The BlackList

[intelemetry]

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



jim bell:
> 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
> 
>> 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-----
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=dXb8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----