Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS

At 07:54 PM 6/6/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

>However, recall that Senator Jesse Helms elliptically threatened President
>Clinton by saying that Clinton had probably better be wearing a
>bullet-proof vest if he ever visited Helms' part of the country. (Even the
>Republicans were shocked by this, and, I surmise, cast Helms into the outer
>darkness, as Helms has been keeping a low profile for the past 18 months.)

However, Helms is a politician and he's supposed to be on his best behavior. 
 (What Helms' "best behavior" is, is certainly debateable.)


>* Third, while I am bored with Bell's "single note" point of view ("I have
>a solution for this")

Bored?  You're bored?  Maybe I'm going to have to figure out something to 
spice it up, huh?  By the time everybody is as bored as you are today, then 
I will have won.

>and while I feel his "assassination politics" is both naive

"naive"?  In what way?


> and derivative,

Technically, it wasn't derived from anything directly, or for that matter 
even indirectly.  However, since there's nothing new under the sun, 
similarities exist...with your material as well.  Consider this a bow to 
you, I suppose.

> I don't think his advocacy of AP constitutes a direct threat to anyone. 

Even so, given how much noise we've been hearing out of DC on the subject 
of the Internet, digital cash, and good encryption, I'd say SOMEBODY is 
getting a bit worried.  I haven't exactly been keeping this stuff a secret:  
What do you think their reaction has been, so far?  When those 
government-types start considering various scary scenarios, what do you 
think they are imagining?

>He is not actually setting up the betting markets which
>would make AP more of a reality, 

Not quite yet, anyway.  I'm very disappointed to have waited over a year for 
some slick lawyer to show me how I'd be violating some law or another to do so.

>nor is he calling for the killing of any particilar persons.

I generally don't feel the need to name specific people.  I'm sure each 
reader has his own pet list to fall back on.


>* Fourth, merely discussing alternative political systems is not enough to
>trigger legal action, at least not today.

Wait a year or two.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 6-Jun-96 Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
by jim bell@pacifier.com 
> Not quite yet, anyway.  I'm very disappointed to have waited over a year for 
> some slick lawyer to show me how I'd be violating some law or another
to do so
> .

A few observations:

1. Not many readers of cypherpunks are lawyers
2. Of the laywers who do read cypherpunks, many may not choose to spend
their time researching what laws AP may violate. Or they're not "slick"
lawyers; take your pick.
3. Congress would have no problems passing a law outlawing AP, if one
does not exist already.

-Declan

Regarding TCM's en passant comment that Bell's ideas are derivative:

jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> writes:
>Technically, it wasn't derived from anything directly, or for that matter 
>even indirectly.  However, since there's nothing new under the sun,

Try Gilbert & Sullivan's operetta "Utopia, Ltd."  Assassinating the ruler
was fine and/or encouraged, but the assassin had to take his place.  Not
as close as the Dirty Harry movie, though...

>I generally don't feel the need to name specific people.  I'm sure each 
>reader has his own pet list to fall back on.

Aha.  Gilbert & Sullivan again, this time from the Mikado:  "I've got a
little list of society offenders who might well be under ground, and who
never would be missed."  That's Koko, the Lord High Executioner, casting
about for the next victim.  However, in Mikado assassinating an Heir
Apparent was a punishable offense.  Something <lingering> involving
boiling oil, as I recall.

I noted recently a news article listing about 4 "dead pools" around the
Web, not even counting the Idea Futures death claims.  I don't recall that
any of them used real money.

	Jim Gillogly
	Sterday, 18 Forelithe S.R. 1996, 15:17