A friend called last night, alerting me to a show called "The Black List". Apparently that episode involved an AP-type plot. Unfortunately, I only saw the last third or so of the show. http://www.nbc.com/the-blacklist/episodes?__source=360i_NBC_TVE_2015&WT.srch=Google&hcoref=Search&nlcid=TheBlacklistIt is probably episide 305, air date 10/29/2015; within a day or so it will be watchable on the website above, I think. I should probably demand a story royalty. Jim Bell
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> On 10/30/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: ..
I should probably demand a story royalty. Jim Bell Perhaps they would consider a donation to you or some JBell approved destination. Here's the show and plot: http://www.nbc.com/the-blacklist/episode-guide/season-3/arioch-cain/305
Liz (Megan Boone) is jubilant to learn the president has commissioned an investigation that could clear her name, but Red (James Spader) is desperate to get on the move. It seems mythical vigilante assassin Wendigo has Liz in his sights. Unfortunately, after Red tracks down Wendigo and drops him off a roof, the bullets keep coming, which is when Liz realizes there's a crowd-sourced bounty on her head on the dark web. Red asks the FBI to help keep her safe, and Aram (Amir Arison) tracks down the bounty site's webmaster, who claims they'll need the creator of the original post, Arioch Cain, to delete it once and for all. Meanwhile, Red and Liz wait for Dembe (Hisham Tawfiq) in a Manhattan Park. Instead, Mr. Vargas (Paul Reubens) shows up to explain Dembe's dead, then lures the couple to Red's hangar where Solomon (Edi Gathegi) and his men wait in ambush. All seems lost until Dembe struts in, guns blazing. Solomon escapes, and just as Red puts a final bullet in Vargas, Dembe collapses from his own wounds.According to Aram, the only way to get Liz off the bounty hunter site is to kill her, so Red summons Mr. Kaplan to fake her death. Then Liz and Red follow the money to discover the bounty poster, a young girl who lost her mother in the OREA bombing. Liz promises to find the men who killed her mother and the girl deletes the post. Liz is safe... for now.Meanwhile, at Asher's engagement party to fiancée Gwen, Tom (Ryan Eggold) learns his new friend is indebted to the tune of $20,000 weekly to Russian mobster Garik Sarkissian. Sensing an opportunity, Tom inserts himself, and all is well until Gwen spies Sarkissian's corpse in the trunk of Tom's car. Things aren't going well for Ressler (Diego Klattenhoff), either. After testifying at the presidential investigation hearing presided over by Chairwoman Laurel Hitchin (Christine Lahti), Wright (Adriane Lenox) orders him to share all information regarding Liz and Red with the Director (David Strathairn) henceforth.[end of quote] Jim Bell
On 10/30/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... Liz (Megan Boone) is jubilant to learn the president has commissioned an investigation that could clear her name,
we all seek vindication; relate-able!
but Red (James Spader) is desperate to get on the move.
is move slang for hustl'n?
It seems mythical vigilante assassin Wendigo has Liz in his sights.
mythical vigilante assassins are the worst. and it's never clear just how many there are out there!
Unfortunately, after Red tracks down Wendigo and drops him off a roof, the bullets keep coming,
see what i mean! are they life prisoners under mind control tryptamines and benzos? crab people??
which is when Liz realizes there's a crowd-sourced bounty on her head on the dark web.
Red asks the FBI to help keep her safe,
does he want her killed, too?
and Aram (Amir Arison) tracks down the bounty site's webmaster,
it was weaponized cyber munitions tipped with 0day, wasn't it? those can track down ANYBODY!
who claims they'll need the creator of the original post, Arioch Cain, to delete it once and for all.
i think they mean revoke the bounty. but i forgive this oversight. PLOT TWIST: Arioch Cain, is a altcoin hedge fund automaton, it can't be stopped!
Meanwhile, Red and Liz wait for Dembe (Hisham Tawfiq) in a Manhattan Park
sorry, i can't take it any more. self medicating until i forget this ever happened! *sobbing* ...
Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer friends - see if anyone thinks you have standing On Oct 30, 2015 2:05 PM, "coderman" <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/30/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... Liz (Megan Boone) is jubilant to learn the president has commissioned an investigation that could clear her name,
we all seek vindication; relate-able!
but Red (James Spader) is desperate to get on the move.
is move slang for hustl'n?
It seems mythical vigilante assassin Wendigo has Liz in his sights.
mythical vigilante assassins are the worst. and it's never clear just how many there are out there!
Unfortunately, after Red tracks down Wendigo and drops him off a roof, the bullets keep coming,
see what i mean! are they life prisoners under mind control tryptamines and benzos? crab people??
which is when Liz realizes there's a crowd-sourced bounty on her head on the dark web.
Red asks the FBI to help keep her safe,
does he want her killed, too?
and Aram (Amir Arison) tracks down the bounty site's webmaster,
it was weaponized cyber munitions tipped with 0day, wasn't it? those can track down ANYBODY!
who claims they'll need the creator of the original post, Arioch Cain, to delete it once and for all.
i think they mean revoke the bounty. but i forgive this oversight. PLOT TWIST: Arioch Cain, is a altcoin hedge fund automaton, it can't be stopped!
Meanwhile, Red and Liz wait for Dembe (Hisham Tawfiq) in a Manhattan Park
sorry, i can't take it any more. self medicating until i forget this ever happened!
*sobbing* ...
From: Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> To: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 PM Subject: Re: The Black List
Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer friends - see if anyone thinks you have standing Don't bother. It was somewhat of a joke for me to mention the "story royalty" line. Since having spent thousands of hours in Federal prison law libraries, I studied many different areas of law, far beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyright law. I am not aware that copyright law would protect such an idea. If I had written a play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my own under copyright law. But not merely the underlying idea. Now, nothing would prevent one of these studios from giving me some sort of credit on a line at the end of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legally. I am much more upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal the idea, than the fact they 'stole' it. I should also take the opportunity to point out that I wrote my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware of, the previous discussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson. (I didn't even have Internet access, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entirely unaware of the Cypherpunks list; AP part one was actually published here by somebody else.). The major differences included: Tim May and Robin Hanson both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "assassination markets", as being "abhorrent markets". See Cyphernomicon 16.16.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason they didn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical outcome. I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thought that assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, precisely because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries unnecessary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclear weapons), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' with a far-fairer alternative. THEY merely stuck their big toes into the cold pool, whereas I did a belly-flop. (With the accompanying pain, <sigh>). They probably started out by thinking something like, "If person A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to mischief." Sure it could. But I approached the problem differently: I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy someone else's death. But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people might want to pay $1 each for that outcome. That amounts to a crowdsourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. And I also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything which we call wrong in today's society. Anybody who is trying to argue against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flawed status quo, even if they don't realize that. I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society. Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I'd already solved it. Jim Bell
incredible brain functionality and the basis of the justice system >>>>> death penalty supporters state it as deterrent your idea solves that i will try to find that book ... not on amazon so thanks restorative justice is a form mostly in development but actually it is old and tribes use it still today ... just western development is lagging yay enforcement of shit is a problem until you have lived making some fucking goon leave a space ... it works too well and is organic ... a purge by organisms fuck the state in everyone On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 8:09 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
*From:* Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> *To:* coderman <coderman@gmail.com> *Cc:* cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 PM *Subject:* Re: The Black List
Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer friends - see if anyone thinks you have standing
Don't bother. It was somewhat of a joke for me to mention the "story royalty" line. Since having spent thousands of hours in Federal prison law libraries, I studied many different areas of law, far beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyright law. I am not aware that copyright law would protect such an idea. If I had written a play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my own under copyright law. But not merely the underlying idea. Now, nothing would prevent one of these studios from giving me some sort of credit on a line at the end of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legally. I am much more upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal the idea, than the fact they 'stole' it.
I should also take the opportunity to point out that I wrote my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware of, the previous discussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson. (I didn't even have Internet access, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entirely unaware of the Cypherpunks list; AP part one was actually published here by somebody else.).
The major differences included: Tim May and Robin Hanson both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "assassination markets", as being "abhorrent markets". See Cyphernomicon 16.16.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason they didn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical outcome. I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thought that assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, precisely because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries unnecessary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclear weapons), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' with a far-fairer alternative. THEY merely stuck their big toes into the cold pool, whereas I did a belly-flop. (With the accompanying pain, <sigh>).
They probably started out by thinking something like, "If person A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to mischief." Sure it could. But I approached the problem differently: I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy someone else's death. But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people might want to pay $1 each for that outcome. That amounts to a crowdsourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. And I also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything which we call wrong in today's society. Anybody who is trying to argue against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flawed status quo, even if they don't realize that.
I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society. Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I'd already solved it.
Jim Bell
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
From: Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> incredible brain functionality and the basis of the justice system >>>>> death penalty supporters state it as deterrent your idea solves that i will try to find that book ... not on amazon so thanks The book, "The Machinery of Freedom", was published in its third edition in 2014. First edition was 1971; second was 1989. Jim Bell
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society.
i'd support AP with a basic income in place. otherwise, the few outliers could out leverage even the most widely prevalent crowd dispositions... basic income + assassination politics == awesome future!** [ **this conjecture remains to be proven... ] --- as an alternative vision, consider a world of humans sufficiently educated and opportunity rich as to view violence anathema to global maxima. this, a much better solution to brute force. best regards,
cept i stepped one foot in us for 48 hours and met an 8 year old that has blood lust and talked of nation protection weapons and fucking mass murder he dreamed of and the little fucker is literate there is no one way monolithic thinking is a gift from capitalist authoritarianism to trap your mind try all ways possible and impossible say: i dont know and lay down your arms against assessing what works and doesnt before you fucking see thru experience to the end of the test ... years sometimes centuries ahead is the end but ask your fucking gut not your head as body is too smart On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:44 AM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society.
i'd support AP with a basic income in place. otherwise, the few outliers could out leverage even the most widely prevalent crowd dispositions...
basic income + assassination politics == awesome future!**
[ **this conjecture remains to be proven... ]
---
as an alternative vision, consider a world of humans sufficiently educated and opportunity rich as to view violence anathema to global maxima.
this, a much better solution to brute force.
best regards,
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On 10/31/2015 05:44 PM, coderman wrote:
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society.
i'd support AP with a basic income in place. otherwise, the few outliers could out leverage even the most widely prevalent crowd dispositions...
basic income + assassination politics == awesome future!**
[ **this conjecture remains to be proven... ]
Well, back in the day, I thought AP way cool. But some years later, more conscious of increasing concentration of wealth, I doubt that it would improve on status quo. Sure, maybe crowd-funding would take down some assholes. But serious assholes are seriously hard to kill. Also, it would provide another mechanism for governments to covertly kill their enemies. I'm reminded of Kim's Shit Slaughter Squad in Burroughs' _Place of Dead Roads_ about killing the assholes.
as an alternative vision, consider a world of humans sufficiently educated and opportunity rich as to view violence anathema to global maxima.
this, a much better solution to brute force.
Sounds better to me :) Everything is permitted, with love as the law, as Aleister Crowley was wont to say. Hard problem.
best regards,
From: Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> On 10/31/2015 05:44 PM, coderman wrote:
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society.
i'd support AP with a basic income in place. otherwise, the few outliers could out leverage even the most widely prevalent crowd dispositions...
basic income + assassination politics == awesome future!**
[ **this conjecture remains to be proven... ]
Well, back in the day, I thought AP way cool. But some years later, more conscious of increasing concentration of wealth, I doubt that it would>improve on status quo. Are you assuming that "concentration of wealth" ISN'T a PRODUCT of government? I believe AP will shrink or most likely eliminate government, certainly as we know it. Do you know this wouldn't fix the "concentration of wealth" problem? And what's wrong with "concentration of wealth" if it occurs as a product only of non-aggression? (Like some capitalist offering a better product, for a lower price.) . Sure, maybe crowd-funding would take down some assholes. But serious assholes are seriously hard to kill. If they are truly "serious assholes" then they will piss off large numbers of people. That means many people will be donating to see them stop it. More people donating means a smaller donation per person will be sufficient.
Also, itwould provide another mechanism for governments to covertly kill their>enemies. In order for governments to kill their enemies, they first must know who their enemies are. Merely by remaining silent, for awhile, a person can conceal himself as an "enemy" of governments. They can use AP to get rid of those governments, silently.
I'm reminded of Kim's Shit Slaughter Squad in Burroughs' _Place of Dead>Roads_ about killing the assholes. Never heard of it. Jim Bell
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... Are you assuming that "concentration of wealth" ISN'T a PRODUCT of government? I believe AP will shrink or most likely eliminate government, certainly as we know it.
AP will shrink government (in public) concentration of wealth. it will encourage and support covert concentration of wealth. those who are best able to hide are most able to amass fortune. thus, AP begets secrecy against others. not cooperation with others. in other words: inefficient and cruel.
On 10/31/2015 08:03 PM, jim bell wrote:
From: Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.ne
<SNIP>
Are you assuming that "concentration of wealth" ISN'T a PRODUCT of government?
Yes, I am. One legitimate function of government is to limit the concentration and power of wealth, and ameliorate impacts on others. Society needs concentrated wealth, of course. But concentrated wealth tends to subvert government, in ways that support further concentration. The US crapped out in about 1870.
I believe AP will shrink or most likely eliminate government, certainly as we know it. Do you know this wouldn't fix the "concentration of wealth" problem?
I don't know. But it doesn't scale well. Even with adequate site security and logistics, and adequate funding, there are too many assholes that need killing. And I worry that it would be gamed. Bottom line: I don't believe that we can get there from here.
And what's wrong with "concentration of wealth" if it occurs as a product only of non-aggression? (Like some capitalist offering a better product, for a lower price.)
Only sick fucks are in it for the money ;)
Sure, maybe crowd-funding would take down some assholes. But serious assholes are seriously hard to kill. If they are truly "serious assholes" then they will piss off large numbers of people. That means many people will be donating to see them stop it. More people donating means a smaller donation per person will be sufficient.
You assuming far too much rationality.
Also, it would provide another mechanism for governments to covertly kill their enemies. In order for governments to kill their enemies, they first must know who their enemies are. Merely by remaining silent, for awhile, a person can conceal himself as an "enemy" of governments. They can use AP to get rid of those governments, silently.
With prevailing surveillance and general cluelessness, AP sites would be honeypots.
I'm reminded of Kim's Shit Slaughter Squad in Burroughs' _Place of Dead Roads_ about killing the assholes. Never heard of it. Jim Bell
It's about killing the "ten to twenty percent of folks who can't mind their own business" and who are committed to being right. But of course, he's being ironic.
From: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Cc: Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com>; cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society. i'd support AP with a basic income in place. otherwise, the few outliers could out leverage even the most widely prevalent crowd dispositions... basic income + assassination politics == awesome future!**[ **this conjecture remains to be proven... ]
This sounds like a contradiction in terms. "basic income" implies that somebody is forced to provide somebody else an income. Someone using force is anathemato AP: Anyone feeling such force can use AP to act against those doing that forcing. Forcing stops. "Basic income" stops. Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 jim bell:
From: Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> To: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 PM Subject: Re: The Black List
Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer friends - see if anyone thinks you have standing Don't bother. It was somewhat of a joke for me to mention the "story royalty" line. Since having spent thousands of hours in Federal prison law libraries, I studied many different areas of law, far beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyright law. I am not aware that copyright law would protect such an idea. If I had written a play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my own under copyright law. But not merely the underlying idea. Now, nothing would prevent one of these studios from giving me some sort of credit on a line at the end of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legally. I am much more upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal the idea, than the fact they 'stole' it. I should also take the opportunity to point out that I wrote my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware of, the previous discussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson. (I didn't even have Internet access, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entirely unaware of the Cypherpunks list; AP part one was actually published here by somebody else.). The major differences included: Tim May and Robin Hanson both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "assassination markets", as being "abhorrent markets". See Cyphernomicon 16.16.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason they didn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical outcome. I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thought that assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, precisely because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries unnecessary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclear weapons), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' with a far-fairer alternative. THEY merely stuck their big toes into the cold pool, whereas I did a belly-flop. (With the accompanying pain, <sigh>). They probably started out by thinking something like, "If person A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to mischief." Sure it could. But I approached the problem differently: I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy someone else's death. But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people might want to pay $1 each for that outcome. That amounts to a crowdsourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. And I also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything which we call wrong in today's society. Anybody who is trying to argue against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flawed status quo, even if they don't realize that. I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society. Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I'd already solved it.
Claiming that an assassination market solves the defense problem in Friedman's utilitarian and general anarchocapitalism is very bold. You have a betting pool for killing people. You don't have any sort of collection of funds that protect a society from something like everyday crime, you've merely got a hit market. Your idea is effectively crowdsourcing, which in many ways could be very useful for Friedman's hard problem. However, while remaining purely voluntary in nature, what differentiates your assassination market from: - taxes (compulsory collection of small amounts from many) - hits (a few wealthy individuals take out a contract) Moreover, you still are facing the 'free-rider' problem, where, "if everybody else in my community payed a dollar to kill this guy, why should I have to do so, it is only -1 dollar. I am neither trying to discredit nor insult your ideas; just curious if you could expound upon how an assassination market fits into defense in a free society. This video might help set the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy ' - - Intelemetry PS, though I may sound like one, not a statist. Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNVL3AAoJEEN278Ja4tg+hBsMAMTI2xcPk+nRPI53ZZ1AQ3i/ FAI7aWbQ2Q9Imxa1ZybG+sWyu1dlbtil40T3lRdid+LQWDOtRqm76HZ6ftRX0J5t nQVlQOl8Vh59Gfy1nf6mSOWtqRq8EXsIl8/mj0m90AbPHBYoYn3Fq+j+TNzEyyiB GvkRuBNWQcvChEUxLh/06zgk7kv23wZOe+ZmcK3wqAFJiog+9va/07edxKp3M7LG LPTWATTUaxbXkSj/x+pJg/12Rfz/kb+Lw0jltgGKN/fEuXA7RqF/XI34Wr4NxGKK hKyDFJSHyVOawKgedQMJY3NWakR5bK2e1gtb3A6PJv3w/Ks7WlsB78rWWPLZRayv Hkj6sMc3hraQCddMxFqjits60gjUir4G8hUxRCetcNUTyVzBpVTn4vFGxcez+AnW dyMCKCNlpmn5pH4YL035MFB4RbVSI5Rv9C5jWWWfm/+ADgOLVXJt5sHb3Pm8KjPd lBnQIXeGCz6lVut/PO68Io3NF44Gko+lySrWVmzVrw== =dXb8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
From: Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> To: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 PM Subject: Re: The Black List
But I approached the problem differently: I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy someone else's death. But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people might want to pay $1 each for that outcome. That amounts to a crowdsourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. And I also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything which we call wrong in today's society. Anybody who is trying to argue against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flawed status quo, even if they don't realize that. I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society. Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I'd already solved it.
Claiming that an assassination market solves the defense problem in Friedman's utilitarian and general anarchocapitalism is very bold. You have a betting pool for killing people.>You don't have any sort of collection of funds that protect a society from something like everyday crime, you've merely got a hit market. To the extent that crime presents a problem that needs to be solved, there is no reason that private organization can't exist to detect crime, and then prove it to an excellent standard. Those who commit crimecan be presented with a choice: make your victim whole, and/or accept preventive confinement, or earn a bounty on an AP-type system. Your idea is effectively crowdsourcing, which in many ways could be very useful for Friedman's hard problem. However, while remaining purely voluntary in nature, what differentiates your assassination market from:
- taxes (compulsory collection of small amounts from many) Taxes are, as you pointed out, compulsory. Donating to an AP-type system won't be compulsory. But potential criminals won't know who is donating, andwho is not donating. And it will probably not matter: Most people, out of a sense of self-protection, will donate to such crime-prevention and detection funds,because they will amount to a deterrent against all criminals. - hits (a few wealthy individuals take out a contract) Moreover, you still are facing the 'free-rider' problem, where, "if everybody else in my community payed a dollar to kill this guy, why should I have to do so, it is only -1 dollar. I don't think 'free riders' will be much of a problem. For one thing, I think the system (AP) will be vastly more efficient than the convention crimeprotection system. (in the same way that military defense could be 100xcheaper.
I am neither trying to discredit nor insult your ideas; just curious if you could expound upon how an assassination market fits into defense in a free society.
This video might help set the context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy ' - - Intelemetry I hope that someday, in the future, technology will advance to the point where transcripts to 55-minute videos can be automatically generated. I can alreadysee that Murphy speaks rapidly, but I could easily read the transcript 10x as fast as he can speak it. By pointing to that video, you are effectively asking me to employ 55 minutes of my life on something which you say will merely "set the context". Murphy and his business partner, Robert Vroman, engaged in a public three-part debate about AP. Vroman wote two, Murphy wrote one. Bob Vroman http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ape , http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks-moderated@minder.net/msg02068.html and of Bob Murphy, www.anti-state.com/murphy/murphy17.html (although the Murphy essay might not be available, except as an archive on the Wayback Machine.) as well as by R. Sukumaran http://www.idsa.in/strategicanalysis/CryptologyDigitalAssassinationandtheTer.... Further, consider
https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content/anarc... https://c4ss.org/content/1157 series -- anti-state.com
From: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> To: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>; "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Murphy and his business partner, Robert Vroman, engaged in a public three-part debate about AP. Vroman wote two, Murphy wrote one. Bob Vroman http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ape , http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks-moderated@minder.net/msg02068.html and of Bob Murphy, www.anti-state.com/murphy/murphy17.html (although the Murphy essay might not be available, except as an archive on the Wayback Machine.) Here is Murphy's lame reply on the Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/murphy/... as well as by R. Sukumaran http://www.idsa.in/strategicanalysis/CryptologyDigitalAssassinationandtheTer.... Further, consider https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content/anarc... https://c4ss.org/content/1157 series -- anti-state.com
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... Further, consider
https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content/anarc...
"Therefore, it is statistically shown that the general human population is incapable of rational thought for more than three successive iterations." this is the gist of the crux, is it not? AP brings brutal math to bear. effective, yes. and cruel. rational anarchy an ideal without brutish levers of any sort, yet how to reach it?
From: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... Further, consider https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content/anarc... "Therefore, it is statistically shown that the general human population is incapable of rational thought for more than three successive iterations." this is the gist of the crux, is it not? AP brings brutal math to bear. effective, yes. and cruel. rational anarchy an ideal without brutish levers of any sort, yet how to reach it? Uh, it's hard to understand what you are saying. Jim Bell
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... Uh, it's hard to understand what you are saying.
second time today. <z> Uh, yeah no offense, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. <me> BTW, i will never take offense at those seeking clarification. more and more i find myself unable to converse with others. <me> i assume this is due to increasingly smaller shared context and experience among people, but it could also be my crazy :P . . . i guess this sides with crazy! to be more clear: - Assasination politics: easy to compute, easy to apply, globally inefficient. - Rational anarchy: difficult to compute, difficult to apply, globally optimal. just because AP is better that Status Quo, does not mean that AP is the ideal to strive toward.
From: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... Uh, it's hard to understand what you are saying. to be more clear: - Assasination politics: easy to compute, easy to apply, globally inefficient. But you don't explain why it's "inefficient". You only allege it.
- Rational anarchy: difficult to compute, difficult to apply, globally optimal. What is "rational anarchy"? On Google-search, I see a reference to Heinlein's "The Moon is a harsh mistress". I read that a decade ago, but I don't connect what you are saying with it. But again, you don't explain why it's "globally optimal".For that matter, you haven't explained WHAT "globally optimal" means. You seem to be assuming a lot today.Further, while it's hard to understand, "globally optimal" sounds like it mightassume a compromise, in contrast to equality. Why should I accept something which you call "globally optimal" if someting else is better for ME, personally? just because AP is better that Status Quo, does not mean that AP is>the ideal to strive toward. Unfortunately, that sounds like a truism. If you agree that AP is better than the Status Quo, then unless you (or somebody else) can establish somethingis better than AP, you don't establish that AP shouldn't be the goal, at least temporarily.
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... But you don't explain why it's "inefficient". You only allege it.
fair enough. my assertion relies on the fact that conflict is destructive in some manner, and cooperation is productive in some manner. sometimes, you must defeat bad ideas for the good to thrive: this is the essence of our age: competition for survival of the fittest. yet there is a limit to what competition can achieve. --- consider that competition can never reach a solution at which full cooperation will arrive. thus, if competition defines our current age, which leads to resource exhaustion, cooperation leads to abundance for all, given sufficient technology, and a better age above our cruel origins. --- this is the great divide: do we carry on with cruelty? or do we strive for cooperation?
What is "rational anarchy"? On Google-search, I see a reference to Heinlein's "The Moon is a harsh mistress". I read that a decade ago, but I don't connect what you are saying with it.
it is an ideal: a state of society in educated awareness and cohesion, without centralized authority, working toward a collective best end.
But again, you don't explain why it's "globally optimal".For that matter, you haven't explained WHAT "globally optimal" means.
it is globally optimal because there is only cooperation. no destruction competition. by definition, the efforts of the losers are "waste".
You seem to be assuming a lot today.Further, while it's hard to understand, "globally optimal" sounds like it might assume a compromise, in contrast to equality. Why should I accept something which you call "globally optimal" if someting else is better for ME, personally?
bingo. the crux! a globally cooperative society would chose this, because it is best for all, which is best for you. (and not in a "I'm going to kill you, to save humanity" triviality sense.) we're getting at the meat of the argument, which is a system and technology and society which leverages technology in a productive manner - rational anarchy - instead of a destructive manner - AP selective killing.
Unfortunately, that sounds like a truism. If you agree that AP is better than the Status Quo, then unless you (or somebody else) can establish somethingis better than AP, you don't establish that AP shouldn't be the goal, at least temporarily.
i am aiming for something better. i don't expect to convince anyone until the argument is formed. i also reserve the right to proclaim that better options exist. this is my beef with AP: that we may see it a solution, in near term, missing a greener pasture at the distance... best regards,
From: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... But you don't explain why it's "inefficient". You only allege it.
fair enough. my assertion relies on the fact that conflict is destructive in some manner, What "conflict"? In what way "destructive"? Which "manner"? " and cooperation is productive in some manner. What "cooperation"? In what way "productive"? Which "manner"?
sometimes, you must defeat bad ideas for the good to thrive: You don't explain how to "defeat bad ideas". And I am not aware how you must "defeat" a bad idea. Is there a standard for such "defeat"?
this is the essence of our age: competition for survival of the fittest. yet there is a limit to what competition can achieve. Doesn't sound like you're saying anything useful.
--- consider that competition can never reach a solution at which full cooperation will arrive. I disagree.
thus, if competition defines our current age,which leads to resource exhaustion, I disagree with your premise.
cooperation leads to abundance for all, given sufficient technology, I disagree with your premise. and a better age above our cruel origins. I disagree with your vague conclusion.
--- this is the great divide: do we carry on with cruelty? Who is "we"?
or do we strive for cooperation? By whose definition?
What is "rational anarchy"? On Google-search, I see a reference to Heinlein's "The Moon is a harsh mistress". I read that a decade ago, but I don't connect what you are saying with it.
it is an ideal: a state of society in educated awareness and cohesion, without centralized authority, working toward a collective best end. Sounds like a contradiction in terms. "A collective best end" implies that theinterest of individuals is ignored. People don't work that way; never have.AP will cause "without centralized authority", but nobody needs to "work towards a collective best end."
But again, you don't explain why it's "globally optimal".For that matter, you haven't explained WHAT "globally optimal" means.
it is globally optimal because there is only cooperation. no destruction competition. I disagree that "competition" causes any undesireable "destruction".
by definition, the efforts of the losers are "waste". I disagree. Simple example: Communist 'logic' would tell us that we would only need 3-5 kinds of cell phones or cordless phones. It certainly sounds likehaving the world manufacture 50-100 kinds is wasteful and inefficient. But the reality is that we get far better products, and selection of products, even in the face of this seeming "waste". Evidently, your assumptions are quite false.
You seem to be assuming a lot today.Further, while it's hard to understand, "globally optimal" sounds like it might assume a compromise, in contrast to equality. Why should I accept something which you call "globally optimal" if someting else is better for ME, personally?
bingo. the crux!
a globally cooperative society would chose this, because it is best for all, which is best for you. Wacky 'logic'. (and not in a "I'm going to kill you, to save humanity" triviality sense.) Wacky 'logic'.
we're getting at the meat of the argument, which is a system and technology and society which leverages technology in a productive manner - rational anarchy - instead of a destructive manner - AP selective killing. Wacky 'logic'.
Unfortunately, that sounds like a truism. If you agree that AP is better than the Status Quo, then unless you (or somebody else) can establish somethingis better than AP, you don't establish that AP shouldn't be the goal, at least temporarily. i am aiming for something better. You haven't found it yet. Keep trying. You are just spewing vague ideas.
i don't expect to convince anyone until the argument is formed. i also reserve the right to proclaim that better options exist. You can "proclaim" anything you like. That won't make it true, however.
this is my beef with AP: that we may see it a solution, in near term, missing a greener pasture at the distance... Have you ever heard the saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good"? One wayto sabotage the search for 'the good' is to claim that there is 'the perfect' still out theresomewhere. You seem to be doing that.
Jim Bell
On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
... What "conflict"? In what way "destructive"?
we can pick a resource for discussion. water you drink, perhaps. [ and municipal water supply or well on your propery, we can find a commons to conflict or cooperate over. ]
You don't explain how to "defeat bad ideas".
a bad idea is considered, and rejected for a better alternative. [ this necessitates a common ground of discourse, terminology. ]
consider that competition can never reach a solution at which full cooperation will arrive. I disagree.
if the only solutions are through conflict in your world view, you're right. nothing left to discuss...
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
From: Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> To: coderman <coderman@gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 PM Subject: Re: The Black List
But I approached the problem differently: I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy someone else's death. But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people might want to pay $1 each for that outcome. That amounts to a crowdsourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. And I also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything which we call wrong in today's society. Anybody who is trying to argue against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flawed status quo, even if they don't realize that. I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchistic society. Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I'd already solved it.
Claiming that an assassination market solves the defense problem in Friedman's utilitarian and general anarchocapitalism is very bold. You have a betting pool for killing people.>You don't have any sort of collection of funds that protect a society from something like everyday crime, you've merely got a hit market. To the extent that crime presents a problem that needs to be solved, there is no reason that private organization can't exist to detect crime, and then prove it to an excellent standard. Those who commit crimecan be presented with a choice: make your victim whole, and/or accept preventive confinement, or earn a bounty on an AP-type system. Your idea is effectively crowdsourcing, which in many ways could be very useful for Friedman's hard problem. However, while remaining purely voluntary in nature, what differentiates your assassination market from:
- taxes (compulsory collection of small amounts from many) Taxes are, as you pointed out, compulsory. Donating to an AP-type system won't be compulsory. But potential criminals won't know who is donating, andwho is not donating. And it will probably not matter: Most people, out of a sense of self-protection, will donate to such crime-prevention and detection funds,because they will amount to a deterrent against all criminals. - hits (a few wealthy individuals take out a contract)
Moreover, you still are facing the 'free-rider' problem, where, "if everybody else in my community payed a dollar to kill this guy, why should I have to do so, it is only -1 dollar. I don't think 'free riders' will be much of a problem. For one thing, I think the system (AP) will be vastly more efficient than the convention crimeprotection system. (in the same way that military defense could be 100xcheaper.
I am neither trying to discredit nor insult your ideas; just curious if you could expound upon how an assassination market fits into defense in a free society.
This video might help set the context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy ' - - Intelemetry I hope that someday, in the future, technology will advance to the point where transcripts to 55-minute videos can be automatically generated. I can alreadysee that Murphy speaks rapidly, but I could easily read the transcript 10x as fast as he can speak it. By pointing to that video, you are effectively asking me to employ 55 minutes of my life on something which you say will merely "set the context". Murphy and his business partner, Robert Vroman, engaged in a public three-part debate about AP. Vroman wote two, Murphy wrote one. Bob Vroman http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ape , http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks-moderated@minder.net/msg02068.
and of Bob Murphy, www.anti-state.com/murphy/murphy17.html (although the Murphy essay might not be available, except as an archive on the Wayback Machine.) as well as by R. Sukumaran http://www.idsa.in/strategicanalysis/CryptologyDigitalAssassinationand
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 jim bell: html theTerrorismFuturesMarket_rsukumaran_0404.html.
Jim, astute and concise reply as always. If you're looking for a shorter tract on some of Murphy's work you should consult this: http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Essays-Market-Anarchy/dp/1479258377 The Mises Institute is good about making their work freely available as well.
Further, consider
https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content /anarchism/game-theory-anarchism-ii-how-information-can-smash-the-state. md
series -- anti-state.com
I think the idea of assassination politics distills to a very insightful approach to defense and crowdsourcing in general. However, from the vantage point of anarchism one crucial aspect worthy of consideration is that of self autonomy and negative liberty. You don't have "freedom to," but rather "freedom from" the state. With assassination politics there is an argument that this is retributive justice regarding compulsory theft of assets (and property, in certain instances). However, I strongly urge you to consider that the taking of a life is serious business. Consider this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3208907/The-Ashley-Madison-suici de-Texas-police-chief-takes-life-just-days-email-leaked-cheating-website - -hack.html There are lesser means that can be employed and crowdfunded which could strongly dis-incentivize working for the state (such as invasion of privacy, which is arguably retributive with respect to Rothbard's notion of justice). The problem with David Friedman is that he approaches Anarchocapitalism like a problem in physics. It will just end up a certain way because market forces will make things happen. However, one thing that he does not take into consideration (for instance, where he differs from the Independent Institute and the Mises Institute) is the notion of individual freedom and the right of neither the state nor any external actor to violate your personal autonomy (which you can extrapolate from your body/mind and unto you property). - From the Friedmanite perspective, citizenry will kill the state, the state will kill back, and the process will reach an equilibrium. While that might work in the 'market sense,' to reach that state requires pretty grotesque action to take place. That is the problem with Utilitarian Anarchocapitalism. There is no real consideration of actual human rights, it is a market driven theory on how society could potentially function in the absence of the state. Nothing more.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNedWAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+h4sL/R0Y3Q/JRqFaMZ80i4x0Y/ib /77CTpSkR1F9Fo+A3G+POs/lpXzw1fss22+qfV3xg+li5O+1ipYynG18Vz7jXTiJ lDgQmVp+V63wkhUpHwmfv+V9YIXVpLMxrOPlpjUgchwNAKPxtALcqQMHeCGBAL0r WRsrzxTbj4kWZfWWRTcCtwS4xRWE2GOxr53f/Jqp2sc5kDh3wLUhfVkSzbwf1TL2 Ah19q51aZCmVgLuI5BUKeVqVXcM9u7kNDX4C3atd2a1uN+/1YWorGcLz/pv6pvpk moUwtd2WL1t/XYxUzCSBSuUIb0p2DHOqMj51r/ywoJvG2sXk+YPaQuiMAiQHjhB8 KrPgNQLfcJYF0o24wVpSs9pg5qxGC578Ve9Y3uNbpHEgIINcDq4y+D1oEmrTHZOu xoA8Mir15C9Kk3jE6kqWz1Zeqe135BcCMYHz7OrS9a3+OH6SYrcU9TRG4lGZAwcw 9xRH5QQgX+ABZx0rM6zypWYW/ftQXHn3JKUGQLH/1A== =DNQo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
This video might help set the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy '
- - Intelemetry I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/murphy/... I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites. My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status quo. But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of governments. http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-million-pe... Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government employees? The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite! " Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites." Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should disregard those governments' official desires. Jim Bell
This might have been already answered...somewhere...so excuse my lazyness for not looking it up. The AP thing takes a few things for granted. One of the things taken for granted seems to be that, if some kind of prize is put on A's head, somebody is going to kill A to collect the prize. Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say, ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the list? Who's going to finish them off? And what is the contractor going to do with his money once the job is done? Deposit it on a numbered account in switzerland? Buy an island? Donate it to charity? Or?
On 10/31/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say, ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the list? Who's going to finish them off?
this is exactly the beauty of AP: when a nation sized crowd gets pissed, not even the shield of nation state power can protect you! in other words, APs solution is to ramp the incentive sky high, and let nature find a way...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:06:08 -0700 coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/31/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say, ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the list? Who's going to finish them off?
this is exactly the beauty of AP: when a nation sized crowd gets pissed, not even the shield of nation state power can protect you!
in other words, APs solution is to ramp the incentive sky high, and let nature find a way...
Yes, you just confirmed what I consider a correct guess on my part. There isn't much proof that 'enough incentives' will get the job done. You just restated a baseless assertion. "ramp the incentive sky high" I call bullshit.
On 11/1/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... There isn't much proof that 'enough incentives' will get the job done. You just restated a baseless assertion.
just because we've never had AP does not mean that it won't work. there are plenty of cases where those with privileged access and lifetime reputation betray it for roughly millions or less, in USD. the rest, assuming AP exists, becomes probabilities and patience.
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:42:32 -0700 coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/1/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... There isn't much proof that 'enough incentives' will get the job done. You just restated a baseless assertion.
just because we've never had AP does not mean that it won't work.
Sure. But I never said "It won't work because it's new". I'm just asking for more details.
there are plenty of cases where those with privileged access and lifetime reputation betray it for roughly millions or less, in USD.
It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree? You are saying that those targets will be taken down by 'traitors'? That can happen sometimes but I don't think it would be common. Also notice that 'traitors' a la snowden don't do it for money. And he didn't kill anybody either (and he's no anarchist anyway) Yet you are saying that a 'modern', big, very well funded government can be overthrown by buying off some of its members with a few million dollars?
the rest, assuming AP exists, becomes probabilities and patience.
On 11/1/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree?
no, this is movie plot thinking. you need someone with access and opportunity.
You are saying that those targets will be taken down by 'traitors'? That can happen sometimes but I don't think it would be common.
most traitors are traitors for money, not ideology.
Also notice that 'traitors' a la snowden don't do it for money. And he didn't kill anybody either (and he's no anarchist anyway)
Snowden is not a typical traitor, as discussed.
Yet you are saying that a 'modern', big, very well funded government can be overthrown by buying off some of its members with a few million dollars?
i don't think AP would destroy government - that's a separate question. i do think AP would successfully murder even the most high profile targets, though.
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:16:15 -0700 coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/1/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree?
no, this is movie plot thinking.
Ha. That's a funny remark because I was just thinking that AP does sound like literary fiction so far.
you need someone with access and opportunity.
*And* willing to do it. See, two different things are getting mixed. One thing is a market for hitmen who theoretically can kill any target (hollywood-like...). IF the hitmen exist, then in principle you can hire them and get the job done. A rather different thing is the assumption that you can turn members of the official mafia into 'traitors' by offering them enough money.
You are saying that those targets will be taken down by 'traitors'? That can happen sometimes but I don't think it would be common.
most traitors are traitors for money, not ideology.
Evidence? Regardless, the issue is how many traitors you can buy. Even if 9 out of 10 do it for money, what matters is the absolute number of potential traitors, not the ratio.
Also notice that 'traitors' a la snowden don't do it for money. And he didn't kill anybody either (and he's no anarchist anyway)
Snowden is not a typical traitor, as discussed.
Right. And there isn't an AP system in place right now so I cant really compare. I take my mentioning him back.
Yet you are saying that a 'modern', big, very well funded government can be overthrown by buying off some of its members with a few million dollars?
i don't think AP would destroy government - that's a separate question.
i do think AP would successfully murder even the most high profile targets, though.
On 11/01/2015 01:52 PM, Juan wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:16:15 -0700 coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/1/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree?
no, this is movie plot thinking.
Ha. That's a funny remark because I was just thinking that AP does sound like literary fiction so far.
Well, the idea has been kicked around for 20 years, and little has come of it. Maybe that's because it's still unworkable. How are people going to bid anonymously? Is Tor good enough for that? A viable AP market would draw TLAs to Tor like dogs to shit. And they would cooperate. Also, how would bidders pay anonymously when targets were killed? There is no inherently anonymous payment system that's widely available. Maybe anonymized Bitcoin, after a few mixes through Tor, would make the nut. Or maybe creative carding. Maybe y'all reading this could manage it. But what about the clueless masses who might be motivated to bid? I don't know whether AP would take down governments. Hell, I'm not even sure whether that would be prudent. But I am certain that many bidders would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise.
On 11/1/15, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
... I don't know whether AP would take down governments. Hell, I'm not even sure whether that would be prudent. But I am certain that many bidders would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise.
my bid for my own life went unfulfilled, sadly. :/ https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/tx/d4f89ca19c9ce0e9bcf1fc47d8223e4bee07ad2693... / https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/address/1P6yannm6Rx9kkMH5LxmAsi1GdZ4JZG73T [ death prediction lottery RIP vfwavrwava@yandex.com ] ah well, maybe one day?
On 11/01/2015 07:09 PM, coderman wrote:
On 11/1/15, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
... I don't know whether AP would take down governments. Hell, I'm not even sure whether that would be prudent. But I am certain that many bidders would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise.
my bid for my own life went unfulfilled, sadly. :/ https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/tx/d4f89ca19c9ce0e9bcf1fc47d8223e4bee07ad2693... / https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/address/1P6yannm6Rx9kkMH5LxmAsi1GdZ4JZG73T [ death prediction lottery RIP vfwavrwava@yandex.com ]
ah well, maybe one day?
Maybe you didn't advertise it well enough ;)
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
would draw TLAs to Tor like dogs to shit. And they would cooperate.
Also, how would bidders pay anonymously when targets were killed? There
But I am certain that many bidders would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise.
Is not the goal of AP to take out the mark, or at least to estimate the perceived value in doing so. So whatever happens before or after that to the bidder and contractor is irrelavent, they evaluated their risks and endeavoured to conduct a mutually beneficial transaction. If their evaluation of risk was not sound, that's their problem. But for the transactions that do execute, the mark is still dead and both goals have been met. As Jim alluded, there is often a free speech component to any non-executed prediction. And a market can be any number of markets containing any number of offers, including 1 offer in each of 10 markets. Some markets will see user traffic, others will be shutdown. Maybe some will be purely p2p with reputation of makers and takers floating in signed metadata. A side goal of AP is to put enough money into it such that people do research, develop and deply a suitable marketplace that will withstand investigation. Right now there are at least 10 viable darknet markets offering a variety of sex, drugs, money, contraband, kopimi, and guns... and business is booming by all accounts. Actions up to and including murder aren't that much distant from those in terms of what politicians claim to be repulsed at and "at war" with. In fact, the penalties for those now are often more than for being a party to killing someone.
On 11/01/2015 12:52 PM, coderman wrote:
rather different thing is the assumption that you can turn members of the official mafia into 'traitors' by offering them enough money.
I dunno. The Italian mob worked with the OSS/CIA to set up an intel network in Italy and Europe during WWII in exchange for Lucky Luciano's release and exile. Pretty sure the Maf was also involved in Operation Gladio, a NATO 'stay-behind' anti-communist army tasked with destabilizing Italian (Belgian, other...) civil societies with various kinds of acts including terrorism, designed to convince people in those countries they'd be safer hanging with Western Industrial Capitalism than moving towards socialism. That's traitorous RR
thats right Gladio On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 11/01/2015 12:52 PM, coderman wrote:
rather different thing is the assumption that you can turn members of the official mafia into 'traitors' by offering them enough money.
I dunno. The Italian mob worked with the OSS/CIA to set up an intel network in Italy and Europe during WWII in exchange for Lucky Luciano's release and exile. Pretty sure the Maf was also involved in Operation Gladio, a NATO 'stay-behind' anti-communist army tasked with destabilizing Italian (Belgian, other...) civil societies with various kinds of acts including terrorism, designed to convince people in those countries they'd be safer hanging with Western Industrial Capitalism than moving towards socialism.
That's traitorous
RR
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
From: Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
The AP thing takes a few things for granted. One of the things > taken for granted seems to be that, if some kind of prize is > put on A's head, somebody is going to kill A to collect the prize. That is certainly a possibility.
Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say, > ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important > targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the > list? Who's going to finish them off? Even most of the very important targets are probably not very well protected, 24 hours per day. But if they are inaccessible, their employees could be targeted as well. And their employees will have access to them. And what is the contractor going to do with his money once the job is done? Deposit it on a numbered account in switzerland? Buy an island? Donate it to charity? Or? Whatever he wants to do with it! It's his money, of course. Jim Bell
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 08:12:00 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say, > ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important > targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the > list? Who's going to finish them off?
Even most of the very important targets are probably not very well protected, 24 hours per day. But if they are inaccessible, their employees could be targeted as well.
Yes, but for what purpose? It wouldn't have the same effect as targeting the important people?
And their employees will have access to them.
And they would betray their bosses?
And what is the contractor going to do with his money once the job is done? Deposit it on a numbered account in switzerland? Buy an island? Donate it to charity? Or?
Whatever he wants to do with it! It's his money, of course.
Well, yes =P - But what I was getting at is that it may be difficult or impossible for the guy to spend his money. Maybe it would be easy to 'launder' the money. Or maybe not. Given the current surveillance trends I think the second possibility is more likely possibility.
Jim Bell
On 11/1/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 08:12:00 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
And their employees will have access to them.
And they would betray their bosses?
Burn a boss day hey? Matthew 18 suggests a protocol: a) go (presumably, if safe) to the one who did wrong and ask him to fix it b) if he ignores, go with one or two others to resolve c) if he's really belligerent, go with 12 (as a jury or something, I'm paraphrasing) If we give up our preconditioning of modern demoncratic times, some sort of conflict resolution process is needed, and on principle of enlightened self interest, the first question is "what system would I want for any accuser against me" - but the answer to that might depend on if your conscience is functional and whether your inclination is to good or to evil?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 jim bell:
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
This video might help set the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy '
- - Intelemetry
I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/m urphy/murphy17.html I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites.
I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach. I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc). Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable. I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union. The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state.
My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status quo.
I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda. But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of governments. http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-millio n-people-over-the-last-century.html Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government employees?
The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite!
" Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites."
Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should disregard those governments' official desires. Jim Bell
There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC: https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter ^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNe8EAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+BowL+wYLaykOTh79cRFz50tduoKv eMY6e9jifMCiUrXbr45PLMLqvWiVQtOAjfyfM+EsVW4Cd1FcMaY1HUl95ldjNOjU JRTkLsgMSBubfnGMF9p1kRs2Tx3SIJ8MYmErcY+r6eE4YHkDyZqiEeCNUmSbEBGe mDnlIRXUZjPUYs8V4r718oI1UOgwVD6eu4iG+Kvg22Dwn3iSlAmMfjqr4rMyeFhb UkGXyXCgYTJVP91dtXAR5J4UwmJcm3MSDJg/f0us7xV+YXdtaeiwrxPyP5fd1N3P 8tqlJ5fAN/nWfONeTtpXHWzghT/KOKFcwC3lO2CCjistsD7JKGkulIE1vdFbjW58 vP8uXi2esbKOekJdiP2bf+zjVm97Iisn8washQ0WXtyzzixIdl29hnC7G45hfyfO IIAIVAbGBtWdNJPzMqRHFzzZPHPLk3Zbc4gV47iYhw/zBELXS7emIw1QGf9kkTKR ITrGXWmvmKNK87XIkyJJqT3+/hG38D3wOH8PpcE5fw== =KPje -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and anarcho capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any any any structure impossing its structure on the people and fucking capitalism is a structure so anarco capitalists should rename themselves the dude talks about that the community the community would not allow this or that if someone stole your tv the community would not allow you to just go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need an intermediary ... but this is monolithic thinking ... which is a pit in theories ... they strangle themselves with coffinesque solutions instead of being base theory ++++++++++ so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform these actions are getting off on https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other drug jim so you dont have to listen to everything so some people get off on the murder but we have to already know that the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all of this On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
jim bell:
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
This video might help set the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy '
- - Intelemetry
I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/m urphy/murphy17.html I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites.
I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach.
I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc).
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable.
I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union.
The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state.
My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status quo.
I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda.
But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of governments. http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-millio n-people-over-the-last-century.html Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government employees?
The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite!
" Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites."
Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should disregard those governments' official desires. Jim Bell
There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC:
https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter
^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNe8EAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+BowL+wYLaykOTh79cRFz50tduoKv eMY6e9jifMCiUrXbr45PLMLqvWiVQtOAjfyfM+EsVW4Cd1FcMaY1HUl95ldjNOjU JRTkLsgMSBubfnGMF9p1kRs2Tx3SIJ8MYmErcY+r6eE4YHkDyZqiEeCNUmSbEBGe mDnlIRXUZjPUYs8V4r718oI1UOgwVD6eu4iG+Kvg22Dwn3iSlAmMfjqr4rMyeFhb UkGXyXCgYTJVP91dtXAR5J4UwmJcm3MSDJg/f0us7xV+YXdtaeiwrxPyP5fd1N3P 8tqlJ5fAN/nWfONeTtpXHWzghT/KOKFcwC3lO2CCjistsD7JKGkulIE1vdFbjW58 vP8uXi2esbKOekJdiP2bf+zjVm97Iisn8washQ0WXtyzzixIdl29hnC7G45hfyfO IIAIVAbGBtWdNJPzMqRHFzzZPHPLk3Zbc4gV47iYhw/zBELXS7emIw1QGf9kkTKR ITrGXWmvmKNK87XIkyJJqT3+/hG38D3wOH8PpcE5fw== =KPje -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
sorry the video is of a friend of michael hastings that is a real person and talks about murder/war shit in the real he was in afghanistan with michael i think On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and anarcho capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any any any structure impossing its structure on the people and fucking capitalism is a structure so anarco capitalists should rename themselves
the dude talks about that the community the community would not allow this or that if someone stole your tv the community would not allow you to just go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need an intermediary ... but this is monolithic thinking ... which is a pit in theories ... they strangle themselves with coffinesque solutions instead of being base theory
++++++++++
so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform these actions are getting off on
https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s
i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other drug jim so you dont have to listen to everything
so some people get off on the murder
but we have to already know that
the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered
all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people
there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all of this
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
jim bell:
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
This video might help set the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy '
- - Intelemetry
I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/m urphy/murphy17.html <http://t.sidekickopen27.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XZs1qg55-N5w02yWRbBJdW8q-c7s56dVZzf3drS6C02?t=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20060208094246%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.anti-state.com%2Fmurphy%2Fmurphy17.html&si=5459291358625792&pi=f7347b6f-ecd9-48e6-c7d8-d6f5296ee855> I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites.
I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach.
I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc).
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable.
I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union.
The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state.
My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status quo.
I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda.
But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of governments. http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-millio n-people-over-the-last-century.html <http://t.sidekickopen27.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XZs1qg55-N5w02yWRbBJdW8q-c7s56dVZzf3drS6C02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.evil.news%2F2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-million-people-over-the-last-century.html&si=5459291358625792&pi=f7347b6f-ecd9-48e6-c7d8-d6f5296ee855> Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government employees?
The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite!
" Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites."
Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should disregard those governments' official desires. Jim Bell
There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC:
https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter
^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNe8EAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+BowL+wYLaykOTh79cRFz50tduoKv eMY6e9jifMCiUrXbr45PLMLqvWiVQtOAjfyfM+EsVW4Cd1FcMaY1HUl95ldjNOjU JRTkLsgMSBubfnGMF9p1kRs2Tx3SIJ8MYmErcY+r6eE4YHkDyZqiEeCNUmSbEBGe mDnlIRXUZjPUYs8V4r718oI1UOgwVD6eu4iG+Kvg22Dwn3iSlAmMfjqr4rMyeFhb UkGXyXCgYTJVP91dtXAR5J4UwmJcm3MSDJg/f0us7xV+YXdtaeiwrxPyP5fd1N3P 8tqlJ5fAN/nWfONeTtpXHWzghT/KOKFcwC3lO2CCjistsD7JKGkulIE1vdFbjW58 vP8uXi2esbKOekJdiP2bf+zjVm97Iisn8washQ0WXtyzzixIdl29hnC7G45hfyfO IIAIVAbGBtWdNJPzMqRHFzzZPHPLk3Zbc4gV47iYhw/zBELXS7emIw1QGf9kkTKR ITrGXWmvmKNK87XIkyJJqT3+/hG38D3wOH8PpcE5fw== =KPje -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187
Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Cari Machet:
also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and anarcho capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any any any structure impossing its structure on the people and fucking capitalism is a structure so anarco capitalists should rename themselves
the dude talks about that the community the community would not allow this or that if someone stole your tv the community would not allow you to just go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need an intermediary ... but this is monolithic thinking ... which is a pit in theories ... they strangle themselves with coffinesque solutions instead of being base theory
++++++++++
so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform these actions are getting off on
There are many private mercenaries that don't work for a state. Organized crime and corporations use private security forces. In fact, in situations where there is a state but law enforcement does not exist gangs effectively perform this function. You adhere to a group wherein your membership is an arbitration agreement that includes protection in exchange for whatever it is you must do. In certain ethnic areas private law enforcement is carried out on an ad-hoc, hierarchical community level wherein citizens don't trust the police (e.g. "illegal" immigrant enclaves). This is not too far from a privatization of defense.
https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s
i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other drug jim so you dont have to listen to everything
so some people get off on the murder
but we have to already know that
the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered
all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people
there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all of this
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org> wrote:
jim bell:
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
This video might help set the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy '
- - Intelemetry
I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.co
m/m
urphy/murphy17.html
I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites.
I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach.
I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc).
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable.
I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union.
The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state.
My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status quo.
I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda.
But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of governments. http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-mill io
n-people-over-the-last-century.html
Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government employees?
The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite!
" Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites."
Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should disregard those governments' official desires. Jim Bell
There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC:
https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter
^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNhNEAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+Bb8MAJ01J3GOJEs441T1YDsXVqWY scEhGbu3HBqI8T3x0wD9FTbDQOnu3LLy9Z3mJFUcOaNc/xUpKtfkijzDS1CzbxbD eBSaTlefokI9naGlnTSXh0Yy1s1zEp/ep/Ss8r14lOMryiRVTeDxGHI9LGTkKLS3 Zht53ILI5OVXtDtkvsmJ8mtaUeNiXeTQVb3lv4xawnRP1bKbGa8EoyM0mQ+JWmE9 7ghLELP0j2XTJxqHQCXSdE7w+f91dTPs6u7HZKZr/Qln1YmLZbYig5MXpFzjS3z4 K4iemi6J9O8lN2WdLw5YwqgUcVfbpmj9iISINknsXBsAXkyGDdHxb0OF9RNb2a+X Fe61GpnKIm2JPBjfFXBdOo2XD9ptm+AjXlpINzupLzyVCWS3IVxaDwgDWUMsQnn8 QA44wQCFuLSDpcn4FOyts3k9xddoV6bu6TNf2Enswam7+IY1qtLYadoMSpCLStPh AR/IiqMIgp/0rSAJ2v5jCWUINNOPeyj1/pQ+IDHKWw== =z90v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
protection of community is a different mindset but yay you can have the blood thirsty murder lover fucker there too of course state dont like check points by community ... UK use to do shootings at community checkpoints and pretend they were a protestant or vis versa a catholic just to fuck with the community security effect all of this points to why i think there needs to be many theories developed around solution in all sectors of society not just one base theory to solve one issue then we are all good and we live in nirvana.... work on everything you can all the time work on mindset ... so restorative justice is like that it tears at the underlying mindset of getting off on murder and blood lust... mediation shit ...calling out people that take power instead of standing there mouth open drooling this is being taught now in primary schools On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:27 PM, intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Cari Machet:
also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and anarcho capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any any any structure impossing its structure on the people and fucking capitalism is a structure so anarco capitalists should rename themselves
the dude talks about that the community the community would not allow this or that if someone stole your tv the community would not allow you to just go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need an intermediary ... but this is monolithic thinking ... which is a pit in theories ... they strangle themselves with coffinesque solutions instead of being base theory
++++++++++
so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform these actions are getting off on
There are many private mercenaries that don't work for a state. Organized crime and corporations use private security forces. In fact, in situations where there is a state but law enforcement does not exist gangs effectively perform this function. You adhere to a group wherein your membership is an arbitration agreement that includes protection in exchange for whatever it is you must do.
In certain ethnic areas private law enforcement is carried out on an ad-hoc, hierarchical community level wherein citizens don't trust the police (e.g. "illegal" immigrant enclaves). This is not too far from a privatization of defense.
https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s
i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other drug jim so you dont have to listen to everything
so some people get off on the murder
but we have to already know that
the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered
all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people
there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all of this
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org> wrote:
jim bell:
From: intelemetry <intelemetry@openmailbox.org>
This video might help set the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy '
- - Intelemetry
I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.co
m/m
urphy/murphy17.html
I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites.
I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach.
I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc).
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable.
I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union.
The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state.
My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status quo.
I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda.
But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of governments. http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-mill io
n-people-over-the-last-century.html
Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government employees?
The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite!
" Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who even visited AP sites."
Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should disregard those governments' official desires. Jim Bell
There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC:
https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter
^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNhNEAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+Bb8MAJ01J3GOJEs441T1YDsXVqWY scEhGbu3HBqI8T3x0wD9FTbDQOnu3LLy9Z3mJFUcOaNc/xUpKtfkijzDS1CzbxbD eBSaTlefokI9naGlnTSXh0Yy1s1zEp/ep/Ss8r14lOMryiRVTeDxGHI9LGTkKLS3 Zht53ILI5OVXtDtkvsmJ8mtaUeNiXeTQVb3lv4xawnRP1bKbGa8EoyM0mQ+JWmE9 7ghLELP0j2XTJxqHQCXSdE7w+f91dTPs6u7HZKZr/Qln1YmLZbYig5MXpFzjS3z4 K4iemi6J9O8lN2WdLw5YwqgUcVfbpmj9iISINknsXBsAXkyGDdHxb0OF9RNb2a+X Fe61GpnKIm2JPBjfFXBdOo2XD9ptm+AjXlpINzupLzyVCWS3IVxaDwgDWUMsQnn8 QA44wQCFuLSDpcn4FOyts3k9xddoV6bu6TNf2Enswam7+IY1qtLYadoMSpCLStPh AR/IiqMIgp/0rSAJ2v5jCWUINNOPeyj1/pQ+IDHKWw== =z90v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On 11/1/15, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
state dont like check points by community ... UK use to do shootings at community checkpoints and pretend they were a protestant or vis versa a catholic just to fuck with the community security effect
Are you able to provide something more for the curious please?
all of this points to why i think there needs to be many theories developed around solution in all sectors of society not just one base theory to solve one issue then we are all good and we live in nirvana.... work on everything you can all the time
I agree with this. We can hypothesize how 'natural monopolies/ utilities' would work - how do we manage a transition? And given that most people in a "democracy" almost always acquiesce to an evil dominating imposition by the state (eg parking fine), how could political anarchy be better? Does power not tend to coalesce/ centralise? J Paul Getty - distribute the worlds wealth (he meant money I think) equally to everyone, and in 90 days most of it will be back where it was before you started the exercise (I'm paraphrasing of course).
work on mindset ... so restorative justice is like that it tears at the underlying mindset of getting off on murder and blood lust... mediation shit ...calling out people that take power instead of standing there mouth open drooling
It's the "mouth open drooling" part that I have always maintained is our greatest problem, and why I believe that our education system has been intentionally deteriorated to a schooling and baby sitting (baby creating) system. Just another aspect that needs fixing/ redesigning/ reworking/ major change.
this is being taught now in primary schools
huh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9Z7ybqCPbI this panarama show is very good actually in general sometimes the bbc does work this is all about the british death squads in northern ireland +++++++++++ this is stuff about the mediation being taught in schools now http://umaine.edu/peace/files/2011/01/PEER_MEDIATION_FINAL_11.pdf http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept92/vol50/num01/T... from fucking 1994 http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-2/mediation.htm masters degree in mediation in germany http://www.peacemediation.de/training_and_teaching/masters_program_in_mediat... german primary edu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany Some schools also have special mediators who are student volunteers trained to resolve conflicts between their classmates or younger students. i just know about it cause i know students there and they think adults are crazy with all their conflicts all the time ... as there are easy solutions they know On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On 11/1/15, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
state dont like check points by community ... UK use to do shootings at community checkpoints and pretend they were a protestant or vis versa a catholic just to fuck with the community security effect
Are you able to provide something more for the curious please?
all of this points to why i think there needs to be many theories developed around solution in all sectors of society not just one base theory to solve one issue then we are all good and we live in nirvana.... work on everything you can all the time
I agree with this. We can hypothesize how 'natural monopolies/ utilities' would work - how do we manage a transition? And given that most people in a "democracy" almost always acquiesce to an evil dominating imposition by the state (eg parking fine), how could political anarchy be better? Does power not tend to coalesce/ centralise? J Paul Getty - distribute the worlds wealth (he meant money I think) equally to everyone, and in 90 days most of it will be back where it was before you started the exercise (I'm paraphrasing of course).
work on mindset ... so restorative justice is like that it tears at the underlying mindset of getting off on murder and blood lust... mediation shit ...calling out people that take power instead of standing there mouth open drooling
It's the "mouth open drooling" part that I have always maintained is our greatest problem, and why I believe that our education system has been intentionally deteriorated to a schooling and baby sitting (baby creating) system. Just another aspect that needs fixing/ redesigning/ reworking/ major change.
this is being taught now in primary schools
huh?
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On 11/1/15, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote: ..
so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform these actions are getting off on .. the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered
all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people
there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all of this
Thank you Cari! This is to me so important. You have put into words something that was nagging in my mind on this topic. This is a nice planet. don't want to lead to fucking it up for millenia.
zenaan it is a beyond beautiful planet... life is exquisite art is life it is my pleasure beyond my pleasure really to have words flow thru me ... ideas are just in the air i just catch them for a moment and put the words on the computer i need to work on how to shift out of the blood lust though ... need to figure out daily functionality to do that as it is too pervasive cant sit one day without doing something against it ... all ideas for that are welcomed - you are all so smart ya know ....even the ones i argue with are smart On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform
actions are getting off on .. the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or
On 11/1/15, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote: .. these that
is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered
all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people
there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all of this
Thank you Cari! This is to me so important. You have put into words something that was nagging in my mind on this topic.
This is a nice planet. don't want to lead to fucking it up for millenia.
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
participants (9)
-
Cari Machet -
coderman -
grarpamp -
intelemetry -
jim bell -
Juan -
Mirimir -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness