The BlackList

intelemetry intelemetry at openmailbox.org
Sun Nov 1 02:20:06 PST 2015


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

jim bell:
> From: intelemetry <intelemetry at openmailbox.org>
>> From: Cari Machet <carimachet at gmail.com> To: coderman 
>> <coderman at gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks at cpunks.org>; jim
>> bell <jdb10987 at 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/CryptologyDigitalAssassinationand
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
>
> 
https://c4ss.org/content/1157
> 
> 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-----
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=DNQo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list