The BlackList

[jim bell]

  From: intelemetry <intelemetry at 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/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.
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-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



  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 16264 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151101/396c578c/attachment-0002.txt>