吉姆·贝尔系统再探

让我再次强调，我既没有知识也没有实现该系统的意愿。我当然不喜欢国家，但我宁愿将精力中心化在建设性而非破坏性的解决方案上。话虽如此，我仍然认为，不久的将来，世界各地的政府都将盯着加密货币枪的枪管，而这篇文章试图解释自上一篇文章以来收到的众多反对意见的原因。

**下一篇文章是自由主义者罗伯特·弗罗曼（Robert Vroman）于2002年撰写的观点文章。弗罗曼以其针对anti-state.com的编辑工作而闻名。为回应“吉姆·贝尔系统”的辩论，“吉姆·贝尔系统的再访问”于2002年8月15日首次在anti-state.com上发布。查看鲍勃·墨菲（Bob Murphy）和亚当·杨（Adam Young）对弗罗曼社论的回应。 Bitcoin.com对Op-ed文章中的任何观点，内容，准确性或质量不承担任何责任。**

我还想指出一些我认为吉姆·贝尔完全不了解的领域。首先，正如他的许多批评家正确指出的那样，他坚持认为美联社以某种方式存在于美国法律体系的一个漏洞中，他只有他知道这一点，这是荒谬的。我毫不怀疑，美联社将以某种方式在“法庭上的日子”中幸存下来，或者即使由于某种不可思议的技术性，美联社是一个合法的企业，也会阻止国家无情地追求它。此外，贝尔对对抗和难的迷恋使我迷惑不解（以他的个人生活为例），并且不认为AP会以牺牲自我为出发点，或者在设计系统时一定要有这种心态是一个好主意。贝尔还高估了普通人长期以来对AP的热情。我仍然有理由相信会有足够的客户，但是他们不会主要是心脏地带的常客Joes，Bell设想他们会看到AP在娱乐方面取得的致命进展。贝尔还对他的发明提出了许多异议，对此有些不满。实际上，我从他的著作中获得的主要东西实际上是系统本身，不一定是他的任何辩解。

我的朋友和商业伙伴鲍勃·墨菲（Bob Murphy）在我们最近关于臭名昭著的暗杀政治概念的专栏作家辩论中，提出了一些反对我的宠物理论的强力论据。我认为，经过仔细检查，他的有见地的问题可以令人满意地得到回答。

此外，亚当·杨（Adam Young）提出了针对AP的经过深入研究的历史分析，我将首先讨论。

杨有三个要点。首先，暗杀过去对于破坏国家无效。其次，暗杀反而会引起政府和公民对无政府主义的强烈反对。第三，鉴于历史尝试的能力相对较差，他不喜欢由草率的AP奖金猎人可能造成附带损害的道德含义。

罗伯特·弗罗曼（Robert Vroman）撰写的意见书“吉姆·贝尔系统再访”于2002年8月15日首次在anti-state.com上发表。

尽管有详尽的研究，但第一点恐怕是完全错误的，因为AP杀死受害者的机制与过去的暗杀活动根本不同。听到少数自杀的思想家开枪杀了一些不幸的贵族，我一点都不感到惊讶。暂时假设AP的基本功能已经实现（稍后我将讨论Murphy的反对意见）。刺客的数量立即从疯狂的政治极端主义者扩展到了世界上可以访问计算机的每个暴力机会主义者。美联社代表着一场真正的针对国家的全面战争，它是由社会的败类组织进行的斗争，并且是由各个政党在政治范围内的不满引起的。一个世纪来发生的十二次暗杀事件肯定不会使任何政治家对他们的职业选择产生任何反省。在过去的50年中，十多次飞机被劫持使我不安，因为看到商务舱的头巾使我感到不安。但是，从逻辑上讲，必须有一个转折点，在这个转折点上，政客想到的最紧迫的统计数字是。美联社将超越这个临界点，历史上的篮子革命者注定要失败。国家当然会以令人讨厌的方式作出反应，但面对无法维持的，支持持续而广泛的进攻的网络，不可避免地，这些行动将无效。

其次，扬格担心美联社会加强对无政府主义者的刻板印象，使之成为19世纪的疯狂轰炸机和20世纪的星巴克纵火犯。然后，这将消除通过激动人心的在线文章赢得我们的思想和心智的任何机会，最糟糕的是，让我们所有人陷入困境。

他没有意识到的是，无政府主义者和AP之间绝对没有任何联系的理由。如果实际上启动了AP，那么我肯定不会公开为它加油（写了这篇文章，我可能甚至没有冒险待在该国的风险）。将要捐赠的人不会出于无政府主义的理由而这样做，他们不会认为自己正在促进无政府主义，也不会建立联系。目标也不会像无政府主义者那样被优先考虑。对于我们的投注（如果有的话），前锋队的规模太小，以至于不会产生重大影响，因此，如果偶尔下注，则从统计学上讲不可能成为我们的一员。刺客也不会是Ancaps，除非你们中的任何一个都没有透露出雇佣军的痕迹。如果一切顺利，管理员将不存在或保持匿名，因此他们的政治角度无关紧要。

在没有无政府主义者主要参与AP的任何核心职能或没有明显支持的情况下，我不明白为什么扬认为政府将AP的崛起归咎于无政府主义者。实际上，如果我的预测是正确的，刺客将主要是现有的犯罪分子。如果国家选择任何替罪羊，那将是黑人好战分子，吸毒者或民兵运动等，即实际攻击他们的人。政府没有谴责无政府主义者的世贸中心，他们指责伊斯兰原教旨主义者。阿拉伯人没有在拘留所里围捕Ancap。尽管无政府主义者常常在事后说出这样的话：“他们来找了他们。”或多或少是我在这里所说的。无政府主义者与AP的关系与他们与WTC的关系一样。遭受国家反应首当其冲的人是暴力的真正煽动者，如果我正确地阅读我的听众，那么你们中的任何一个都不会。你是否特别在意（除了对Statist十字军的普遍厌恶之外），该州是否发起了针对强硬派和专业杀手的十字军东征？

如果非博彩人群在工作中受到AP的排斥，则其愤怒将针对不同的政治利益和无关的暴徒。毫无疑问，纽约州将加大对AP的执法力度，但是，当存在更多直接威胁时，没有理由将无政府主义者单独挑出来。

如果国家确实选择了无政府资本主义者作为一切邪恶的根源，而不是像甘贾斯坦共和国这样的其他任意集团，那么我建议我们所有人离开或准备成为烈士。在某些时候，无论是Ashcroft Inc的定期排程节目，还是AP狂热的极权主义运动，对于非统计人员来说，事情都会变得不舒服。无论哪种情况，我都打算当那个专家。我们总是可以在事后再回来，并在美国的前美国成立相当于Awdal Roads Company的公司。

第三个是附带损害的问题，可以在AP协议中创造性地加以缓解。可以想象得到的AP玩家可能会习惯于等待许多高价目标进入同一座建筑物，然后用卡车轰炸整个结构以索取多个大奖，而不用担心沿途砍掉数十个非目标方式。我相信，这里的道德失败完全是由刺客造成的。但是，我的看法无关紧要，因为如果投注者自己觉得自己有责任感并且有良心，他们不会因为担心投入资金的目标而打赌他们会失去一百个目标不明的同事。因此，AP需要减轻投注者将面临的道德障碍，以便获得最大的收益流。答案是允许使用任意数量的规定启动池。例如，政客Z的奖金可能包含以下规则：

“如果有任何旁观者在目标的死亡中丧生，则90％的奖金将捐赠给他们的近亲。其余的10％将通过常规方法平均分配给正确的猜测者。”

或者这样的措辞将极大地激发刺客在计划其进攻时要谨慎。

通过这种方案，可以为同一目标提供多个奖池，每个奖池都有不同的免责声明。例如，除了Z先生90％的受害者支付池外，对于同一个人，可能没有任何疑问。据推测，奖励所遵循的规则越少，刺客越有机会赢得奖励。因此，投注者必须在有关附带损害的道德观念与看到结果的愿望之间取得平衡。如果他们更关心旁观者，则应该押注规则重池，如果他们更关心消除目标，则押注于开放式池。

除非“以任何方式杀死”池中有大量金钱，否则“谨慎杀死”池的存在应使说客达到尽可能多的离散，从而赢得两个奖项。因此，即使AP投注者总体上嗜血而不是具有社会意识，很少有人有所顾忌，这将对AP玩家的经营方式产生重大影响。实际上，如果AP玩家确实确实为了破坏自己的分数而趋向于肆意破坏，那可能符合人们的最大利益，他们要么紧邻最高目标，要么对旁观者抱有同情心，下注即使他们不想看到目标已死，也只能在受约束的资金池中使用，但除了确保他死后没有其他原因外，刺客将有条件地受到有条件资金池中的钱的激励，并避免平民伤亡。

Young谴责AP的理由是，AP对国家本身使用了国家的战术，即“恐怖”，这是一个应受谴责的缺陷。说AP之所以恐怖是因为它杀死了暴君，就好像说开枪抢劫是恐怖的。嗯，是。如果你足够不幸地生活在帮派居住的社区中，并且因毫不犹豫地射击骚扰者而享有声誉，那么这将有效地“吓””帮派，使你安居乐业，或者“武装社会是有礼貌的社会”学派。

但是，从政治意义上讲，美联社甚至不算是恐怖分子。

恐怖主义的精确政治学定义是“使用武力打击中间目标，以便从最终目标中做出期望的决定的组织”。换句话说，恐怖分子没有能力直接攻击仇恨的政府，因此他炸毁了校车，并发出公开最后通atum，除非政府满足他的一些小要求，否则他将再次发动袭击。逻辑是，政府无力一直保护每辆校车，恐怖分子除了计划下一次炸弹袭击外别无他法，因此他基本上可以随意袭击。他希望政府最终会厌倦这种骚扰和默许，通常是因为民众对政府无效的制止袭击感到愤怒，并且有失去权力的危险，而不是因为对学童的同情。

美联社没有遵循这种模式，主要是因为与恐怖分子不同，美联社确实可以直接打击最终目标，不需要玩带有中间符号的致命游戏。如果有的话，美联社应被描述为游击战。

即使从普遍意义上来说，AP的影响最终变成恐怖分子，这也与Al Quaeda密谋在一个尘土飞扬的沙坑中密谋完全不同。 AP是一个去中心化系统，不同于以往任何时候。如果没有像恐怖组织这样的中央决策机构，美联社光顾的公众所选择的目标将反映出其用户的意识形态。如果AP的用户本身绝大多数都具有恐怖倾向，那么AP仅会明确使用恐怖手段，鉴于AP提供的卓越能力，这是徒劳的行动，浪费金钱。

我希望这是对Young的出色文章的良好回应。继续墨菲先生的作品。

First Murphy首先非常合理地担心AP的可行性，如果系统真的是所有调查人员都无法理解的秘密，那么就没有什么可以阻止AP运营商从所有捐款中掏出钱来的，但声称得奖者已经付款，原因是发现，以及被抢夺的获胜者渴望保持匿名的愿望（因为他可能手上沾满了鲜血）。更好的骗局可能包括人为地创造丰厚的奖金，然后只支付彩池中的实际金额。由于如果同一天有多个赌注，则奖赏将在两个赌注之间平均分配，因此刺客将不知道他是否被骗了，或者实际上是否有足够的其他随机猜测者将他的奖赏稀释为他实际获得的份额。管理员也可以脱颖而出，没有人会更明智。这可能是管理员不诚实地对系统进行游戏以使其充实自己的最佳方法。刺客感到失望，但没有得到背叛的证据；赏金高于正常水平，从而诱使更多易变质的暴徒。

那么这真的有问题吗？在我看来，无论管理员是否诚实，该系统仍然可以按计划正常运行。唯一的问题是让人们首先信任该系统，我将在一分钟内介绍它。

如果我们假设管理员创建AP的目的是为了尽可能多地赚钱，那么他们就不想公然剥夺杀手，因为他们担心不可避免地会在AP级别不高的犯罪人群中脱口而出。 。但是，即使在极端情况下，管理员确实挪用了每一分钱，也没关系。由于很少有参与AP的人实际上会杀死任何人，因此只有极少数的用户会觉得自己被骗了，而更多的人会相信他们物有所值。因此，他们将继续使用该系统。未来的刺客如果不与吉普赛的同事保持联系，也会导致他们相信其他人也得到了报酬。因此，一切仍然有效，金钱流入，奖金累积，目标被淘汰。

如果管理员确实有能力隐藏所有证据并熟练地精炼系统，那么该系统确实将被精炼，如此精巧，以至于尽管被一遍又一遍地腐蚀，它仍将继续运行。唯一的问题是，这种可能性是否会阻止人们开始下注，并说服他们公平地对待他们。

对此有两个答案：AP业务可以使用自身的极端版本??来缓慢地建立信任，以及人们对潜在的欺诈性在线服务具有惊人的高容忍度而被忽视的事实。

为了使自己成为一家可靠的公司，可能不会将AP用作成熟的死亡机器，而是作为一种低调的博彩池系统，使用户可以在体育赛事上投入资金或猜测某些名人将离婚的日子，以及其他琐碎的赌注。卖点是在苛刻的保姆州为用户提供的硬核匿名功能。在这个相对较低的风险阶段，优胜者可以出于自我的考虑而公开宣布，这将证明该系统按预期运行。然后逐渐地，越来越多的险恶赌注将被允许，直到它变得完全不受限制并且AP诞生为止。

正如墨菲（Murphy）预测的那样，这样的系统不会被淘汰，因为目前正在运行着无数的地下博彩组织，而Proto-AP可以说由于其在互联网上的独家存在而可以从执法中更加安全。可靠的加密货币，用户之间没有面对面的联系。即使在中间半病态阶段，其可能的原始AP也不会引起政府的广泛关注。看看这个http://www.stiffs.com。

显然无害，但它没有引起任何法律投诉的事实，很好地表明，在美联储弄清威胁的源头之前，真正的美联社将能够继续进攻。

我仍然认为最好的主意是设计一个甚至在原型阶段都没有公开确定的管理员的自治系统，这是否会随着加密货币学的未来发展而变得可行尚待观察。

即使AP没有麻烦逐步建立客户群，也不一定意味着它将失败。检查在线博彩的情况。在这里，我们有一些人把钱花在游戏上，而“房子”只需更改几行代码就可以完全操纵自己的赔率，除非用户详细记录获胜百分比，否则用户永远不会知道。他们甚至没有像传统的拉斯维加斯赌场那样stake可危，它的电子老虎机也可以做到这一点。如果维加斯一家公司表示其老虎机支出为99％左右，那么没有充分理由相信的人仍然会成千上万的玩家。许多人甚至没有意识到内华达州游戏委员会的存在，而且几乎没人知道他们在执行博彩法规方面做得多么出色。莫名其妙的是，他们也玩这些相同的可疑游戏的在线版本，在那里他们的控制权大大降低，而且离“信誉良好”的实体赌场的信任相去甚远。尽管存在明显的安全漏洞和滥用机会，但在线博彩仍在成千上万的掠夺中。一项指标表明，即使AP在保护赌徒的钱免受管理员的攻击方面并非万无一失，人们仍然会捐赠和预测。也许他们只是愚蠢，也许在线赌场实际上是诚实的。

墨菲还指出，如果政治家诉诸于在NORAD地堡内举行国会，那么有关山内死亡的任何信息都可以由政府轻易操纵，从而破坏对正确猜测者的奖励。我怀疑这将是对付AP的有效对策。如果外界永远不知道美联储会在死刑日期附近撒谎，那么潜在的刺客将不会意识到他们成功的打击可能是徒劳的。然后，他们仍然有发动攻击的动机，直到后来才意识到政府的新闻集团欺骗了他们，使他们失去了应得的奖赏。但是，捐钱的人仍然得到了他们想要的东西：一个死了的政治家，因此将继续捐款。由于刺客可能会死亡，被俘或藏匿，因此他将无法警告任何人政府正在对AP实施信息战。因此，系统按计划继续进行。

另一方面，如果众所周知政府不是可靠的信息来源，那么将由刺客来告知真正的死亡日期。也许从受害者那里获取组织样本，然后匿名转发到独立媒体，或者用某种可证明的日期戳记拍摄杀害镜头。这意味着刺客必须承担额外的风险，即离身体足够近以获取一些证据，或者不小心在磁带上提供了有罪证供的证据，并且还冒着进一步接触媒体的风险。如果AP服务器是自主运行的，则必须对其进行编程，以考虑到误导政府资源与可能的坚果类印记媒体的相对可信度，然后决定实际的死亡日期。如果信息太含糊，则可以根据正确的概率将奖金百分比扩展到临近日期的预测。鉴于这种可能性，刺客会很聪明地拿出高息贷款，并在计划的杀戮日期前后的几天里将自己的全部净资产投入赌注。

该意见文章于2002年8月15日首次发布在anti-state.com上。

鉴于这种发展，刺客将不得不承担更多的风险，因此在抓住机会之前坚持要求更高的奖励。因此，这种政府策略只会起到提高暗杀的均衡价格的作用，就像它们进入掩体本身一样。

马特·苹果（Matt Apple）在论坛上提出了类似的潜在骗局：

“另一个问题是目标可能会伪造他们的死亡。假设我是你的目标强大的人。我只买一天，然后在那一天假死。我拿出了伪造的死亡证明，也许我甚至提供了一些令人毛骨悚然的照片，证明我死了。媒体报道我死了，操作员将面团释放给“猜测者”即我。匿名交易一旦完成，我就会在现场新闻发布会上出现在摄像机上，并宣布邪恶的电子恐怖分子的计划已被挫败，具有讽刺意味的是，我将自己头上的赏金捐赠给了FBI。 。如果这种情况只发生一次，那么所有抽出这些赏金的人都会对系统失去信心。”

如果媒体如此公然地说谎，那么，比起美联社的赌徒，媒体本身就不会相信未来的死亡报道。他们将要在尸检时拍照，或者做任何铁定的证据证明这个家伙真的死了。如果媒体成为国家的公开工具，那么无论是否是AP同情者，仍然会有人要求客观的新闻来源。这种需求将支持世界各地的马特·德拉吉斯（Matt Drudges），他们将找到解决主流霸权问题的方法，而且美联社可以通过编程来忽略统计学家的媒体。

墨菲（Murphy）怀疑我的排水沟军队能否在统治阶级中占便宜。也许他是对的，普通的街头流氓只会成功地杀死州政府无法提供足够安全保障的中层官僚。但是，如果那是真的，那真的是一个至关重要的缺陷吗？如果美联社的投注者意识到金字塔的顶端可以发现难以穿透的导弹筒仓，那么以更高的捐款追逐他们不再具有成本效益。像任何机构一样，国家显然也需要支持人员，即使他们确实选择躲藏在山顶。夏安（Cheyenne），他们仍然至少需要地面上的人打碎头脑并收税，以将灯一直关在洞里。如果AP投注者对多汁的目标超出范围感到沮丧，那么下一个下跌将使它首当其冲。成为一名突击队员可能会很有趣，但是如果突然之间，由于缺乏选择，你成为暗杀市场的优先目标，也许是时候交出徽章并回到职业学校了。此外，如果你是直到现在还没有参与过AP的普通公民，但是突然之间你发现留在地面上的收税员正在以惊人的频率被处决，那么你可能更倾向于博彩来欺骗你的个人回报或根本不付款，并希望AP提供的持续骚扰将阻止收款人注意到你。

如果国家剥夺了其代理人和互动手段，那么它就像被直接砍掉一样无害。

但是，扎根自然会更有效率。如果刺客即使在他们的超级掩体中也能击中政客，则AP最快就能达到最终目标，附带损失也最少。有人争论说，有一个上限，超过这个上限，额外的资金将不再影响发生暗杀的几率。这意味着，如果5亿美元不足以说服任何人抓住目标，那么5B美元可能也不会。对于个人而言可能是这种情况，但对于AP玩家群体而言并非如此。如果雇佣军或恐怖组织对开展像WTC袭击这样的多人行动感兴趣，那么赏金越高，他们可以购买的设备就越多，可以为该计划招募更多的人员。如果说的话，萨达姆·侯赛因（Saddam Hussein）及其所有高级将领和中尉都有数百万美元的悬赏，使他们的掩体成为中心化的巨型赏金，某些准军事部队有可能遭受突袭。全球薪水最高的专业雇佣军受雇于Sandline International，据联合国（他们希望禁止他们的工作线）称，他们的年收入不超过300,000美元。那不是小事，但对于一个用猎枪骑着猎枪追赶非洲游击队谋生的人来说，开车进入巴格达的额外风险可能值得美联社提供的危险赔偿。

得出合理的结论是，如果一个国家的领导人有足够多的高额赏金，他们全都聚集在一个地方，无论防御得如何好，动员军队规模的军队来夺取奖项都是合算的。因此，即使顶级黄铜确实在超级掩体中破洞了，整个民兵团或其他冒险小伙子也可能会a之以鼻，以抢走所有这些数十亿人。

墨菲继续说，美联社的想法会让普通美国人感到恐惧。没错，百分之五十的不愿投票的人可能不会觉得自己的时间花在了通过AP或任何其他方法来影响政治制度上。在另一半中，大多数人可能对这些问题没有浓厚的兴趣，或者对履行公民职责没有任何了解。实际上，无论是哪种观点，都有强烈强烈的热情的那部分人，其中就是AP的人口统计信息。鲍勃未能意识到的是，长期以来，美联社的投注者都不知道他们在做什么。很少有人会自觉地决定他们要摆脱政府并向其投入资金。取而代之的是，他们将向特定的政治家捐款，希望这将有助于推进他们如此深陷其中的任何宠物。想想AP是否早在2000年选举中就位。你是无法接受石油公司GW强奸可怜的盖亚人的绿党吗？给AP一些杂草钱，看看会发生什么。你是一个好孩子吗？他认为生态女性主义者阿尔·戈尔（Al Gore）会将心爱的美国送往罗马帝国的道路吗？推迟购买那辆新卡车，看看美联社能做什么。即使是曾经投票的最专制的混蛋，也可以列举一些与他略有不同的国家统计学家，而不是用错误的方式来him摩他。你是否会怀疑枪支文化会否有机会埋葬一些自由主义者，或者是宗教权利伪君子去掉华盛顿一些不敬虔的同志，还是激进的女权主义者将他们的79美分兑美元兑换成“深南地毯”？而且比私人公民更重要的是，不要伪造公司统计学家，例如Big Ass Subdiesdies Inc，他的袖珍政客可能会输给那些希望通过平台抢劫其他笨蛋的候选人。如果他们在低谷处的现货处于危险之中，他们当然可以承受一百万美元的冲销。

关键是，也许足球妈妈太太没有很强的见解，也永远不会考虑下注，但是有很多人都拥有强烈的政治见解，无论他们是什么样。如果敌人被上涨的AP选项卡吓倒了，那么顽固不强或缺乏道德的人肯定会看到他们增加了获胜的机会。

随着AP在世界上留下自己的印记，沸腾的青蛙效应开始发挥作用。当国家可以预见地增加其执法措施时，更多的人会看到最大的利益是打赌侵害法西斯主义者。

如果你怀疑美国人是否会以相关数量购买该系统，那么我会重复我第一篇文章中墨菲没有提到的观点。我可以承认美国人会拒绝参加比赛，或者美联储会设法保护自己（我没有），但这并不意味着美联社无法奏效。一分钟忽略北约国家。想象一下，AP扎根于尼日利亚等异国风情的地区。我敢打赌，那些做得比较好的白人农民可能会趁机上网，为穆加贝投入一些钱。我还认为，他的一位虐待狂的推销员也许可以算算得出AP奖金比他未来的总收入还要高。第三世界的缺点是缺乏通信基础设施，但是在未来几年中，越来越便宜的电子产品将成为越来越少的障碍。当然，这样做的好处是，领导人对自己的掠夺一无所知，而且经常有人坚决憎恨他们。此外，这些国家还没有较复杂的手段来打击它所不赞成的在线活动，而且人口习惯于政治家强行企图夺取王位。结论是，在赤道以南没有发现许多适用于美国和“文明”世界的潜在反对意见。这可能是该协议的一个有趣的测试平台。如果可行，我们将获得另一个蓬勃发展的索马里。如果失败了，那该国还是一个地狱。

墨菲说，如果美联社运作得足够好以摧毁国家，它将不会就此止步，并将彻底摧毁文明。

他举例说，就像心怀不满的公民可以随意砍掉政客一样，下岗工人也可以砍掉削减成本的前雇主，而个人可以使用的任何辩护措施，对于国家来说都更加容易使用。

两种说法都是错误的。资本家不仅更难被杀死，而且他们可以更轻松地为自己抗击AP。

首先，高级企业主比高级官僚要多得多。 If the AP betting population suddenly gained an all consuming irrational desire to destroy capitalism, it would take a far greater monetary investment against businessmen than politicians, to reach that tipping point where targets are scared away from their positions.

Furthermore, each individual businessman has a much smaller pool of people affected by his decisions. Whereas everyone in the country has to deal with the onerous decrees of the gang in Washington, there are many orders of magnitude fewer people dependent on any given board of directors. Presumably, people who don’t work for that company will not be very inclined to donate money, just as not many Americans would bet against Italian party chiefs. Therefore if the boss does manage to royally piss off the workers, he has much fewer potential bettors against him. These are people who have just lost their source of income (with no welfare to look forward to), and have fewer co-conspirators; they will not be able to produce nearly as enticing bounties as those that public officials will accrue. Keep in mind that people who bet against politicians will be expecting their incomes to rise in the absence of taxes, and thus be more likely to bet higher.

More importantly, the boss knows who they are. If murder is being considered it’s likely due to them being whipped into a fury by some mafia goon union boss. The CEO has much more money at his disposal than an unemployed working class gang. If the union leader agitates his followers to wreak AP based revenge against the CEO, he canít expect to survive either. Anyone who attempts to rally workers to donate their already dwindling cash reserves into pointless vengeance will see his own name rising on the list faster than the CEO’s. The population of an entire state will be large enough that the number of independent people willing to put money against their powerful enemies will not require there be anyone egging them on. In order for smaller interest groups to get their petty revenge, a more coordinated effort is required. Harder still is that the potential victims have a much more conveniently sized body of suspects to watch, compared to politicians who are being targeted by anonymous bettors hiding among millions or billions.

And better still, if the CEO knows whom he fired and who is threatening him, then everyone else knows as well. Would you hire workers who had paid for the assassination of their last employer? If a group of people are fired and their ex-boss is subsequently the target of a fat AP prize, then the entire group will immediately be blacklisted by every other employer. This will provide a huge incentive for individual workers not to toe the union line. Their own reputation and future employability rests on breaking their professional relations civilly or at least without bloodshed.

This situation might instead just serve to impress upon corporations the need to be more careful in their hiring and firing. Only take on workers you really need, and only let them go after careful consideration, and in that event, possibly firing them in smaller batches, rather than mass layoffs. Nevertheless, this may indeed grant more power to workers. We must remember that not all corporations are nobly building wealth in spite of government machinations. Occasionally there really are scumbags who abuse employees, is it such a disaster if such people fear lethal retaliation for their misdeeds?

Another dystopian fear is that AP will support murders between non-famous people over petty frustrations. A scumbag husband wants to get out of a divorce without losing half his wealth, so if he thinks an AP bet worth a quarter of his wealth will get the job done, and does so. An unrelated party kills the wife, scumbag cuts his losses nicely, and the wife is horrendously aggressed against with no chance of justice for her family.

Yes, this is a problem that AP would exacerbate. Choosing your spouse carefully has always been good advice. However, if the wife’s lawyers checked the AP records and found there had been a substantial prize, despite her being a generally well liked individual, they would decide that the “unrelated” killer might not be such a random tragedy after all. And proceed to hire detectives to investigate the ex-husband’s financial records to find a similarly sized hole. Even if he expertly hid all his transactions with encryption and such, the sheer lack of other suspects may lead an arbitration committee to demand the husband prove his innocence. I assume hiring an assassin to initiate aggression will be a crime in Ancapland, but I will let others debate that.

Like the threatened businessman who knows who his potential threats are, in the case of an innocuous unknown being the victim of AP, it will be easy to discover the few or single person that has the motivation to invest the significant money involved. AP, in fact, hurts the chances of the anonymous petty murderer, because the record of one’s prize is public. Anyone who cares to investigate the death of an AP victim can see exactly how much it cost. If the victim had few enemies, it is a simple matter to make the connection between the specific sum and the likely suspects.

Compare this to the case of a low level bureaucrat that Murphy complains is just as vulnerable as the rest of us. He is right in saying that it doesn’t require one big bet, only lots of little bets. However, unless the bureaucrat has managed to piss off all those people placing the little bets, they won’t happen, and he is safe. If the bureaucrat has managed to do so then there’s probably a reason he deserves it. People in the phone book though, probably do not have multitudes of enemies, and thus are safe from all but an exceptionally wealthy psychopath, which I imagine are few and far between.

As for the extortion scheme that Jim Bell rather awkwardly argued against and Bob accurately deflated. The problem there is that the extortionist needs to have enough money of his own to actually place the bet that will attract assassins to his victim.

Fortunately, extortionists usually ply their trade because they don’t have any money. The thug could bluff, but if called on it, he has no bargaining chips in this case, like an old fashioned significant other duct-taped in the basement.

If he actually does have the money and the victim calls his bluff, if he goes through with his threat, he has just spent a shit load of money to kill someone for no reason, and with no return benefit to the extortionist. Not a very profitable scam.

If he does convince the target to play along, he still has to communicate his threat. Such exchanges usually involve some amount of negotiation, or complicated instructions that require communication. The extortionist has to sacrifice a lot of anonymity to pull his crime off. This weakness gives the presumably deep pocketed target plenty of opportunities to spend some of that ransom on private detectives to locate the extortionist. The criminal, in this case, has no human shields to prevent a raid.

The benefit of AP is to allow anonymous assassination contracts, in both the case of the vengeful labor leader, and the crafty extortionist, both lose that shield and leave themselves wide open to retaliation from the greater resources of their chosen enemies.

Another concern mentioned on the forum, is that the State, with its trillions of revenue will actually invest money into AP to off its political opponents. This is a pretty ridiculous proposal.

First of all, the enemies of your enemies are not necessarily your friends. If the State pays an AP assassin to shoot some, say, ultra-lefty criticizing them, are we really that much worse off? In fact, I’d be overjoyed to see politicians taking out AP bets against their opponents for the most part. Why should a democrat spend valuable campaign money on advertising when he could just pay to have his republican opponent drop out of the race permanently? Libertarians are rare enough that I doubt we present a serious enough threat to the State compared to their fellow parasites scrambling for the best suck spot, that theyíd spend money to attack Harry Browne instead of their opponent in the primary who has a real chance of ousting them.

Another problem with this supposed counter strategy is that it’s entirely unnecessary. If the State really wants to kill someone, they already have all the tools; they don’t need to spend money on AP. They could just give Lon Horiuchi his normal paycheck and have him snipe whoever they don’t like. It’s not as if they ever get in trouble for it, even when they aren’t exactly subtle. It doesn’t make sense for them to pay for secrecy they don’t need.

Finally, this plan would backfire, because if the admins are anarchists, and they take a commission, then the State, by playing AP, is directly enriching someone who will re-invest his profit against State targets. Also, the assassins donít care who they kill if the money’s right. The State is also enriching people who will be just as happy to come back and shoot Statists, now with more resources to plan hits too.

Bob concluded by essentially saying that the only way to anarchy is an enormous campaign of rational evangelism. He disapproves of the whirlwind anarchy in Somalia and similar power vacuums. I disagree. I see much more hope for building Ancapland out of the lawless ashes of a Somalia, than of gradually subliming the promised land out of the monolithic State in an America. If AP does prove the alarmists right, and crashes society into an apocalyptic period, (I do not think this is the case) still, such a turn of events will be in the long run an easier path to Ancapism than the intellectual erosion strategy. Murphy points out the example of the bloodless revolutions in Eastern Europe. To which I respond derisively, what revolution? They traded hard-line Russki-communism for soft line Euro-socialism. That’s even more of a joke than American style Republicrat lesser-evilism. Stasi agents all retired on embezzled millions, and now the Great Terror War is inviting domestic espionage back in force all across the Continent. The only revolution that arguably has ever made recognizable progress is the American experiment, which is notable for killing employees of the previous regime by the thousand. If Thomas Jefferson could have emailed digicash to pub brawlers in London, or scheming heirs in Buckingham palace, mad King George’s confused reign would have come to a deserved end before he could futilely attempt to reclaim his rebellious colonies. The point being, in order to get anarchism, I don’t think it’s a question of getting the balls to start sledge hammering the Berlin Wall and hope the Kalishnikov toting border guard respects the numbers presented by all your fellow civil disobeyers. If the only fall out is a different set of thugs being in charge tomorrow, there will, of course, be less State resistance than if the entire thug industry is being called into question. If you want real change as in no more thugs, ever, then the top thugs aren’t going to budge until they have no other choice. The ultimate conclusion then is that if anarchism takes a revolution of the non-bloodless variety, there’s no reason why the fighters shouldn’t be backed up by a means to get at the higher ups. Or better yet, replace the fighters entirely with anonymous assassins and strike exclusively at the heights of power. I know I don’t want to spend much time huddling in trenches.

It undoubtedly sounds arrogant, but I would say that less than 1% of the global population has any concept of how the world (i.e. economics) really works, and of those that do, most have got it horribly wrong. However, when they are forced to suddenly make do for themselves in the absence of authority, as is the case of Somalia, Ancapism spontaneously appears without the presence of wise graduate student mentors preaching Mises. It sure would be nice, naturally, if Bob could go over and warn them off from accepting UN overtures of providing “stable governance”, but the point is they were able to find profitable anarchism on their own, with little to no knowledge of economics and certainly no deep respect for pacifism. All it took was the total destruction of their state, the means notwithstanding. On the other hand, if Murphy expects to get some percentage of the population to side with him before picking up a hammer, he will definitely be taking the long uphill route.

Murphy says that a generation growing up surrounded by headlines full of dead famous people will be disastrous. I fail to see how this could be more damaging than the scores of generations stretching back into history that grew up with headlines of how great the State is. The Somalians lived through generations of war, where life was made quite cheap, yet now they are Africa’s best chance.

If AP worked perfectly and stripped the state away by force in a relatively short time frame, people will be thrust into unfamiliar territory. No doubt in their confusion they will attempt to recreate State functions. These will be torn down again and again. Like a child getting its hand slapped every time it reaches for the hot stove, AP will discipline the world that concentrations of power are bad. In the meantime, if Murphy is able to patiently explain to the bewildered why this is the case, so much the better, but either way, there will be no more State, and they will not have a choice in the matter. Murphy is essentially advocating a Taking Children Seriously approach to enlightening the collectively childlike population. I would rather just smack them until they stop and maybe explain briefly afterward why.

Lastly, it seems clear to me that AP is superior because it is a market process. People exchange value for perceived value. They invest their money for the benefit of removing aggressive people from society. On the other hand, Murphy is advocating an “educate the masses” routine that depends solely on him and his colleague’s dedication to the cause. Not to disparage his efforts, honestly, if anyone can do it, the current crop of anarchist intellectuals has got my fullest confidence. However, I really don’t think anyone is going to listen until they are already living in it. I see the economic wizard’s role as after the fact guides in the new wonderful world of anarchism wrought by AP and other market strategies. Once everyone is stuck in their regional equivalents of Somalia, and wondering what the hell just happened, Bob and co, will step in and say, “Hey, isn’t this great, look how much more we can get done now!”

And people, who have been forced to find alternatives to formerly government offered services, and no longer obey regulations or sacrifice taxable income, will sit up and finally notice Bob, and say, “What the fuck? Why haven’t we always done this? Thanks, Bob!”

Bob will then smile knowingly and go on a world wide lecture tour.

Then from time to time, a few clueless bastards will try to “get all the guns and take over”. AP will mercilessly smite them. Life goes on. In the meantime, I await the next round of objections.

**The article above is an opinion piece written in 2002 by the libertarian author Robert Vroman debating ‘The Jim Bell System’ with Adam Young and Bob Murphy. Vroman is well known for his editorial work writing for anti-state.com. ‘The Jim Bell System Revisited’ first published on anti-state.com on August 15, 2002, in response to ‘The Jim Bell System’**

Op-ed Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any opinions, content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article. This article is a reprint of an archived editorial that was originally published on August 15, 2002.

Image credits: Shutterstock, anti-state.com archive links, Pixabay, Fair Use, and Wiki Commons.

是否要创建自己的安全冷藏纸钱包？检查我们的工具部分。你也可以与我们一起享受最简单的在线购买比特币的方式。下载免费的比特币钱包，然后前往我们的“购买比特币”页面，你可以在此安全地购买BCH和BTC。

—-

编译者/作者：不详

玩币族申明：玩币族作为开放的资讯翻译/分享平台，所提供的所有资讯仅代表作者个人观点，与玩币族平台立场无关，且不构成任何投资理财建议。文章版权归原作者所有。