Balder Ex-Libris - Bell JimReview of books rare and missing2024-03-16T01:56:42+00:00urn:md5:aa728a70505b2fae05796923271581c2DotclearBell Jim - Assassination Politicsurn:md5:1b494da4d5938da1ad1cda98d83b32112013-04-28T21:44:00+01:002013-04-28T20:48:47+01:00balderBell JimConspiracyUnited States <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img2/.Bell_Jim_-_Assassination_Politics_s.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Bell Jim</strong><br />
Title : <strong>Assassination Politics</strong><br />
Year : 1997<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook/Bell_Jim_-_Assassination_Politics.zip">Bell_Jim_-_Assassination_Politics.zip</a><br />
<br />
I've been following the concepts of digital cash and encryption since I read the article in the August 1992 issue of Scientific American on"encrypted signatures." While I've only followed the Digitaliberty area for a few weeks, I can already see a number of points that do (and should!) strongly concern the average savvy individual: 1. How can we translate the freedom afforded by the Internet to ordinary life? 2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom? A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on the question of whether an organization could be set up to legally announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital cash. I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have no information that could help the authorities find the person responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death. It was not my intention to provide such a "tough nut to crack" by arguing the general case, claiming that a person who hires a hit man is not guilty of murder under libertarian principles. Obviously, the problem with the general case is that the victim may be totally innocent under libertarian principles, which would make the killing a crime, leading to the question of whether the person offering the money was himself guilty. On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under libertarian principles. <strong>...</strong></p>