Assassination Politics

Fri Jan 26 17:15:56 PST 1996

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Notice that I've added two areas to the list above, 
nwlibertarians at teleport.com and dnowch2 at teleport.com ; the areas on which 
"Assassination Politics" is commonly discussed.  I've also sent a copy to 
Cypherpunks at toad.com, for its obviously ob crypto (encryption, digital cash, 
etc) aspects.

At 10:09 AM 1/24/96 -0500, Robert Vincent wrote:
>So what's to keep the powers-that-be from successfully assassinating the 
>would-be directors of any such organization

Technically, "nothing."  Nothing unusual, anyway.  Except that if  you 
follow my logic carefully, you will see that I believe that the developments 
I describe are tantamount to being technologically "inevitable."  The mere 
existence of good encryption, Internet-type worldwide networking, and 
untraceable digital cash will "automatically" allow/cause such systems to
arise.  
And development of such an organization ANYWHERE, plus the Internet, means 
that it can operate EVERYWHERE.

Further, here is my speculation:  Let's assume I have this Internet soapbox, 
and I manage to convince you and your friends  (and their friends, etc) that:

1.  My system, if allowed to work, will replace the current political system 
with one that is far more "attractive," on the average.  In other words, it 
will do approximately what I claim it will:  Eliminate all governments, 
militaries, taxes, yet maintain a reasonable degree of freedom for all 
citizens, rich and poor, strong and weak, etc.  It'll even punish criminals.
Real criminals, like murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.

Furthermore, that it won't have any _likely_ "horror scenarios" associated 
with it (such as the ones some people (wrongly) think exist), or at least it 
will be no worse than the status quo.   In fact, it will be a VAST 
improvement over the status quo.  It will produce, I believe, an essentially 
perfectly libertarian (and _stably_ anarchistic, yet it has protections for 
rights.) society.

and

2.  The system is just about technologically inevitable, given the technical 
developments which already exist and I forsee.

and

3.  The only thing that's preventing such a system from being adopted is the 
fact that this system would eliminate the control of the current political 
system by those few who now control it.

Segue to near the end of the 1964 movie, Dr. Strangelove, where the title 
character (the scientific advisor to the President) is asked by the 
President whether enormous buried cobalt bombs can be 
built, and controlled by computer to detonate automatically on 
nuclear attack.  He said, "It requires only the _will_ to do it."

Similarly, I would argue that the implementation and rollout of an 
"Assassination Politics" scenario is almost even today within the technical 
capability in common usage, lacking only the common acceptance of "digital 
cash".  At some point, "it requires only the _will_ to do it."

At that point, I argue that we will have a scenario reminiscent of the day 
the East German citizens  broke down the Berlin Wall.  Enough people wanted 
it done, and nobody was going to stand up and try to stop it.  It HAPPENED.  
It was "illegal" by the standards of East Germany that day, but it HAPPENED.

The odd thing, however, is that despite my publicizing the idea of 
"Assassination Politics" to what by now has probably been thousands of 
people and (statistically) dozens of lawyers, I haven't heard a serious, 
defensible argument that the implementation of this system would even be 
ILLEGAL by black-letter US law.

True, any underlying killings might be, and probably would be, murder.  But 
the system as I described it is quite carefully structured to prevent anyone 
but the self-motivated murderer from doing the murder, knowing that it will 
occur in the future, or (for that matter) knowing for sure that it actually 
WAS a murder, or let alone who did it, even after it occurs.  While I won't 
claim I've "thought of everything," I _will_ say that I think I've 
demonstrated that current law would be vastly inadequate to deal with such a 
scenario.

I suspect that a lawyer familiar with the concept of "Assassination 
Politics" and who follows proposed legislation in Congress ought to scan for 
laws designed to preclude the development of such a system.  Whether or not 
this could even be accomplished is in serious question, since it would 
probably require banning all remnants of freedom in this country.  In other 
words, we are coming to a fork in the road:  One choice leads to perfect 
freedom, the other to absolute tyranny.  Well, at least you have been warned.

> and squelching any public mention of it? 

Well, YOU heard about it, didn't you, and I'm not dead.  (yet?)  True, the 
system doesn't actually exist and operate, but that's merely a matter of 
implementation, not of technical capability.  Microsoft could write the 
whole thing into Windows 97 as a "Killer App."   (This joke was to somebody 
else's credit, sigh!  Can't recollect who... Maybe Tim May?)

(I now believe that the US government's decision to develop the Internet was 
a case of slow-motion governmental suicide.  The trigger was pulled in the 
1960's, and the death will occur about 40 years later. "Jim Bell" (myself) 
will be one of the first to notice the "bullet" flying towards its mark.  
For making that observation, I will be severely criticized, and probably 
even BLAMED.)

In a sense, it is arguable that I am worthy of neither the credit nor the blame.

>Don't forget that the real controllers have the press and 
>the media in their pocket, not just your Congressman!  I predict that if 
>anybody actually does set up an organization to reward "predictors", that 
>person or person will be quickly and quietly put out of business, whether 
>by legal means or otherwise.

Follow the technological development of "nyms" on Cypherpunks.  It is 
possible that this system could be set up, totally anonymously, and perhaps 
even in a totally decentralized way, so that (for example) 1000 anonymous 
individuals (anonymous even from each other) run it according to agreed-upon 
rules.

>Which is too bad.  It's a beautiful idea, otherwise.

Hey!  Glad you think so!  One guy called it "atrocious."  Some people would 
have you believe that I'm a raving lunatic.  (Well, technically I can't 
prove to you I'm NOT a "raving lunatic," but at least to you, believing in this 
system isn't evidence to the contrary.)

Another guy said that if this system were ever implemented, I would have 
become "the Antichrist."  Even though I'm an atheist myself, I know enough 
about religion in general, and Christianity in particular, to realize that 
statement wasn't intended as a complement.

Jim Bell

Klaatu Burada Nikto.    Remember this.   It'll become important...soon.