Assassination Politics

grarpamp grarpamp at
Thu Aug 12 21:58:01 PDT 2021

On 6/23/21, jim bell <jdb10987 at> wrote:
> There is an "opportunity cost" to NOT implementing my 'Assassination Politics' 1995 invention.

 Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles
        to Dealing with the Unjust Government
                               Part I and II of II
                                  Walter Block
                       Loyola University New Orleans
Reason Papers 27 (Fall 2004): 113-130.
Reason Papers 28 (Spring 2006): 85-109.

          Late one night in Washington, D.C. a mugger wearing a ski mask
jumped into the path of a well-dressed man and stuck a gun in his ribs.
          "Give me your money!" he demanded.
          Indignant, the affluent man replied, "You can't do this. I'm a United
States Congressman!"
          "In that case," replied the robber, "give me my money!"1

          1. Introduction
          The present paper attempts to trace out the implications of
the libertarian
philosophy for the proper relationship between an inhabitant of a
country, and its
unjust government.
          Part I of this paper includes section 2, in which the stage is set for
answering this challenging question, section 3, in which the essence
of the state is
discussed, section 4, in which libertarian punishment theory is
introduced and the
beginning of section 5, in which the concept of the libertarian
Nuremberg trial is
explored, and in 5a. the assumption that all citizens are guilty of
the crimes of the
unjust state is rejected.
          In Part II of this paper, we begin with section 5b. which
considers the
possibility that all and only minions of the unjust state are guilty
for its crimes, in
a continuation of our libertarian Nuremberg trial analysis, and 5c. introduces
libertarian ruling class theory. Section 6 traces out the proper
relations between
the subjects and the unjust government, section 7 asks if it is ever
legitimate to
disrupt such an institution, and we conclude in section 8.
  The present paper is an academic
study of the implications of the libertarian philosophy. It makes no
threats against
anyone. As the title implies, there is nothing in the present paper
that is inconsistent with
the existence of a just government.
7. Disrupting Government
a. Destruction
b. Seizure
c. Cheating
d. Political assassination
          We have seen that in the libertarian philosophy, the death penalty is
justified for those whose crimes rise to a sufficient degree of
severity. Surely,
there are heads of state whose evil deeds many times eclipse such a level.
Thus, it would altogether be justified to end their lives by violence.
          How many novels have been written with a motif of, What would
have happened had Hitler been assassinated, during different epochs of his
career? There is no doubt that the lives of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao,
Castro, etc. were morally forfeit, that it would have been the highest form of
justice to end them.
          Were there a case in Nazi Germany equivalent to Ruby Ridge or
Waco and the Davidians, then, only those directly responsible for the murder
of innocent civilians would be liable for the death penalty, not their fellow
colleagues in arms.60 It is simply not the case, for example, that all U.S.
servicemen posted in Vietnam were responsible for the My Lai massacre.
This applies only to those who actually pulled the relevant triggers.
And, of course, this also applies to those who gave the orders, or "took
responsibility" for these outrages. The Nuremberg trials quite properly
focused attention on the generals who gave the orders, even in preference to
those closer to the ground who were more directly responsible. If there were a
Nazi German or Soviet Janet Reno who "took responsibility" for an
abomination of this sort, then that person, certainly, would also fall
under this
   See available online at
   Needless to say at this point, we are limiting our focus on
countries such as the
U.S.S.R., North Korea, Cuba, and Nazi Germany. As the U.S. government is not on
this list, the cases in that country are mentioned for illustrative
purposes only.
8. Conclusion
         In my view, in order to answer this conundrum, we need to return to
basic libertarian principles of non-aggression against non-aggressors.

> How many tech people have been victimized by government in ways that would
> never have occurred had an AP-type system been functioning?   Edward
> Snowden. Ross Ulbricht. Now John McAfee.  Phil Zimmermann, author of PGP-1,
> was harassed for a few years. Even, dare I say, myself.
> The Internet has greatly changed the world in the last 25 years because
> people implemented ideas that hardly existed 30 years ago.  Facebook,
> Twitter, Amazon, Google.  Smartphones.  TOR.  Encrypted phones. Dark
> Markets.
> Why not AP?
> Why not implement the one thing that has a good chance of taking down every
> government on the face of the Earth?  No wars, no militaries, no taxes, no
> governments.
> Are those goals any less important than any of the other advances technology
> has brought us?

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list