Assasination Politics - Frequently Asked Questions
I think the question/answer format could be useful here to highlight the more serious 'issues' with AP and the overall workings of the system. So off the top of my head, here are two questions: 1) wouldn't the rich and powerful use AP against honest people? 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. (feel free to rephrase my questions in proper english =P )
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018, 3:12:44 PM PST, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the question/answer format could be useful here to highlight the more serious 'issues' with AP and the overall workings of the system. So off the top of my head, here are two questions:
1) wouldn't the rich and powerful use AP against honest people?
There is nothing inherent about the AP system that would prevent anyone (with even a small amount of money) from using it against anybody else. But I anticipated that AP would have organizations (possibly many of them) which would each have their own individual policies, in competition with each other. Long ago (in my AP essay) I pointed out that if _I_ ran an AP-type organization, I would (at least initially, until it had brought down all governments) have a policy to refuse any 'contracts' except for people who have violated the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). But even that policy would initially have to be further restricted, because somebody ought to decide who was 'worthy' of being targeted, and who isn't 'worthy'. There would ideally be some fact-finding that would have to be done. (analogous to today's juries in criminal trials.) I wouldn't put myself in the position of needing to decide complex questions. Without a jury system, an AP system cannot fully substitute itself for today's criminal justice system. Thus, an AP organization that _I_ run (if I ran one...) would initially only take contracts/bets against people who are, or were, government employees. The reason is that generally, it wouldn't take a jury to decide the simple question of whether that person did or had worked for government. Eventually, when governments have been destroyed, it will be useful to set up court-like proceedings, somewhat analogous to today's criminal courts, to decide questions of whether a given person violated another person and his rights. But unlike existing courts, and juries, these new courts will be VOLUNTARY. At least, "voluntary" in the sense that a defendant would probably prefer to have an opportunity to defend himself, rather than merely being "donated to death". Notice, however, that while that might be MY policy for MY hypothetical AP organization, there is essentially nothing I could do (despite having been the author of the AP essay) about somebody else running a different AP organization, with its own chosen policies. You could imagine somebody else running a different AP organization with different scruples. Imagine one that would take any contract, against anyone. Which organization would survive and prosper? I have argued that MY hypothetical organization, targeting only people who have arguably violated NAP, would be cheaper than the other. I assert that potential assassins would be willing to work for less if they knew their targets deserved that targeting. And, there would be less competition for contracts against possibly-innocent targets, and as we all know, competition tends to reduce prices. So, the system would tend to deter unjustified killing. Unjustified killing would cost more, and (I hope) many fewer people would want to pay for it. I have argued, therefore, that there would be market pressure to make the targeting of "innocent" people difficult and expensive, compared to the targeting of "guilty" people which will become easier and cheaper. " 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. " Before I had written and published the first part of my AP essay, I anticipated that once such a system started, it might actually be somewhat dangerous to be a "famous" person. (But I don't recall actually stating this in the essay; I need to go back and remind myself what I wrote!) At least, it would be far safer to be essentially unknown. And, other people since then have thought of the same possibility. Today, you can have an actor who is famous for playing villains. What happens in an AP-operating world, where people (including somewhat mentally-unstable people) think of this actor as being a 'bad guy'? One partial answer might simply be: Actors who play 'bad guys' will probably have to be paid more, to compensate them for their risk! But of course, once most or possibly all AP-organizations employ 'juries' to limit the people who are ultimately targeted, it should be difficult to find an AP organization that would accept those contracts...unless that actor truly was a 'bad guy'!!! Jim Bell
On Dec 18, 2018, at 7:41 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
" 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. "
Before I had written and published the first part of my AP essay, I anticipated that once such a system started, it might actually be somewhat dangerous to be a "famous" person. (But I don't recall actually stating this in the essay; I need to go back and remind myself what I wrote!) At least, it would be far safer to be essentially unknown. And, other people since then have thought of the same possibility. Today, you can have an actor who is famous for playing villains. What happens in an AP-operating world, where people (including somewhat mentally-unstable people) think of this actor as being a 'bad guy'?
One partial answer might simply be: Actors who play 'bad guys' will probably have to be paid more, to compensate them for their risk! But of course, once
LOL! That your thinking has only gone this deep on this particular issue, “actors playing bad guys might be killed by the AP mob, so they will get to demand a higher salary to pay their security retinue”, doesn’t show a whole lot of deep thinking or intellectual curiosity, Jim :P. I find your stories of IC work much more interesting. The way AP is designed, these “juries” (comprised of who?) are not a requirement, and there could always be multiple AP markets, some with or without these “juries”. Or some with wholly state-controlled “juries”. What if state-actors were to put a hit on you? And anyone else who has publicly avowed for or otherwise is known to support AP? That might serve as a slight chilling concept on the whole thing. Or maybe you’d be considered a martyr, as opposed to the victim of his own murderous system, and the people would finally rise up and, as you say, the government would fall :P.
most or possibly all AP-organizations employ 'juries' to limit the people who are ultimately targeted, it should be difficult to find an AP organization that would accept those contracts...unless that actor truly was a 'bad guy'!!!
Jim Bell
On Saturday, December 22, 2018, 10:19:30 AM PST, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote: On Dec 18, 2018, at 7:41 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
" 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. "
Before I had written and published the first part of my AP essay, I anticipated that once such a system started, it might actually be somewhat dangerous to be a "famous" person. (But I don't recall actually stating this in the essay; I need to go back and remind myself what I wrote!) At least, it would be far safer to be essentially unknown. And, other people since then have thought of the same possibility. Today, you can have an actor who is famous for playing villains. What happens in an AP-operating world, where people (including somewhat mentally-unstable people) think of this actor as being a 'bad guy'? One partial answer might simply be: Actors who play 'bad guys' will probably have to be paid more, to compensate them for their risk! But of course, once
LOL! That your thinking has only gone this deep on this particular issue,“actors playing bad guys might be killed by the AP mob, so they will get todemand a higher salary to pay their security retinue”, doesn’t show a whole lotof deep thinking or intellectual curiosity, Jim :P. I find your stories of ICwork much more interesting.
What makes you think that "[my] thinking has only gone this deep on this particular issue"? This is simply the example I am using, here, to point out how an angry crowd might react, even if (and especially if) their position was unreasonable. I'm not trying to write a treatise on the whole of AP, here.
The way AP is designed, these “juries” (comprised of who?) are not arequirement, and there could always be multiple AP markets, some with or withoutthese “juries”. Or some with wholly state-controlled “juries”. What if state-actors were to put a hit on you? And anyone else who has publiclyavowed for or otherwise is known to support AP? That might serve as a slightchilling concept on the whole thing.
In order for there to be "state actors", there would have to remain a "state" to act. I consider it virtually axiomatic that the first, best targets of an AP-type system would be government, and later (after governments have fallen) ex-government people with whom everyone else might to want to engage in score-settling. Admittedly, WHILE governments are falling, or after they've fallen and ex-government employees are pissed at them getting attacked, those entities may want to retaliate against prominent 'enemies'. As I said in AP Part 7, near the end: "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."
Or maybe you’d be considered a martyr, as opposed to the victim of his ownmurderous system, and the people would finally rise up and, as you say, thegovernment would fall :P. "
See above. Before I'd written even Part 1 of AP, I already anticipated this, and made my choice. But, things didn't look as bleak for me as you might expect. One reason is that I hoped that the early AP-organizations would, at first, limit their targets to government employees and ex-government employees, and later, they would employ juries (once governments had fallen, and the "criminal justice system" needed to be replaced) to decide who had actually violated the NAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle So, I expected (and expect) to be spared.× Not that it would be impossible to have a less-ethical AP organization appear, and accept 'predictions' on just about anyone, including myself. But I think the cost would be much higher. As I said, I made my choice. Jim Bell
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 12:19:26 -0600 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 2018, at 7:41 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
" 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. "
Before I had written and published the first part of my AP essay, I anticipated that once such a system started, it might actually be somewhat dangerous to be a "famous" person. (But I don't recall actually stating this in the essay; I need to go back and remind myself what I wrote!) At least, it would be far safer to be essentially unknown. And, other people since then have thought of the same possibility. Today, you can have an actor who is famous for playing villains. What happens in an AP-operating world, where people (including somewhat mentally-unstable people) think of this actor as being a 'bad guy'?
One partial answer might simply be: Actors who play 'bad guys' will probably have to be paid more, to compensate them for their risk! But of course, once
LOL! That your thinking has only gone this deep on this particular issue, “actors playing bad guys might be killed by the AP mob, so they will get to demand a higher salary to pay their security retinue”, doesn’t show a whole lot of deep thinking or intellectual curiosity, Jim :P. I find your stories of IC work much more interesting.
The way AP is designed, these “juries” (comprised of who?) are not a requirement, and there could always be multiple AP markets, some with or without these “juries”. Or some with wholly state-controlled “juries”.
It seems that Jim didn't fully answer the question and instead sidestepped it. If something like ethereum turns out to actually be decentralized and uncensorable then we should expect an AP system in which anybody can be targeted, not just criminals. As a side note, the idea of providers of security competing on the market was first proposed in 1849 (or earlier, so that's at least 120 years ago) by libertarians like Spooner and Molinari. Libertarians want to replace the criminal organization known as government with VOLUNTARY services for protecting life liberty and property. So under a libertarian system nobody is forced to pay protection and protection agencies are bound by libertarian law. Jim the added :
Not that it would be impossible to have a less-ethical AP organization appear, and accept 'predictions' on just about anyone, including myself. But I think the cost would be much higher.
I see no reason why the cost should always be higher. I asked what would happen if racists decided to target people they didn't like. I don't think your answer made much sense. Your example about an actor being targeted for the roles he plays seems rather absurd. Your solution for the targeted actor is almost as absurd but more importantly the solution doesn't apply to ordinary people who are targeted for no good reason. So maybe Jim you should try again? =)
What if state-actors were to put a hit on you? And anyone else who has publicly avowed for or otherwise is known to support AP? That might serve as a slight chilling concept on the whole thing.
what if jew-kristians were to put hits on drug dealers, 'pornographers', atheists and the like. The possibilities for abuse are endless...
Or maybe you’d be considered a martyr, as opposed to the victim of his own murderous system, and the people would finally rise up and, as you say, the government would fall :P.
most or possibly all AP-organizations employ 'juries' to limit the people who are ultimately targeted, it should be difficult to find an AP organization that would accept those contracts...unless that actor truly was a 'bad guy'!!!
Jim Bell
On Saturday, December 22, 2018, 2:36:37 PM PST, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 12:19:26 -0600 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 2018, at 7:41 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
" 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. "
Before I had written and published the first part of my AP essay, I anticipated that once such a system started, it might actually be somewhat dangerous to be a "famous" person. (But I don't recall actually stating this in the essay; I need to go back and remind myself what I wrote!) At least, it would be far safer to be essentially unknown. And, other people since then have thought of the same possibility. Today, you can have an actor who is famous for playing villains. What happens in an AP-operating world, where people (including somewhat mentally-unstable people) think of this actor as being a 'bad guy'?
One partial answer might simply be: Actors who play 'bad guys' will probably have to be paid more, to compensate them for their risk! But of course, once
LOL! That your thinking has only gone this deep on this particular issue, “actors playing bad guys might be killed by the AP mob, so they will get to demand a higher salary to pay their security retinue”, doesn’t show a whole lot of deep thinking or intellectual curiosity, Jim :P. I find your stories of IC work much more interesting.
The way AP is designed, these “juries” (comprised of who?) are not a requirement, and there could always be multiple AP markets, some with or without these “juries”. Or some with wholly state-controlled “juries”.
It seems that Jim didn't fully answer the question and instead sidestepped it. If something like ethereum turns out to actually be decentralized and uncensorable then we should expect an AP system in which anybody can be targeted, not just criminals.
I think that's what I have said on that subject. > As a side note, the idea of providers of security competing on the market was first proposed in 1849 (or earlier, so that's at least 120 years ago) by libertarians like Spooner and Molinari. Libertarians want to replace the criminal organization known as government with VOLUNTARY services for protecting life liberty and property. So under a libertarian system nobody is forced to pay protection and protection agencies are bound by libertarian law. Jim the added :
Not that it would be impossible to have a less-ethical AP organization appear, and accept 'predictions' on just about anyone, including myself. But I think the cost would be much higher.
I see no reason why the cost should always be higher. I asked what would happen if racists decided to target people they didn't like. I don't think your answer made much sense. Your example about an actor being targeted for the roles he plays seems rather absurd. Your solution for the targeted actor is almost as absurd but more importantly the solution doesn't apply to ordinary people who are targeted for no good reason. I've already explained this. "Always higher"? I cannot claim that. But usually higher. > So maybe Jim you should try again? =) I think I've addressed this already. I've explained that I believe there should be 'competing' AP-type organizations, some of which have rules which prohibit what most people would label "unjustified" killing. Others, perhaps a much smaller number of organizations, would have somewhat less (fewer??) scruples. (Are 'scruples' quantized? An attempt to do a Google-search for 'scruples quantized' has no clear results. Although strangely, a search for 'scruples Planck' leads to a 'Scruple Conversion Chart', see: https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight/scruple.html?u=scruple&v=1 ) The latter could be, and I think would be, more expensive. That, and what I believe will be a much-smaller number of people who would contribute to a given "hit", would make it much more difficult (i.e. expensive) Put simply, if you wanted to help kill a well-known politician, your $1 contribution would be combined with perhaps millions of others. OTOH, if you want to kill a hostile relative, far fewer people would contribute to that outcome.
What if state-actors were to put a hit on you? And anyone else who has publicly avowed for or otherwise is known to support AP? That might serve as a slight chilling concept on the whole thing.
As I said within the last day, for there to be "state-actors", you'd have to have a "state". And, some of those must be aware you. That's quite true for me, not nearly so much for most other people.
what if jew-kristians were to put hits on drug dealers, 'pornographers', atheists and the like. The possibilities for abuse are endless...
I think I've said in the past that there is nothing that makes impossible a person simply buying a gun and ammunition, walking out the store, and shooting the first person he sees. Is this POSSIBLE? Sure. Is it LIKELY? No. To be sure, there will still be activities that are likely to inflame some portion of the public. At least, this is the way things happen today. Jim Bell
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:33:13 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I've addressed this already. I've explained that I believe there should be 'competing' AP-type organizations, some of which have rules which prohibit what most people would label "unjustified" killing. Others, perhaps a much smaller number of organizations, would have somewhat less (fewer??) scruples. (Are 'scruples' quantized?
I don't think the question makes sense. It's not a matter of scruples but a matter of legtimacy. At any rate, the bottom line is that AP organizations can be libertarian or completely rogue. (or anything inbetween)
The latter could be, and I think would be, more expensive. That, and what I believe will be a much-smaller number of people who would contribute to a given "hit", would make it much more difficult (i.e. expensive)
Put simply, if you wanted to help kill a well-known politician, your $1 contribution would be combined with perhaps millions of others. OTOH, if you want to kill a hostile relative, far fewer people would contribute to that outcome.
Still, it would be perfectly possible for say, women 'betting' that their husbands wiil have an 'accident'. A woman can 'bet' $20k and then collect $100k in insurance. Net profit $80k. In other words, saying that criminal services will be more expensive is both unfounded and rather irrelavant even if it happens to be true in some cases.
what if jew-kristians were to put hits on drug dealers, 'pornographers', atheists and the like. The possibilities for abuse are endless...
I think I've said in the past that there is nothing that makes impossible a person simply buying a gun and ammunition, walking out the store, and shooting the first person he sees. Is this POSSIBLE? Sure. Is it LIKELY? No.
Right. And one reason why that is not likely is because if a guy gets a gun and starts murdering people for fun, he himself would be executed rather fast. On the other hand if an AP system allows people to commit crimes with impunity, then there are more incentives to do so.
To be sure, there will still be activities that are likely to inflame some portion of the public. At least, this is the way things happen today.
Yes but today the 'public' or mob doesn't have a means to anonymously lynch people they dislike. Anyway, my speculative conclusion then is : an uncesorable market for killings could destroy the government(s) AND enable gross violations of the rights of innocent people, both at the same time.
Jim Bell
participants (3)
-
jim bell -
John Newman -
juan