Josh F Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 This is wild: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination-market-creator-whos-crowdfunding-murder-with-bitcoins/ The short is that someone invented a system using bitcoin where you can anonymously crowd-fund a bounty on the life of a politician. The would be assassin can claim the entire bounty by using bitcoin to hash in a note about the time of death of the victim. The highest target: Ben Bernanke. Could this change the world?
TheRobin Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Well, it sounds great in theory, but I assume this will (or can be) used as just another excuse to invade internet privacy
Bulbasaur Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Does it sound great? If the government teaches us anything, it's that introducing violence into pursuit of change has opposite of the intended effect. Historically, political assassinations have generally led to consolidations of government power. I imagine if anything this will just facilitate the hostility toward bitcoin and toward anarchy and anarchists in general.
wdiaz03 Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Too risky relying on the samurai to hand in the money. He can claim he payed the reward and keep it. the real assassin will have no way of collecting. If anyone on his list were to turn up dead It'll be interesting to see how long it will take the NSA to track this guy down, then confiscate all the accounts.
Josh F Posted December 10, 2013 Author Posted December 10, 2013 Does it sound great? If the government teaches us anything, it's that introducing violence into pursuit of change has opposite of the intended effect. Historically, political assassinations have generally led to consolidations of government power. I imagine if anything this will just facilitate the hostility toward bitcoin and toward anarchy and anarchists in general. Introducing violence adds a very unpredictable element, not that is creates the opposite effect, but that its effect can't be predicted. This might be the stateless solution to preventing the rise of another state. My question though... I believe Israel has a similar policy on dealing with people who take over the heads of terrorist organizations. The Israeli government assassinates them, the idea being that it discourages people from rising to the top. I couldn't comment on the results of this policy, only that Israel doesn't seem to have stopped terrorism with it. Now, as a community I think we know better than to say the assassin is the one introducing the violence. However, this almost sounds like a stop gap, like Mutually Assured Destruction. Too risky relying on the samurai to hand in the money. He can claim he payed the reward and keep it. the real assassin will have no way of collecting. If anyone on his list were to turn up dead It'll be interesting to see how long it will take the NSA to track this guy down, then confiscate all the accounts. Yeah very interesting.
Eh Steve Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Assassination and Anarchism don't blend well. Don't really think this merits serious discussion. Bernanke is just one guy within a corrupt system, assassinations never solve problems.
TheRobin Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Assassination and anarchy don't blend well? I'd say quite the opposite is true. Assassinations are by far the most cost-effective way to prevent warlords and evil gangs from taking over in a free society (should that even be necessary of course).The main benefit for evil people within statism is that they can avoid the consequences of their actions. So presidents get to start wars and invade other countries and know nothing will come back to hurt them. Assassinations make clear statement that it DOES come back almost the moment they'd want to start their invation/war. So imo the best prevention there is.But yeah, unless there's an understanding of the rthics of the situation, killing state officials is completely pointless for the most part, especially if it's not bound to any condition (like someone saying they're gonna kill the president (hey NSA ) IF he'd invade their country or so.. but "merely" assassinate them cause he's Pres)
Josh F Posted December 11, 2013 Author Posted December 11, 2013 Yeah I mean talk about an inexpensive way to keep a government from returning in a stateless society. I think it is interesting to discuss, though I would never ever ever put money into something like that.
Marcus Clarke Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Assassination might work in a free society to help keep statist societies from attacking free societies. However, it can not work in a statist society because another person will always take the place of the ruler. There will only be no rulers when the majority of people want no rulers. Basically, this "service" is entirely set up to take away your money from something that is effective to something that is not effective. We will not live to see the free society. Our children will not live to see the free society. This does not mean that we should not do the things that are necessary to lay the foundation for the free society. It does mean that we have to find satisfaction with every small victory over illusion, and it does also mean that we should spend our resources on people who specialize in advocating the end of violence against children.
nathanm Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 A bounty!? We could all land in the clinker for this!
Josh F Posted December 11, 2013 Author Posted December 11, 2013 A bounty!? We could all land in the clinker for this! lol, I'm living up to my stupid username with this post. Great feedback everyone, thanks!
Recommended Posts