Assassination Politics AP

[jim bell]

 On Sunday, November 17, 2019, 07:24:16 AM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
 
 
 On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 01:38:57 -0500
grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:

> The executor posts the interaction video

    ah yes. That's pretty anonymous...so on the technical side :

>    1) there's no anonymous network
There ought to be.  

 >   2) putting a bounty on someone's head doesn't necessarily mean the target would get killed. The thinking that 'the market' will magically provide any 'service' is just magical thinking. Wishful thinking. 

Apparently you are pretending that you don't realize that an actual "killing" is necessary for AP to do its job.  The real issue is deterrence.  People will indeed change their behavior if to continue it means that they would eventually be killed.  

    3) the list of problems is prolly (a lot) longer. Those two are just off the to of my head.


Since you are probably wrong, maybe you ought to list them

    on the     political side : 

>    tyrannicide is fully legitimate and useful, but the idea that AP is an option for a liberal justice system is sheer nonsense, as illustrasted by Jim's 'idea' of executing thieves.
Interestingly, one episode of Star Trek Next Generation addressed this.  Its legal system recognized only one punishment:  Death.  But the probability of actually enforcing the rules varied.  Wesley trespassed, and the was seen.  

>    At that point Jim invokes voluntary courts,

No, I had that idea DECADES ago.  You just weren't paying attention.  And you cannot understand things well enough to figure out how it would work.
 >while conveniently ignoring that liberals 'invented' liberal anarchy in the 19th century.

Needless to say, you don't explain that statement, or its relevance.

 >Then again, that's the typical modus operandi of advocates of 'intellectual property' - which is actually intelectual theft.

And you go off on yet another tangent of questionable relevance.

 >   It's also quite notable that Jim has flatly  'claimed' that :

 >   "very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work"

Yes, and my tongue was at least partly in my cheek.  B^).Read David Friedman  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman    
and his 1973 book, The Machinery of Freedom, and specifically "The Hard Problem". https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem/   People who claim they want 'anarchy' (many so-called 'anarchists' are merely Communists, socialists, or other types of leftist nuts) probably don't realize that David Friedman stated this problem quite well.   Nobody else found the solution.
Independently  I was aware of that problem, but was unaware of Friedman's existence, his book, or the name "The Hard Problem". In January 1995, I solved the problem.  Using AP, a region run under principles of anarchy can defeat the governments and militaries of conventional nations.  Not only that, I quickly realized that this effect is inevitable:    No government can survive the onslaught of AP donations.  Even the citizens of conventional states can defeat their own government, just as effectively.  
           Jim Bell



  




    
    



    
    
    


  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191117/15a8f124/attachment.txt>