Assassination Politics

[grarpamp]

https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2018/07/08/assassination-politics/
https://www.thoughtsaloud.com/author/troy/

Assassination Politics
July 8th, 2018 | Author: Troy

Note that I have started a fresh thread for this topic since we are
evidently going to continue debating what I consider a frivolous
topic. But I must do something to attempt to keep my aging brain alive
and this is as good as any I suppose.

Let me begin by illustrating what I consider one fatal flaw in
Jim/Bill’s reasoning using a direct quote from the essay (emphasis
added by me):

    Imagine for a moment that as ordinary citizens were watching the
evening news, they see an act by a government employee or officeholder
that they feel violates their rights, abuses the public’s trust, or
misuses the powers that they feel should be limited…

First, if “they† are watching the evening news, there is an almost
certain probability that “they† are being misled to some extent.

Second, feeling is the result of an emotional reaction, not a
deliberate intellectual review of the facts, including attempts to
verify said facts from multiple sources.

This hardly constitutes the basis of a death sentence.

Now, focus on this very moment in time – a number of Americans who
watch the evening news, feel that President Trump is separating
Hispanic children from their (possible) parents, presumably because
hes does not like children/Hispanics/people in general, and is keeping
them in dog kennel like cages. Never mind that the supporting photos
of children in kennels were taken during the Obama administration.

Would it not then follow that, given your AP proposal, Trump along
with a number of Border Patrol personnel should be assassinated? What
other conclusion could one arrive at? Yet, those who bother to examine
the situation intellectually realize that Trump is merely enforcing
laws duly passed by Congress and also enforced by previous
administrations. Yes, perhaps Trump has added a degree of added vigor
to the enforcement in an attempt to get the Congress off their
collective butts and do something for a change.

IMHO, in the situation under consideration, it is the Congress that
richly deserves every bit of the blame for a sorry situation that has
persisted for years – yet feelings prompted by distortions on the
evening news lead to quite a different conclusion.

You go on to talk about the utility of killing various despots, past
and present, rather than engage in war with the nations they seem to
control. Do you really believe that a few evil people can control a
nation of millions without some level of consent from those millions,
even though that consent may be passive or fear driven? If the only
way to escape the yoke of a tyrant is by assassinating said tyrant,
then, by definition, the United States could never have happened. But
it did happen. And the Constitutional system of government bequeathed
to us by our founders transformed a rag-tag collection of ex-colonies
into the most free, most prosperous and most powerful nation in human
history in the historic blink of an eye. Why not simply revert to the
system they gave us before we became too spoiled to maintain it?

Can you not see why such your AP proposal alarms me​?

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson




19 Responses to “Assassination Politics”

    â—„Daveâ–º says:
    July 8, 2018 at 5:31 pm

        I must do something to attempt to keep my aging brain alive…

    I am somewhat willing to assist you with this worthy endeavor,
Troy; but it will be difficult to take you seriously, if you persist
in labeling this topic frivolous, and categorizing it under humor
rather than debate. Since I contend that it is inevitable, I reckon
the subject infinitely more debatable, than anything one is likely to
see discussed on CNN or MSNBC these days.

        If the only way to escape the yoke of a tyrant is by
assassinating said tyrant, then, by definition, the United States
could never have happened.

    Are you really suggesting that none of the colonial
revolutionaries would have assassinated their tyrant, rather than
fight his army, if that option had been open to them? Why not? Too
“civilized”, perhaps?

        …into the most free, most prosperous and most powerful
nation in human history…

    Free… prosperous… powerful… NATION? Belonging to a nation,
is the antithesis of being free. Troy, you will never be able to take
a discussion of this idea seriously, if you are unable to suspend your
deeply ingrained statist viewpoint, long enough to at least consider
the prospect of truly living a life of Liberty, at peace with your
neighbors and the rest of the world.

        Why not simply revert to the system they gave us…?

    Because it was not Liberty. Limited government is, by default,
limited freedom. Even if it were simple (or even possible) to revert
to it, with or without a bloody civil war, it would only be a matter
of time until it again evolved into tyranny. It could not be
otherwise.

    All arguments against Jim Bell’s Assassination Politics (AP) that
reference any aspect of the us-against-them paradigm, are missing the
point entirely. AP, as first described here two years ago at:
“Eliminating Authority,” is not about divisive politics, or reforming
governments; it is about eliminating them. Remarkably, it appears to
counter every objection anyone has ever made, regarding why a coercive
government is necessary to implement and secure a cooperative society.
I still await anyone who can expose the hidden flaw — in the idea, not
its proponents, and without referencing any deleterious effects it
would have on favored governments. Those are features, not bugs. 😉
â—„Daveâ–º
    0	
    Reply
        Troy says:
        July 9, 2018 at 8:16 am

            Free… prosperous… powerful… NATION? Belonging to a
nation, is the antithesis of being free. Troy, you will never be able
to take a discussion of this idea seriously, if you are unable to
suspend your deeply ingrained statist viewpoint, long enough to at
least consider the prospect of truly living a life of Liberty, at
peace with your neighbors and the rest of the world.

        Dave, I actually consider myself to be one of the freest
people who ever enjoyed this life and I am anything but a statist.
What I consider myself is a realist. Unlike you, I do recognize that
too large a portion of the sheeple, are unwilling and/or unable to
behave like free individuals. To assume that they will somehow see the
light under your anarchist schemes is nothing more than a pipe dream.
I don’t mean to sound overly critical, but you remind me of a
committed socialist who clings to a belief, despite years of actual
evidence that it simply does not work.

        At this point, I think it best to simply declare me a hopeless
case before anyone says something regrettable.

        Troy
        0	
        Reply
            â—„Daveâ–º says:
            July 9, 2018 at 2:33 pm

                I am anything but a statist.

            I, fairly I think, use the broad term ‘statist’ as the
opposite of anarchist. See the discussion in the Wikipedia:

                Statism can take many forms from minarchism to
totalitarianism. Minarchists prefer a minimal state such as a
night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach
of contract and fraud with military, police and courts.[5] Some may
also include fire departments, prisons and other functions.[5] The
welfare state and other moderate levels of statism also exist on the
scale of statism.[6][7] Totalitarians prefer a maximum,
all-encompassing state.[8][9]

            I must note that your surprising advocacy of improved
public schooling (indoctrination) and compulsory national service,
bespeak a support for the coercive state well beyond libertarian
minarchism.

            One can be one of the freest people ever, and still not
have ‘Liberty,’ which is defined as:

                the state of being free within society from oppressive
restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or
political views.

            To me, ‘Liberty’ is simply the absence of ‘Authority’ in
any form. â—„Daveâ–º
            0	
            Reply
            jim says:
            July 9, 2018 at 9:38 pm

            I want to respond to your original comment, but somehow I
cannot find a “reply” button. So, I will respond here.

            You said,
            “First, if “they† are watching the evening news, there
is an almost certain probability that “they† are being misled to
some extent.”

            That’s certainly true. People are being subjected to some
of the truth, and biased truths, and various grades of falsities.

            “Second, feeling is the result of an emotional reaction,
not a deliberate intellectual review of the facts, including attempts
to verify said facts from multiple sources.”

            Yes…

            “This hardly constitutes the basis of a death sentence.”

            But it will act, on average, as a wonderful deterrence to
people who do wrong.

            “Now, focus on this very moment in time – a number of
Americans who watch the evening news, feel that President Trump is
separating Hispanic children from their (possible) parents, presumably
because hes does not like children/Hispanics/people in general, and is
keeping them in dog kennel like cages. Never mind that the supporting
photos of children in kennels were taken during the Obama
administration.
            Would it not then follow that, given your AP proposal,
Trump along with a number of Border Patrol personnel should be
assassinated?”

            As a practical matter, I think each and every employee, of
each and every government, should fear being assassinated. (but, of
course, not to the same degree.) And if they are bothered, they will
quit their jobs and stop doing whatever it is that angers other
people.

            ” What other conclusion could one arrive at?”

            So what?

            ” Yet, those who bother to examine the situation
intellectually realize that Trump is merely enforcing laws duly passed
by Congress and also enforced by previous administrations.”

            That does not make those laws legitimate. Yet, my goal
primarily is not to see ‘them all’ dead: I want to ensure that they
promptly resign.

            ” Yes, perhaps Trump has added a degree of added vigor to
the enforcement in an attempt to get the Congress off their collective
butts and do something for a change.”

            I do not generally object to Trump causing the government
to enforce “the law”: I object to him, and all previous Presidents,
and all current and previous government employees, from doing anything
which violates the NAP (Non Agression principle; or NIOFP,
Non-Initiation of Force Principle).
            I don’t claim that other people, ordinary people, don’t
have different motivations. They can do so. On the average, people
will simply force government employees to resign, and do so quickly.

            “IMHO, in the situation under consideration, it is the
Congress that richly deserves every bit of the blame for a sorry
situation that has persisted for years – yet feelings prompted by
distortions on the evening news lead to quite a different conclusion.”

            Yes, but it won’t take a large percentage of the
population to identify the CORRECT villains, and donate to get rid of
them. 1% of the population should be plenty.

            “You go on to talk about the utility of killing various
despots, past and present, rather than engage in war with the nations
they seem to control.”

            And that’s why it wil work.

            “Do you really believe that a few evil people can control
a nation of millions without some level of consent from those
millions, even though that consent may be passive or fear driven?”

            If anything, I generally conclude that the “other”
nation’s people are even more likely to want to get rid of their
despots, than we would be. Generally, we have found that we get along
well with the populations of former enemies, once the governments that
ruled them (or us!!!) have been eliminated.

            ” If the only way to escape the yoke of a tyrant is by
assassinating said tyrant, then, by definition, the United States
could never have happened. ”

            I didn’t say it was the ONLY way. I said it was, by far,
the most EFFICIENT way. If “we” could have assassinated Saddam Hussein
for $10 million, and assassinated 100 of his successors for $10
million each, that would have been a total of $1 billion. Compared
with that, the US spend about $100 billion/year for over 10 years, or
about $1 trillion dollars.

            Would you rather spend $1 billion, or $1 trillion?

            “But it did happen. And the Constitutional system of
government bequeathed to us by our founders transformed a rag-tag
collection of ex-colonies into the most free, most prosperous and most
powerful nation in human history in the historic blink of an eye. Why
not simply revert to the system they gave us before we became too
spoiled to maintain it?”

            You are implying that is possible. Do you know that’s
true, or are you merely guessing?

            “Can you not see why such your AP proposal alarms me​?”

            I was far more “alarmed” when I thought of it! Eventually,
I realized that it was not merely possible, but in fact inevitable.

            As I said in the AP essay: part 7:

            “As I pointed out in the essay, if I were running one of
the organizations accepting those donations and offering those prizes,
I would selectively list only those targets who I am genuinely
satisfied are guilty of the violation of the “non-aggression
principle.” But as a practical matter, there is no way that I could
stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up and operating under
DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated
anonymously, as I anticipate the “Assassination Politics”-type systems
will be. Thus, I’m forced to accept the reality that I can’t dictate a
“strongly limited” system that would “guarantee” no “unjustified”
deaths: I can merely control my little piece of the earth and not
assist in the abuse of others. I genuinely believe, however, that the
operation of this system would be a vast improvement over the status
quo.

            This, I argue, is somewhat analogous to an argument that
we should be entitled to own firearms, despite the fact that SOME
people will use them wrongly/immorally/illegally. The ownership is a
right even though it may ultimately allow or enable an abuse that you
consider wrong and punishable. I consider the truth of such an
argument to be obvious and correct, and I know you would too.

            I realize that this lacks the crisp certitude of safety
which would be reassuring to the average, “pre-libertarian”
individual. But you are not the “average individual” and I trust that
as long-time libertarians you will recognize rights must exist even
given the hypothetical possibility that somebody may eventually abuse
them.

            I do not know whether I “invented” or “discovered” this
system; perhaps it’s a little of both. I do genuinely believe that
this system, or one like it, is as close to being technologically
inevitable as was the invention of firearms once the material we now
know as “gunpowder” was invented. I think it’s on the way, regardless
of what we do to stop it. Perhaps more than anyone else on the face of
this planet, this notion has filled me, sequentially and then
simultaneously, with awe, astonishment, joy, terror, and finally,
relief.

            Awe, that a system could be produced by a handful of
people that would rid the world of the scourge of war, nuclear
weapons, governments, and taxes. Astonishment, at my realization that
once started, it would cover the entire globe inexorably, erasing
dictatorships both fascistic and communistic, monarchies, and even
so-called “democracies,” which as a general rule today are really just
the facade of government by the special interests. Joy, that it would
eliminate all war, and force the dismantling not only of all nuclear
weapons, but also all militaries, making them not merely redundant but
also considered universally dangerous, leaving their “owners” no
choice but to dismantle them, and in fact no reason to KEEP them!

            Terror, too, because this system may just change almost
EVERYTHING how we think about our current society, and even more for
myself personally, the knowledge that there may some day be a large
body of wealthy people who are thrown off their current positions of
control of the world’s governments, and the very-real possibility that
they may look for a “villain” to blame for their downfall. They will
find one, in me, and at that time they will have the money and (thanks
to me, at least partially) the means to see their revenge. But I would
not have published this essay if I had been unwilling to accept the
risk.

            Finally, relief. Maybe I’m a bit premature to say it, but
I’m satisfied we will be free. I’m convinced there is no alternative.
It may feel like a roller-coaster ride on the way there, but as of
today I think our destination is certain. Please understand, we will
be free.

            Your libertarian friend,”

            [end of long quote]
            +1	
            Reply
    â—„Daveâ–º says:
    July 9, 2018 at 4:37 am

        …illustrating what I consider one fatal flaw…

    Only to a committed statist, not to a liberty-minded anarchist.
Yes, the transition period will likely be rather chaotic, as noisy
political activists of any stripe are winnowed out; but once the AP
paradigm is fully implemented, the nature of “news” will be very
different than the blatant partisan propaganda produced nowadays. News
presenters will need to be extremely careful not to distort the news,
or show any bias whatever, which might engender an emotional reaction
in viewers toward themselves, else they could literally find
themselves in a dead-end career. Personally, I wouldn’t even risk
being famous. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º
    0	
    Reply
        jim says:
        July 25, 2018 at 9:58 am

        I’ve just been alerted, by a posting on the Cypherpunks list,
to an implementation of a new death-prediction market using the
combination of Ethereum and Augur.
        https://www.ccn.com/first-assassination-markets-appear-on-gambling-platform-augur/

        I am not associated with this, and I didn’t learn about it
until yesterday. Nevertheless, for a few years I have been
anticipating such an event. Ethereum is a distributed computer system,
implemented on potentially thousands of individual computers,
potentially all over the world. Augur is a program designed to be run
on Ethereum, a prediction market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur_(software)

        As fellow Cypherpunk Nick Szabo once said:

        http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2015/05/small-game-fallacies.html

        “A sufficiently large market predicting an individual’s death
is also, necessarily, an assassination market, and similarly other
“prediction” markets are also act markets, changing incentives to act
outside that market to bring about the predicted events.”
        0	
        Reply
            Steel Phoenix says:
            August 1, 2018 at 5:25 pm

            The death prediction market is a very interesting concept.
The real issue here is one of traceability and governance. The reason
governments put so much effort into snooping on everything and
maintaining a stranglehold on regulating commerce is the realization
of what can happen if they don’t.

            If someone can really, honestly, come up with an
untraceable way to do open commerce between the masses, then your AP
would be one of the more minor emergent societal shifts. If there’s
one thing I’d put my money on in this though, it’d be that damn near
every nation on the planet will be united in doing whatever it takes
to crush anything like this that looks likely to succeed, along with
anyone associated with it. They’ve likely done so several times
already.
            0	
            Reply
                jim says:
                August 6, 2018 at 11:29 am

                Do a Google search for: ‘ethereum augur assassination’

                A new system just appeared within the last two weeks
to implement an approximation of my AP idea. Only an approximation,
but I expect that the deviations from AP that are currently present
will be corrected within months.
                0	
                Reply
    jim says:
    July 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm

    I’m not ignoring this thread, but I have been very busy in the
last day. I will respond shortly.
    +1	
    Reply
    jim says:
    July 9, 2018 at 2:05 pm

    “since we are evidently going to continue debating what I consider
a frivolous topic.”

    One way to determine how serious you can reasonably be in calling
AP “frivolous”, is to do a google search for ‘”assassination politics”
“jim bell”‘.
    Can you find anybody seriously claiming that AP is “frivolous”? I
certainly cannot, and I have been carefully reading the results of
this search for the last 6 years.
    How “frivolous” can it be? I’ve claimed that it will eliminate
tyrannies, all wars, taxes to support militaries, nuclear weapons,
etc. Sounds improbable, of course, on first reading. But it is
certainly true that if it would work, that would be very important for
the future of society. If that is indeed the case, how can it be
claimed that the AP idea is “frivolous”?

    Dave (correctly) points out something that I anticipated before
writing and publishing the first part of AP: People won’t want to be
“famous”!!! It could be called a very “boring” society.

    Some day, you will realize how astonished I was, long before I
released the AP idea: I discovered something that would, in effect,
“fix” every political problem that I was aware of. I delayed for weeks
writing the essay, trying to figure out what was wrong, where my error
was. I wondered, can I possibly be correct? Naturally, I wanted to
avoid the enormous embarrassment that would presumably occur if I
announced this system, and it was subsequently be identified as
impossible.

    Eventually, I concluded that if AP were somehow flawed, it must be
a very subtle flaw. So I published. 23 years later, I still have seen
no more serious criticism than that by Robert P Murphy, who debated
his (business?) partner Robert Vroman, about AP.
    Google search ‘robert murphy “assassination politics”‘

    See a positive analysis, by R. Sukumaran.
    https://idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_sukumaran_0604.pdf	
    +1	
    Reply
    ClinicalThinker says:
    July 27, 2018 at 2:36 am

        Can you find anybody seriously claiming that AP is “frivolous†?

    Perhaps others have determined any number of other adjectives that
apply to this system. Do you think discussing terminology is worth the
effort?
    If so maybe others do not so they simply pass.

        I’ve claimed that it will eliminate tyrannies, all wars,
taxes to support militaries, nuclear weapons, etc. Sounds improbable,
of course, on first reading. But it is certainly true that if it would
work, that would be very important for the future of society. If that
is indeed the case, how can it be claimed that the AP idea is
“frivolous†?

    Claims are simply that until tested.
    Gathering enough steam to even test the claim is most likely the
biggest issue to over come. If you have ever served on a jury it
becomes evident quickly … to get 12 people to agree on one simple
thing is difficult. Getting a whole nation to go along with a program
is most likely impossible. At which point in waltzes your friendly
dictator and the sheep fall obediently in line.
    Why? Because until pushed to the absolute wall they are not
willing to fight.

    As for “if”?
    My mother use to say “yes IF your aunt had balls she would be your
uncle” … personally I fall into the “if pit” more often than I would
like. After quick analysis I actually prefer “what is” to save time
and energy.
    0	
    Reply
        jim says:
        July 30, 2018 at 10:13 pm

        Well, I suppose you still don’t understand the AP concept.
Fortunately, you have misunderstood in an obvious fashion. You said,

        ” If you have ever served on a jury it becomes evident quickly
… to get 12 people to agree on one simple thing is difficult.
Getting a whole nation to go along with a program is most likely
impossible.”

        One of the most amazing characteristics of the AP concept is
that it isn’t necessary to get more than a tiny fraction of society to
employ it. Certainly not 50%, or even 5%. 20+ years ago, I knew full
well that even as little as 1% of the population employing AP would be
plenty to make it operate, quite well. It would only take those 1% to
purchase the killings of the top 5-6 layers of government bureaucracy
in America. And the rest won’t stick around, because they won’t be
paid, and many of them will be hunted until they submit.

        Now do you understand why you misperceived the AP system?
        0	
        Reply
    clinicalthinker says:
    August 1, 2018 at 8:42 am

        I knew full well that even as little as 1% of the population
employing AP would be plenty to make it operate, quite well.

    Since you know full well (for over 20+ years) it is safe to say
that needed 1% of the population is not interested in your AP for
whatever reason. 😉
    0	
    Reply
        jim says:
        August 4, 2018 at 5:18 pm

        No, a system based on my AP system has not been available
during virtually all of the past 23 years.
        Only within the last two weeks has a system arisen, using the
Ethereum distributed computer program, and the Augur prediction-market
overlay, to implement a credible death-prediction marketplace.
        However, for a few technical reasons, this market, initiated
by the “Forecast Foundation”, won’t work quite like I anticipated in
my AP essay, at least without further modification. But they are
getting very close to a “classic” AP system.
        They need a truly anonymous system for making and collecting
bets, for one thing. Second, the current system seems to make bets
akin to ‘Will this person die by the end of the year’.
        Generally, they will have to change things to a more-precise
prediction, such as ‘Will this person die on September 1, 2018’, or
any other date.
        0	
        Reply
            Steel Phoenix says:
            August 11, 2018 at 5:38 pm

            This is a good opportunity for you. The difficulty in
theories like yours is that you need to be extremely good at
predicting the ramifications in a complex system as everyone’s
behavioral changes alter that system and create a cascade of feedback
loops. You’ve made a prediction that deviations from your theory will
be corrected within months. If things do indeed go that direction it
will work to your credit. If not, then it’s evidence that you’ve
failed to account for something in the system or within human nature.
            +1	
            Reply
                â—„Daveâ–º says:
                August 13, 2018 at 3:11 am

                Way too soon to judge fledgling efforts, Steel. The
vast majority of mankind have not yet even heard of the Dark Web,
Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, or Prediction Markets — much less
understand or trust them. Until enough do trust them to be safely
anonymous, AP will not be a significant threat to the powerful
ensconced behind their Praetorian guards. Not until it becomes too
risky to even be a guard, could the full effect of AP be realized. I
am still convinced that it is ultimately inevitable; but we are
nowhere close to experiencing it. â—„Daveâ–º
                0	
                Reply
    jim says:
    August 4, 2018 at 5:12 pm

    A market based on the Ethereum and Augur platforms has appeared,
implementing a death-prediction marketplace. There has been a very
large amount of publicity in the last week or two.
    I recommend that you do a Google search for ‘Ethereum augur assassination’
    0	
    Reply
    Chris says:
    August 6, 2018 at 7:23 pm

        I knew full well that even as little as 1% of the population
employing AP would be plenty to make it operate, quite well. It would
only take those 1% to purchase the killings of the top 5-6 layers of
government bureaucracy in America.

    Ok I’ve been sitting on the sidelines for this one but seriously?
That’s all I have to say on the subject.
    0	
    Reply
        jim says:
        August 6, 2018 at 11:12 pm

        I guess you don’t realize that this is (or, at least, should
be) a very old debate. I wrote AP in 10 parts, during 1995-96.
Presumably, tens of thousands of people have read it. They have,
therefore, had plenty of time to express any negative opinions of it
that they want.

        You express doubt. Is it my AP essay, or is it just you? I
suggest that you do a google search for: ‘ “assassination politics”
“jim bell” ‘ and find any negative opinions.
        Also, much more recently, some people from the Forecast
Foundation have implemented a death-prediction market on Ethereum and
Augur: google search
        ‘ethereum augur assassination’ to see what people have said in
the last couple of weeks.
        (It’s not exactly like my AP idea; and the details contain
enough differences so it is currently rather de-fanged. But it is a
good start.)

        If you can’t find much against it, the problem is not my
essay. The problem is YOU.