaps after I rest my mind I will finish the series just out of curiosity for whatever else of might be lurking out there 😉 0 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: July 18, 2018 at 12:16 am I finally got around to the Rogan/Nugent podcast. I certainly didn’t expect it to be as fascinating as it was! I learned a lot about both of these guys that I didn’t know. Thanks again, CT. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply clinicalthinker says: July 13, 2018 at 11:13 pm I have to go in for hernia surgery next month. Oh My Chris … hope the hernia part is not for real but if by chance it is good luck. My hubby had to have that surgery and came thru with flying colors twice 🙂 The laughing part? I look at it this way the more we laugh and smile the less wrinkles we get … LOL Are you enjoying the Peter Strzok BBQ Grill sequences? The democrats put on quite a show. Talk about nailing the coffin lid shut. I have long thought Trump caused these wing-nuts to lost their collective marbles. Now I realize they never had marbles to lose. What does that say for those who voted them into office? Would love to see some charges come out of all this. The country needs to see corrupt people in the “county clink” for some of their misbehavior. 0 Reply jim says: July 18, 2018 at 9:12 am This reply is actually for Troy, but of all the comments above, the one I am replying to is the only one that has no “reply” button!! “Jim, we have very different worldviews and concepts. To me, the notion of “winning†or “losing†suggests life is some sort of game. I refuse to accept this concept.” Don’t play word-games. You know what I mean. “Alas, I find myself lacking any grand solutions” Which, I suspect, is the motive behind some of the opposition to my AP concept. Some people just don’t LIKE it, and mostly because they cannot think of something better. “and, as stated elsewhere, I simply do not take anyone that seriously.” That doesn’t mean that you cannot respond in a non-serious fashion, huh? “I find it somewhat odd that while you bemoan the number of people “killed by governments†, your solution seems to be even more killing, albeit more selective killing than that done in war.” I notice your phrase “even more killing”. This suggests that you believe that there will be even more killing in a post-AP world than in a pre-AP world. Why do you believe that? I concluded, even before I wrote Part 1 of the essay, that the long-post-AP world would eventually be quite peaceful, even boring. Have you ever heard the saying, “an armed society is a polite society”? Well, AP will arm the people in a far more effective way than they have ever been allowed to be armed, before. There will be no government coercion, and certainly because there will be no government. 0 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: July 18, 2018 at 12:07 pm This reply is actually for Troy, but of all the comments above, the one I am replying to is the only one that has no “reply†button!! Jim, the nesting of comments on this blog is set at 5 levels, because they get too narrow if set higher. This is why there is no reply button on comments in the final level. To make a reply inline, use the first reply button you find in a comment above the one you are replying to. Otherwise, especially if you are quoting something, it is best to go all the way to the bottom of the thread and make a generic reply, as if you were commenting to the main post. This has the effect of moving the comment all the way to the left column, and makes it more likely to be seen by a casual reader not actively engaged in the conversation. BTW: selecting the text you are quoting and then hitting the “quote” button in the reply box, results in this more elegant presentation. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply jim says: December 1, 2018 at 12:24 pm Okay, I now understand. I’m not surprised that Troy abandoned the conversation. There is definitely a very important problem, perhaps the most important one humans face. Troy (and most everyone else) doesn’t even pretend to have a solution. I, at least, claim to have described a solution. (AP) https://cryptome.org/ap.htm When I first wrote and publicized my AP essay in 1995-96, I expected there to be a robust debate, but it really never happened. That debate could still occur today, and should. Now that Ethereum and Augur exist (and the Forecast Foundation) this discussion may be forced onto the world. 0 Reply Larry says: January 10, 2019 at 10:33 pm Troy always provided useful contributions on any issue he pondered in this and other forums in which we participated. In this case, he probably should have early on just identified your essay as meaningless, useless drivel. I hope you can do better. +1 â—„Daveâ–º says: January 11, 2019 at 1:21 am Nice to see that you are still kicking, Larry. Happy New Year. 👴 â—„Daveâ–º +2 jim bell says: February 24, 2019 at 10:48 pm “Larry said: Larry says: January 10, 2019 at 10:33 pm Troy always provided useful contributions on any issue he pondered in this and other forums in which we participated. In this case, he probably should have early on just identified your essay as meaningless, useless drivel. I hope you can do better.” I think you need to be clearer. Assuming you agree that government is the problem, then we should be searching for a solution to that problem. I believe I have found it. Can you challenge that, my conclusion? If you DON’T believe that government is the problem, you are part of the problem.
https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2018/08/01/enough-already/ Enough Already August 1st, 2018 | Author: Troy As much as I have enjoyed participation in these conversations in the past, it has taken a turn that I do not enjoy in the least. Perhaps, as Jim suggests, that is because I cannot effectively respond to his arguments. So what? You either spend your hours doing what you like or you are a fool. I leave you all with one parting comment… insult intended: It is possible to be blinded by your own brilliance. Troy +3 Posted in Freethinking « TTFN Rogan & Musk » 6 Responses to “Enough Already” clinicalthinker says: August 1, 2018 at 8:59 am I cannot effectively respond to his arguments. It is unusual to “effectively” respond to someone entrenched in their own argument. Especially a vested argument lasting 20+ years. Moving forward doing what you enjoy is the wise choice 😉 +1 Reply jim says: August 4, 2018 at 7:05 pm Actually, it SHOULD be quite easy for you to respond to my AP essay: After all, there has been 23 years since I first posted it. A simple Google-search, google ‘ “jim bell” “assassination politics” ‘ ought to show you nearly any criticism that has been expressed over at least the last 15 years, or even more. More recently, in the last few weeks, you could search for: google ‘ethereum augur assassination’ to find hundreds of references. (although, with a lot of duplications.) Probably tens of thousands of people have read it. Anyone who finds it sufficiently wrong, has the opportunity to respond and criticize it. 0 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: August 1, 2018 at 2:10 pm Troy, it has been six years since you posted the provocative revolutionary screed, “Obligations Of Obedience.†I just reread it and our subsequent discussion in the comment section. A few points: • Considering my longtime posture as a contumacious sovereign individualist, and all of the studying on the topic I have done since, it should not be at all surprising that my own thinking has continued to evolve toward outright anarchism, rather than revolution. • Despite your valiant efforts, and those of thousands of like-minded patriots, there has been negative progress toward awakening the sheeple to the ever encroaching tyranny, or wresting the levers of government from the oligarchs through political processes. • Now the Left/Right divide is even deeper, with zero chance that this will change. Moreover, it is the radical Left that now is the most outraged, prone to violence, and rejecting of majority rule. It appears that bloody revolution is now inevitable, likely sooner than later. • If so, I fail to see why the AP concept would not be preferable, or at least worth trying, instead. I have no personal appetite for slaughtering the poor brainwashed and/or disillusioned sheeple by the thousands, if there is an alternative that only sacrifices some of the oligarchs, their puppet politicians, and a few of their more detestable functionaries. That said, I certainly understand your disinterest in discussing the subject. Just as I am beyond interest in exhortations regarding a duty to vote and/or try to save the tyrannical government from its inevitable collapse. Pursuing only subjects that I find enjoyable, is why I no longer watch cable news, or bother to participate in partisan political discussions. If this is really goodbye, thanks for eleven good years of debate and friendship. Please give J9 my best. Be well, my friend. â—„Daveâ–º +1 Reply jim says: August 5, 2018 at 6:22 pm I think it’s amazing that people admit there is a major problem, admit that they don’t have a clue how to fix it, and yet presented with a system (AP) which at least claims to solve it, cannot acknowledge they should at least agree that something has to be done. 0 Reply Chris says: August 6, 2018 at 6:05 pm This seems to be an appropriate place to drop this. I have moved the web location of my sandbox to my secure domain. Tspeak.us is no more. It’s now just Tspeak with a web address https://adirondackplaza.com/tspeak/ All the content and functions are still there. I just haven’t done much with it lately so I let the domain expire and moved it to a secure domain to keep it locked down. All are still always welcome. +1 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: August 6, 2018 at 7:54 pm I updated the Blogroll link, Chris. â—„Daveâ–º +1 Reply
https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2016/08/14/eliminating-authority/ Eliminating Authority August 14th, 2016 | Author: â—„Daveâ–º For the first time in our society’s seemingly inexorable death spiral, I have regained a significant measure of hope for the future of America, and indeed all of mankind. Once again, it seems, technology will come to our rescue. Would a world without any rulers, where war was rendered impossible, be such a bad place to live? If there were a way to eventually nullify the power of all states, not just our own, would it be worth doing? “Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS.” -unknown What if there were nobody left daring to even follow unpopular orders, much less issue them? Without so-called ‘leaders,’ and disciplined followers willing to execute their orders, no form of tyranny or warfare could possibly exist. Think about that undeniable fundamental truth for a moment. I find it astonishing that I had never heard of Jim Bell, and his 20-year-old 10-part essay, “Assassination Politics,” in which he described and defended a technological method for eliminating unpopular politicians from society. Part 1 begins: I’ve been following the concepts of digital cash and encryption since I read the article in the August 1992 issue of Scientific American on “encrypted signatures.” While I’ve only followed the Digitaliberty area for a few weeks, I can already see a number of points that do (and should!) strongly concern the average savvy individual: 1. How can we translate the freedom afforded by the Internet to ordinary life? 2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom? A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally “revolutionary” idea, and I jokingly called it “Assassination Politics”: I speculated on the question of whether an organization could be set up to legally announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly “predicted” the death of one of a list of violators of rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital cash. I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and anonymous “digital cash,” it would be possible to make such awards in such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have no information that could help the authorities find the person responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death. It was not my intention to provide such a “tough nut to crack” by arguing the general case, claiming that a person who hires a hit man is not guilty of murder under libertarian principles. Obviously, the problem with the general case is that the victim may be totally innocent under libertarian principles, which would make the killing a crime, leading to the question of whether the person offering the money was himself guilty. On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the “victim” is a government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various acts, he violates the “Non-aggression Principle” (NAP) and thus, presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under libertarian principles. The organization set up to manage such a system could, presumably, make up a list of people who had seriously violated the NAP, but who would not see justice in our courts due to the fact that their actions were done at the behest of the government. Associated with each name would be a dollar figure, the total amount of money the organization has received as a contribution, which is the amount they would give for correctly “predicting” the person’s death, presumably naming the exact date. “Guessers” would formulate their “guess” into a file, encrypt it with the organization’s public key, then transmit it to the organization, possibly using methods as untraceable as putting a floppy disk in an envelope and tossing it into a mailbox, but more likely either a cascade of encrypted anonymous remailers, or possibly public-access Internet locations, such as terminals at a local library, etc. Hopefully, that has peaked your interest enough to go read his thought-provoking essay, because I would love to discuss its potential and/or flaws. Obviously, back in ’95, the internet was in its infancy, and very few individuals had even a dial-up connection to it. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies had yet to be invented, nor had the potential for anonymity like TOR. What a difference 20 years can make in technology! Now, internet access by smartphone is ubiquitous worldwide, and the technology necessary to implement Bell’s idea, is readily available. Crowd funding and prediction markets are now commonplace. In fact, it seems that someone has already started a version of it on the TOR network, focused on banking opponents of cryptocurrency. I have read, for instance, that the reward for correctly predicting Ben Bernanke’s death is $75K. I wonder how much that has changed his lifestyle? Even if it is a false flag honeypot, designed by the authorities to try to entrap someone, that wouldn’t help Bernanke; because there would still be no way to trace his would-be assailant, or know ahead of time when and where he intended to act. He could hire armed guards to protect himself 24/7; but how could he trust them? What would happen if their names were then added to the list? I reckon that it is only a matter of time, before a workable, automated, and unstoppable worldwide system is designed and implemented. If TOR can already circumvent the Great Firewall of China, how could it be stopped, and by whom? Moreover, while mass retirements of politicians, bureaucrats, police, and military officers would undoubtedly soon follow, I don’t see it as being limited to government functionaries. Why not Jihadist leaders and their radical imams? How about dishonest used car salesmen? There could easily be multiple prediction markets, to eliminate all manner of uncivilized behaviors. 🙂 Being an unpleasant jerk and pissing people off, could become extremely dangerous. If one did something to provoke getting one’s name on a ‘hit’ list, with a sufficient reward to tempt a friend or associate, one’s life would never be the same again. Since the reward funds are donated up front, as anonymously as the ultimate recipient of them, there would be no way to cancel a ‘contract’ once initiated. Yikes! I predict a very polite society in the future of mankind. Those believing that gangs of thugs would naturally terrorize society in the absence of government, need to think again. They wouldn’t dare have any leaders either! Who could a gang leader possibly trust, with a sufficient price on his head? For their bloodthirsty lot, it wouldn’t even need to be a very high price, since it could be collected completely anonymously, with a few keystrokes on a smartphone. Once this genie is out of the bottle, and anonymous cryptocurrency use becomes ubiquitous worldwide, I predict that eventually all oppressive governments will fail, and all military organizations will cease to exist. I am unsure what individuals will then do with their lust for power, when none is available. I suppose they might have to settle for becoming well-paid assassins; but even that would be destined to become a dead-end career, as the survivors did their very best to avoid provoking anyone, in any way. 😉 Now, if you have absorbed Jim’s entire essay, please show me the hidden flaw. I can’t find it! â—„Daveâ–º +1 Posted in Anarchy, Debate, Liberty, Politics, Technical « Importing War Information vs Wisdom » 12 Responses to “Eliminating Authority” â—„Daveâ–º says: August 15, 2016 at 7:35 pm As long as the states are in cyber-competition with each other, the nimble hackers will continue to win, and frustrate all attempts to control the internet. As long as there is greed for power and wealth, there will always be competition and a lack of real interstate cooperation. Therefore, ultimately, Bell’s brilliant idea is unstoppable! 😈 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply ClinicalThinker says: August 15, 2016 at 8:24 pm At what point does one believe the government or each state for that matter does not have equally nimble hackers who will ultimately find out who gets paid what? It appears Bell relies heavily on honesty and integrity of those in charge of “the system”. Honesty and integrity appear to be in short supply these days. My favorite part was about Howard Hughes and his ball bearings. Leave it to a genius who is a little daffed. 🙂 0 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: August 15, 2016 at 9:45 pm You have to understand the nature of public key encryption, digital cash, and TOR to realize that the information is simply not hackable, CT. Those operating “the system” don’t know, and cannot possibly learn, the identities of the contributors or recipients of the digital cash either. The only question about their honesty and integrity, could be whether they were actually paying off the winners, with all the donated proceeds (less the agreed overhead percentage – probably 1% or less). There are several factors, which would ensure they performed as expected. One, would be competition. There could easily be dozens of “systems” to choose from, and likely would be. Another, would be the likelihood that a dishonest operator would soon end up on a list himself. Then, it could easily become an completely automated process operating on a distributed computing system, where no corruptible human was even involved, much less in charge. This understanding is part of why I predict that the idea will be implemented, it will work, and there is nothing the powers-that-(currently)-be will be able to do to prevent it. The potential for the peaceful future of mankind is truly mind-boggling. Too bad we won’t be here to enjoy it, CT; but at least we can stop worrying ourselves, over the future for our posterity. I enjoyed the Howard Hughes vignette also. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply ClinicalThinker says: August 17, 2016 at 2:13 am Since this earth plane has been in existence for eons and has yet to achieve a state without war … my guess would be you are correct we (you and I) will not be around to see it. Frankly I doubt this playground will EVER ADVANCE to that elevated state in our next 50 life times if there is such a thing. 🙂 Perhaps it would be better to choose a more advanced playground next time around … oh wait that would not be as much fun 😉 0 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: August 17, 2016 at 11:03 pm …earth plane… …playground… …next time around… Sorry, CT. This is more New Age word salad, which is beyond my ken. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º 0 Kaizen says: August 16, 2016 at 7:11 am There is no HIDDEN flaw per se. But taking Bell’s paper(s) to its logical conclusion would necessitate EVENTUALLY a total wipe-out. This is Mad-Max syndrome but on steroids! In the end,(assuming you/me/him/her) lived that long, what’s the point? Which is why when Bell let loose “Assassination Politics” I rejected his methodology/ideology outright, as being just too…………sci-fi! You may disagree, as is your right, but I’ll take some very serious convincing! 0 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: August 16, 2016 at 1:16 pm I’ll take some very serious convincing! Great! I love a challenge… especially when the implication is that a serviceable mind, is actually open to being changed! Allow me to initiate the process, which I will take in chunks with multiple replies. For fun, I will start with: I rejected his methodology/ideology outright, as being just too…………sci-fi! As a kid growing up in the ’50s, I devoured nearly every sci-fi book in the library. I still think Robert Heinlein’s libertarian-like philosophy had a subtle, yet profound, influence on my own burgeoning contumacy, as I went through puberty, and beyond. I was in the middle of reading his series of space travel and planet colonization classics, when Russia launched Sputnik, so I wasn’t surprised at all… only thrilled. Not having any idea that he would one day become a rather disagreeable politician, John Glenn became a personal hero, after his three orbit space flight only five years later. To me at the time, sci-fi wasn’t just fanciful fiction, it was thought-provoking predictions about the exciting future of mankind. Electronics became my hobby, and I remember when I excitedly got my hands on my first transistor. I built a simple AM radio receiver with it, which was small enough that I was able to use it, to surreptitiously listen to the World Series during class in the 9th grade. Two years later, after mastering Morse Code, I got my Ham Radio license and built my first transmitter. A mere 25 years later, I was regularly communicating digitally via Ham Radio, with the International Space Station as it passed over Hawaii, from my yacht with a laptop computer, a 1200 baud Packet Radio modem, and a VHF transceiver. From my experience, it seems that all it takes is time, for sci-fi to evolve into reality. Another example… do you remember the Dick Tracy comic strip, with his fanciful wristwatch? Knowing what was involved in building a 2-way radio, the notion that it could be miniaturized into a wristwatch, was simply beyond the realm of possibility to my young mind. By the time it evolved into a TV watch in the ’60s, I had already had a part-time job in a TV repair shop, while in high school, and was a technician in the US Army Signal Corps. I knew how CRTs worked, so that idea was patently ridiculous. I think about that often, when I answer my iPhone with my Apple Watch! Dick Tracy’s lame watch didn’t even have text messaging, with the ability to speak to Siri, which does an absolutely amazing job, of converting my nominal voice into text for a reply. All, without ever taking my phone out of my pocket! How about the internet itself? I had my first internet connection through a wormhole at the University of Hawaii, using that same Packet Radio station from my yacht, back in the late ’80s. This was before the WWW protocol was invented, and basically all that was available to civilians, was university databases and libraries. Everything was text based, because the 300 or 1200 baud modems available at the time were so slow. Downloading a research paper could take hours; but that it was coming into my yacht in Hawaii, from a university in New York, was just mind-boggling marvelous. Now, just 30 years later, I have a cable modem that consistently delivers 60mb broadband internet, simultaneously with a couple hundred HDTV channels. The technological changes that have occurred in my lifetime, are truly amazing. I suspect that youngsters today have no idea, how much we old farts have done to develop technology, for their welfare and amusement. I submit that at this point, if the mind of man can conceive it, technology can be designed to achieve it. This is particularly true in the interconnected digital world. Any potential obstacles to implementing Bell’s thesis on technology grounds, could be rather quickly rectified. …more to follow… â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply Chris says: August 16, 2016 at 5:42 pm Just to throw out a bit of a muse that I can’t quite figure out yet. In this day and age anybody can carry in their pocket the wisdom and knowledge of all recorded human history and every technology known. All the great philosophers, leaders, and critical minds works are at our finger tips. Yet we remain so stupid. 0 Reply Kaizen says: August 17, 2016 at 5:19 am Ok Dave, I never disputed the scintillating technological advances that have been accomplished during the past 60+years, with perhaps the most significant during the last 20. However, I’m going to change my mind to prove I’ve got one! I was wrong in my opening line above. There is a hidden flaw and that flaw is Bell himself. Whilst I never meant to dispute the technological CAPABILITY of his hypothesis being accomplished, the man clearly is a wacko and I do not and will not subscribe to wacko-politics. Sure, we all listen to the lunatic fringe,(we have several in the UK and with the internet, their platform(s) expands) but a balanced, logical mind says I’ve listened and rejected it. On that, I shall not change my mind!! Similarly, I dispute Chris’s sweeping generalisation – …”We remain so stupid.” I disagree. I believe that the vast majority of the silent majority are now apathetic to the speed of change because of the speed of change. That, per se, now impinges on every facet of life. And even with access to the world’s knowledge base at the touch of a button, nothing, absolutely nothing replaces common-sense. That, I suggest, is what we (and I do generalise here), the current planet’s inhabitants, have forgotten. Furthermore, we spend too much time just “doing” and far too little time just thinking. If we thought more and did less, my guess would be that Dave and Thoughts Aloud could replace Google! 0 Reply â—„Daveâ–º says: August 17, 2016 at 10:49 pm There is a hidden flaw and that flaw is Bell himself. …the man clearly is a wacko and I do not and will not subscribe to wacko-politics. …a balanced, logical mind says I’ve listened and rejected it. On that, I shall not change my mind!! More’s the pity. I preferred your original challenge. This is the epitome of argumentum ad hominem, in its original meaning. I was not intending to promote Bell’s political viewpoint, wacko or not; I didn’t even mention it. My interest was only in discussing the potential of his innovative ideas, for individual Liberty and peace, in a world without rulers. Challenging ideas themselves, is always fair game. Trying to discredit them, by attacking the character of the man suggesting them, is not. Imagine the book title, “How we Created Freedom in a Ruler-free World.” ‘Wacko-politics’ is in the eye of the beholder. Harry Browne was not a wacko by my lights; but he undoubtedly was considered so by the oligarchs and their sycophants, who preferred to perpetuate the status quo. Had Harry conceived of this solution to “Why Government Doesn’t Work,” I have to believe he would not have hesitated to openly discuss it. I, for one, would have listened carefully, and searched for the hidden flaw in the idea, and could not have found it in Harry’s basic political philosophy… I have tried to move discussion of Chris’s “sweeping generalization” over here: Information vs Wisdom â—„Daveâ–º 0 Reply ClinicalThinker says: August 17, 2016 at 2:05 am LOL Yet we remain so stupid. I am afraid we have not hit the bottom of the pit in stupid yet. After all the arrogance of man is astounding to me. We can send a man to the moon but can be build a GREAT PYRAMID? Are we really as smart and as advanced as a whale or dolphin? Sometimes I wonder if the average man is as smart as my cat …. I am afraid my answer would be NO! … LOL 😉 0 Reply jim bell says: February 18, 2017 at 10:44 am A very interesting discussion! Jim Bell, author of the Assassination Politics essay. 0 Reply
Consider that perhaps the only reason that this fabled system... or more broadly a system capable of predicting generic events and trends, allocating resources, whatever... has apparently not yet been developed or deployed, may indeed be that cryptocurrency itself has not yet reached a sufficient level of entrenched global adoption and widespread dependent usage such that say the bespoke Govts/Corps would have at least as much difficulty banning cryptocurrency as they might find in ignoring the predictions of systems capable of producing such insights. Therefore those who want better weather predictions should first put more effort into creating cryptocurrencies suitable for use as simply money, and thus among all money's uses, for use with such prediction markets, and work on ensuring the widespread and in-depth global adoption and use of such cryptos. Question: Temperature in Paris will reach 45degC on? Question: AES will be cracked on? Question: Govt secrets will be disclosed on? Question: Cancer will be cured on? Question: War will end on? Question: ... Current reward: $1M Prediction: ? Many questions will enjoin formidible legacy forces that will be opposed to any reward and predictions being lodged. No coin + adoption level combination currently exists that can sustain such questions up against such forces that will fight to quash whichever coins are involved. And since adoption takes time, tasking any coins prematurely can meet the same end. Hardly any coins in development are even academically capable of distributed, censorship and governance free, P2P, privacy, non printable, wider adoption, 100 to 1000+ tps, not using endless growth of disk space per transaction, etc... and aren't just simple money. No features, apps, tokens, defi, compute, contracts, nft, etc. A short message field in just money. Create, adopt, money... then predict more sunny days :) (nb ie: Bitcoin-BTC failed usability as money in at least: tps, privacy, disk space based utxo model also resulting in sync bandwidth required.)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/23/facebook-guidelines-allow... Facebook's bullying and harassment policy explicitly allows for "public figures" to be targeted in ways otherwise banned on the site, including "calls for [their] death," according to a tranche of internal moderator guidelines leaked to the Guardian. "Because we want to allow discussion, which often includes critical commentary of people who are featured in the news." According to public figure Democrats, Trump recently called for their death in the Capitol... via Facebook, which is owned by Democrat Mark Zuckerberg, who censored Trump for... discussion, critique, commentary, and news.
https://darknetdaily.com/?p=2050 In January 2020, Tampere police found the body of a 44-year-old man in his home ... In 2019, Hytönen posted an ad on the Tor internet network—which facilitates anonymous and encrypted online communication—offering his services as a hit man, asking to be paid in Bitcoin.
Elites, Politicians, Mafioso... waxing each other as usual... See also... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jovenel_Moise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome Top Adviser To Ukrainian President Targeted In "Assassination Attempt" Gunmen opened fire on a vehicle occupied by the top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on Wednesday in what authorities deemed an "assassination attempt," according to AFP. Sergiy Shefir, 57, the first assistant advisor to Zelensky, was unscathed this morning after a hail of 7.62 caliber rounds fired from automatic weapons penetrated his unarmoured Audi A8L. However, his driver was seriously injured. Speaking with journalists after the incident, Shefir said the attack was intended to spook senior policymakers. "All I can say is that the assassination attempt was carried out to intimidate the highest echelon of power," he said. He explained more details about what happened: "We were driving when, suddenly, shots rang out. They wounded the driver, who was amazing and carried on driving. We sped up a bit. It was a scary moment. I immediately called the police and the interior minister." Shefir went on to say the incident will not intimidate the president, calling him a "very strong-willed and decisive person." Zelensky was in New York City at the time of the incident holding meetings at the United Nations. Shortly after he was briefed on the shooting, he issued a statement condemning the attack and said he would fly back to Kiev this evening. One of Zelensky's aides said the attack was an attempt to "demonstrably kill a key member of the team." Another presidential advisor, Mykhailo Podolyak, said the attack was in response to "politics directed at limiting the traditional influence of shadowy oligarchs." So far, the assailants' identity is unknown, and there's a lot of finger-pointing within Zelensky's party. Some have blamed Moscow, smugglers, and crime bosses, while others have said it's too early to blame who is responsible. However, there's agreement within the party that the attack was meant to destabilize the country's political situation.
GeoPol-AP Asks: "Who wins...?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Oab6nvJuE Norway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TXLBDfyteY Guyana https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B_TlHJq1-4 Norway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Oab6nvJuE Sweden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D7URaVZwlQ Canada https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVPx4xnLXbk Norway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFDbbfJwaKQ India https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOGwZ6oRwmA Indonesia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJcW_FYAlw Iran https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bChiE1Qzms Iran https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moRl03Cp1E8 Britain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4WEGUuq_ck Japan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF698UqmU-c USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3FbHRUDoOo Indonesia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93WUg3sDFk Isis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eUONuPfF3k USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzJAs9TIGgM Pakistan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOhvjBwuix4 Britain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ubtdyOY7Yc Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1vCe3BAnws Britain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqtisxNaZY Taiwan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSd5aH2OZvM China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvu_M53bjAI Taiwan https://vimeo.com/20167920 Singapore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCOPgiIbbbM Bangladesh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8NhabFRXZQ France https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqek78JXckw Russia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOWRembdPS8 China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIYGFSONKbk USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market Cpunks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqdJHDGSfhI WP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FliKUVugHno WTHWFF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSC2_1FPXPE WNMT
participants (10)
-
\0xDynamite -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Karl -
Karl Semich -
professor rat -
punk -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0
-
Stephen Williams -
Zenaan Harkness