Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Assassination Politics (1997)

cryptome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#21

Post by anthonyb »

krapp wrote: post #20
anthonyb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that the libertarian solution to someone violating your rights seems to be to violate their rights back in even more spectacular and violent fashion.

It's not really violence if it's the government you're killing, I guess... Though this might not be so much a libertarian solution as an example of the degree to which libertarian ideals can be twisted to achieve the sort of ends they claim to fight against.

"Killing the government" is a euphemism. He's talking about killing government employees who implement things you don't like.

What you're ultimately talking about is terrorism - if you're a government employee, don't do bad things* or we might "predict" your death. The choice they're presenting seems to be either bad, violent actors in government, or bad, violent lynch mobs.

*Where "bad things" might be anything from "invading Iraq" to "free healthcare".

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#22

Post by _delirium »

msandford wrote: post #16
_delirium wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why a marketplace, though? One can already organize resistance against a regime one considers harmful enough to merit violent resistance, via militant groups. They can be right-wing groups like the militia movement or Greece's Golden Dawn, or left-wing groups like the Black Panthers or Germany's Red Army Faction. They do at various times assassinate prosecutors or politicians. An assassination market seems to change…

Yeah all valid points. That's one of the unintended consequences of the system: someone with enough money can short-circuit the "voting" process to get anyone killed. Let me reiterate: There's a very interesting nugget in there. Namely one (possibly of many) ways for ordinary citizens to provide less asymmetric incentives to politicians and bureaucrats. I'm really interested in alternative methods of achieving simila…

Recall elections are one way that's sometimes used to handle the "electee turns around and goes nuts" problem: if enough people petition, an early election is held, so people get another chance to vote on whether they want to keep the representative. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall...

A downside of that is that it can intensify populism, since you are essentially always campaigning, never governing. One person wins, but instead of getting a few years to try their agenda, the opposite party is every day looking for openings to get them booted out of office early. An in-between idea is just the classic impeachment. It can remove someone from office early, but is supposed to be used only for serious breaches of trust or lawlessness, not mere political disagreement. If Obama totally went nuts, Congress could remove him from office, if they weren't also on board.

Overall I think I'm more worried about constant campaigning (and the amplification of political advertising and PACs that entails), so these various measures strike me as more worrying than the problems they try to solve.

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#23

Post by krapp »

anthonyb wrote: post #21
krapp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really violence if it's the government you're killing, I guess... Though this might not be so much a libertarian solution as an example of the degree to which libertarian ideals can be twisted to achieve the sort of ends they claim to fight against.

"Killing the government" is a euphemism. He's talking about killing government employees who implement things you don't like. What you're ultimately talking about is terrorism - if you're a government employee, don't do bad things* or we might "predict" your death. The choice they're presenting seems to be either bad, violent actors in government, or bad, violent lynch mobs. *Where "bad things" might be anything from…

And it's no small leap to extend that to any government employee, to the party, to anyone who votes for the party, to anyone whose politics you just don't agree with...

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#24

Post by [deleted] »

kilroy123 wrote: post #15
dmix wrote: post #6

I first read about "Assassination Markets" in this brilliant book, that delves into the old 90s cypherpunks mailing list (members which included Julian Assange and most likely the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi): http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Kills-Secrets-EmpowerWhistlebl... I still haven't read this full article, mostly just a summary, so here are my rough thoughts: It seems like something straight out of an idealisti…

What's frighting to me, is someone could attempt to build an "Assassination Market" with: tor, bitcoins, and a single website. But I'm skeptical this would really work. Just look the 25 million dollar bounty on Osama bin laden, which no one tried claimed. (That's just reporting him) Maybe, it would work if you didn't go through a government to try to claim your reward, but I'm still skeptical. Still, I think if a "bo…

[deleted]

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#25

Post by AndrewKemendo »

kilroy123 wrote: post #15
dmix wrote: post #6

I first read about "Assassination Markets" in this brilliant book, that delves into the old 90s cypherpunks mailing list (members which included Julian Assange and most likely the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi): http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Kills-Secrets-EmpowerWhistlebl... I still haven't read this full article, mostly just a summary, so here are my rough thoughts: It seems like something straight out of an idealisti…

What's frighting to me, is someone could attempt to build an "Assassination Market" with: tor, bitcoins, and a single website. But I'm skeptical this would really work. Just look the 25 million dollar bounty on Osama bin laden, which no one tried claimed. (That's just reporting him) Maybe, it would work if you didn't go through a government to try to claim your reward, but I'm still skeptical. Still, I think if a "bo…

Not for nothing Gary Brooks Faulkner supposedly "attempted" to assassinate Bin Ladin.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870400980457530...

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#26

Post by msandford »

_delirium wrote: post #22
msandford wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah all valid points. That's one of the unintended consequences of the system: someone with enough money can short-circuit the "voting" process to get anyone killed. Let me reiterate: There's a very interesting nugget in there. Namely one (possibly of many) ways for ordinary citizens to provide less asymmetric incentives to politicians and bureaucrats. I'm really interested in alternative methods of achieving simila…

Recall elections are one way that's sometimes used to handle the "electee turns around and goes nuts" problem: if enough people petition, an early election is held, so people get another chance to vote on whether they want to keep the representative. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall... A downside of that is that it can intensify populism, since you are essentially always campaigni…

Also an excellent point. I'm a libertarian and I'm thoroughly fed up with both parties; neither hold true to their supposed core ideology when faced with the choice to do the right thing or to accrete more power. As such I'm really interested in ways to scare the shit out of politicians in the hope that they'll think LONG and HARD about whether what's being proposed is RIGHT or EXPEDIENT. As such the whole notion has a certain appeal, it's a way to try and curb particularly egregious abuses of power.

For example you might see $50mm worth of bounties on a lot of higher-ups at the NSA for letting this spying-on-innocent-as-well-as-guilty Americans business go on for so long. Those programs might then get shut down, or at the very least those people might retire to very private places immediately.

Possibilities for abuse? Absolutely. Are those abuses worse than what the folks in power are currently doing to us? That all depends on your viewpoint. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on that one because it's really tough to figure out the exact magnitude of the unintended consequences of any change in policy.

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#27

Post by meepmorp »

msandford wrote: post #16
_delirium wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why a marketplace, though? One can already organize resistance against a regime one considers harmful enough to merit violent resistance, via militant groups. They can be right-wing groups like the militia movement or Greece's Golden Dawn, or left-wing groups like the Black Panthers or Germany's Red Army Faction. They do at various times assassinate prosecutors or politicians. An assassination market seems to change…

Yeah all valid points. That's one of the unintended consequences of the system: someone with enough money can short-circuit the "voting" process to get anyone killed. Let me reiterate: There's a very interesting nugget in there. Namely one (possibly of many) ways for ordinary citizens to provide less asymmetric incentives to politicians and bureaucrats. I'm really interested in alternative methods of achieving simila…

> For example the guy after Obama could win by a 90% landslide, then immediately launch an all-out war against Iran, Syria and say Jordan

Or, to turn that around the other way, something happens just after the election which causes 80-90% of the electorate to support an attack on Iran, Syria, and Jordan. The president after Obama, after some consideration and discussion with people in her/his cabinet decides to not attack.

With the threat of death over his/her head, might the president decide to make a decision, not based on deliberation and careful consideration, but just as a way to pander to the public lest s/he get killed. Is that a desirable outcome?

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#28

Post by anthonyb »

cryptome wrote: post #5

Jim Bell is out of prison after 10 years and remains defiant and is posting again on one of his original fora, cypherpunks. The archives has Jim's recent posts: http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/ Subscribe to cpunks: https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks Then there is CJ, Carl Johnson, who was sent to prison for supporting Bell. He is on Twitter among other places, also still promoting AP defiantly: h…

Not just AP, but nuking people you don't like, too: https://twitter.com/pro2rat/status/389410900832038912

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#29

Post by Zigurd »

aidenn0 wrote: post #12

If you and contribute funds to pay an anonymous assassin, you've committed attempted murder. If the anonymous assassin succeeds, you can be tried for murder even if they never locate the assassin.

If your contribution can be traced. Such a system would not be viable without at least, deniability if not outright anonymity.

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#30

Post by krapp »

msandford wrote: post #26
_delirium wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recall elections are one way that's sometimes used to handle the "electee turns around and goes nuts" problem: if enough people petition, an early election is held, so people get another chance to vote on whether they want to keep the representative. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall... A downside of that is that it can intensify populism, since you are essentially always campaigni…

Also an excellent point. I'm a libertarian and I'm thoroughly fed up with both parties; neither hold true to their supposed core ideology when faced with the choice to do the right thing or to accrete more power. As such I'm really interested in ways to scare the shit out of politicians in the hope that they'll think LONG and HARD about whether what's being proposed is RIGHT or EXPEDIENT. As such the whole notion has…

>For example you might see $50mm worth of bounties on a lot of higher-ups at the NSA for letting this spying-on-innocent-as-well-as-guilty Americans business go on for so long. Those programs might then get shut down, or at the very least those people might retire to very private places immediately.

Or you'll get bounties put out on postal workers because the Post Office is secretly reading everyone's mail.

I would submit that out of the pool of people willing to participate in an assassination-for-hire marketplace, few are likely to be reasonable in what they would consider a killing offense.

Post reply on HN