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

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#41

Post by hga »

meepmorp wrote: post #27
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…

> 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 a…

Anyone who finds the concept potentially appealing really needs to read up on pre-WWII Japanese politics, where a culture of political assassination, plus a major flaw in their constitutions, couldn't form a government without the Army and Navy's assent/membership, pretty much made the following ugliness inevitable. You really, really don't want to let such a culture develop.

Paul Johnson's Modern Times devotes a chapter to this: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Times-Revised-Edition-Perennial...

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#42

Post by polarix »

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…

The point is deeper than this -- with such a system in place, one must never even attach their real name or address to controversial ideas.

This would allow thought to proceed on pure merit, rather than social proof.

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#43

Post by triplesec »

anthonyb wrote: post #28
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

This is the biggest issue with AP. Where down the line you stop, in assassinating leaders? With what criteria?

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#44

Post by krapp »

polarix wrote: post #42
msandford wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point is deeper than this -- with such a system in place, one must never even attach their real name or address to controversial ideas. This would allow thought to proceed on pure merit, rather than social proof.

But such a system only has the purpose of having people killed for money. There wouldn't be any other ideas discussed, except maybe haggling over whether to use a gun or a knife or maybe anthrax if the price is right.

An assassination program like this more or less defies the concept of 'ideas based on merit.'

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#45

Post by randallsquared »

anthonyb wrote: post #38
msandford wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So immediate threats aren't OK but eventual ones are? I guess I can see how a person might think that way. What if the US had a post-earning tax where the tax collector had to physically come to your house and demand the money that the government said you owed it. And he was armed. And he made the threat of violence personally rather than through a large bureaucracy? Would that change things? Why or why not? Again, n…

I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. The Rule of Law is one of modern societies great inventions, as long as all parties agree to abide by it. When they don't, organised opposition (eg. protests) and negotiation are usually far better at instigating change than randomly shooting back. It's very much an i-win-you-lose mindset, I don't think it's really based much i…

> I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments.

Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face a gun which they did not bring.

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#46

Post by krapp »

randallsquared wrote: post #45
anthonyb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. The Rule of Law is one of modern societies great inventions, as long as all parties agree to abide by it. When they don't, organised opposition (eg. protests) and negotiation are usually far better at instigating change than randomly shooting back. It's very much an i-win-you-lose mindset, I don't think it's really based much i…

> I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face a gun which they did not bring.

Surely the libertarian model amounts to something more productive than "the state will shoot you if you aren't ready to shoot them first?"

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#48

Post by polarix »

krapp wrote: post #44
polarix wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is deeper than this -- with such a system in place, one must never even attach their real name or address to controversial ideas. This would allow thought to proceed on pure merit, rather than social proof.

But such a system only has the purpose of having people killed for money. There wouldn't be any other ideas discussed, except maybe haggling over whether to use a gun or a knife or maybe anthrax if the price is right. An assassination program like this more or less defies the concept of 'ideas based on merit.'

Oh, but the effects would be wide-ranging: if an idea has enough of a likelihood of angering people past some threshold (either lots of people, or a few rich ones), then it will only be reasonable to air that idea under strong pseudonymity.

Participating in this marketplace would be somewhat like voting, except it would have a tangible effect.

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#49

Post by anthonyb »

randallsquared wrote: post #45
anthonyb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. The Rule of Law is one of modern societies great inventions, as long as all parties agree to abide by it. When they don't, organised opposition (eg. protests) and negotiation are usually far better at instigating change than randomly shooting back. It's very much an i-win-you-lose mindset, I don't think it's really based much i…

> I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments. Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face a gun which they did not bring.

Or legal action!

Of course, shooting people over "legal action" sounds crazy, so to make yourself sound better you'd better keep talking about guns.

Edit: Here's a good example of the alternative to shooting people, from Bob Brown, former leader of the Greens here in Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/as-...

a) it works, and b) if you can't find 1000 people who are also willing to come and protest, perhaps your cause isn't that worthwhile?

Re: Assassination Politics (1997)

#50

Post by krapp »

polarix wrote: post #48
krapp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But such a system only has the purpose of having people killed for money. There wouldn't be any other ideas discussed, except maybe haggling over whether to use a gun or a knife or maybe anthrax if the price is right. An assassination program like this more or less defies the concept of 'ideas based on merit.'

Oh, but the effects would be wide-ranging: if an idea has enough of a likelihood of angering people past some threshold (either lots of people, or a few rich ones), then it will only be reasonable to air that idea under strong pseudonymity. Participating in this marketplace would be somewhat like voting, except it would have a tangible effect.

If you're talking about a marketplace of ideas and collective action, fine. I'm all for communication without oppression.

But a marketplace for violence is just as bad or even worse than the implicit violence of the state in my opinion. While I believe that sometimes violence might be necessary to oppose tyranny, I don't know that I trust the 'justness' of a system which presumes anyone employed by the state should find themselves subject to that kind of threat. Eventually (inevitably) it would wind up being used as a tool for political and ethnic genocide. Or petty crime.

Post reply on HN