Assasination Politics - Frequently Asked Questions

juan juan.g71 at
Sat Dec 22 17:04:27 PST 2018

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:33:13 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at> wrote:

> I think I've addressed this already.  I've explained that I believe there should be 'competing' AP-type organizations, some of which have rules which prohibit what most people would label "unjustified" killing.  Others, perhaps a much smaller number of organizations, would have somewhat less (fewer??) scruples. 
>  (Are 'scruples' quantized? 

	I don't think the question makes sense. It's not a matter of scruples but a matter of legtimacy. At any rate, the bottom line is that AP organizations can be libertarian or completely rogue. (or anything inbetween)

> The latter could be, and I think would be, more expensive.  That, and what I believe will be a much-smaller number of people who would contribute to a given "hit", would make it much more difficult (i.e. expensive) 

> Put simply, if you wanted to help kill a well-known politician, your $1 contribution would be combined with perhaps millions of others.   OTOH, if you want to kill a hostile relative, far fewer people would contribute to that outcome.  

	Still, it would be perfectly possible for say, women 'betting' that their husbands wiil have an 'accident'. A woman can 'bet' $20k and then collect $100k in insurance. Net profit $80k. In other words, saying that criminal services will be more expensive is both unfounded and rather irrelavant even if it happens to be true in some cases. 

> >    what if jew-kristians were to put hits on drug dealers, 'pornographers', atheists and the like.  The possibilities for abuse are endless...
> I think I've said in the past that there is nothing that makes impossible a person simply buying a gun and ammunition, walking out the store, and shooting the first person he sees.    Is this POSSIBLE?  Sure.   Is it LIKELY?   No.

	Right. And one reason why that is not likely is because if a guy gets a gun and starts murdering people for fun, he himself would be executed rather fast. On the other hand if an AP system allows people to commit crimes with impunity, then there are more incentives to do so.

>    To be sure, there will still be activities that are likely to inflame some portion of the public.   At least, this is the way things happen today.    

	Yes but today the 'public' or mob doesn't have a means to anonymously lynch people they dislike. 

	Anyway, my speculative conclusion then is : an uncesorable market for killings could  destroy the government(s) AND enable gross violations of the rights of innocent people, both at the same time. 

>                     Jim Bell

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list