吉姆·貝爾系統再探

讓我再次強調，我既沒有知識也沒有實現該系統的意願。我當然不喜歡國家，但我寧願將精力中心化在建設性而非破壞性的解決方案上。話雖如此，我仍然認為，不久的將來，世界各地的政府都將盯著加密貨幣槍的槍管，而這篇文章試圖解釋自上一篇文章以來收到的眾多反對意見的原因。

**下一篇文章是自由主義者羅伯特·弗羅曼（Robert Vroman）於2002年撰寫的觀點文章。弗羅曼以其針對anti-state.com的編輯工作而聞名。為回應「吉姆·貝爾系統」的辯論，「吉姆·貝爾系統的再訪問」於2002年8月15日首次在anti-state.com上發布。查看鮑勃·墨菲（Bob Murphy）和亞當·楊（Adam Young）對弗羅曼社論的回應。 Bitcoin.com對Op-ed文章中的任何觀點，內容，準確性或質量不承擔任何責任。**

我還想指出一些我認為吉姆·貝爾完全不了解的領域。首先，正如他的許多批評家正確指出的那樣，他堅持認為美聯社以某種方式存在於美國法律體系的一個漏洞中，他只有他知道這一點，這是荒謬的。我毫不懷疑，美聯社將以某種方式在「法庭上的日子」中倖存下來，或者即使由於某種不可思議的技術性，美聯社是一個合法的企業，也會阻止國家無情地追求它。此外，貝爾對對抗和難的迷戀使我迷惑不解（以他的個人生活為例），並且不認為AP會以犧牲自我為出發點，或者在設計系統時一定要有這種心態是一個好主意。貝爾還高估了普通人長期以來對AP的熱情。我仍然有理由相信會有足夠的客戶，但是他們不會主要是心臟地帶的常客Joes，Bell設想他們會看到AP在娛樂方面取得的致命進展。貝爾還對他的發明提出了許多異議，對此有些不滿。實際上，我從他的著作中獲得的主要東西實際上是系統本身，不一定是他的任何辯解。

我的朋友和商業夥伴鮑勃·墨菲（Bob Murphy）在我們最近關於臭名昭著的暗殺政治概念的專欄作家辯論中，提出了一些反對我的寵物理論的強力論據。我認為，經過仔細檢查，他的有見地的問題可以令人滿意地得到回答。

此外，亞當·楊（Adam Young）提出了針對AP的經過深入研究的歷史分析，我將首先討論。

楊有三個要點。首先，暗殺過去對於破壞國家無效。其次，暗殺反而會引起政府和公民對無政府主義的強烈反對。第三，鑒於歷史嘗試的能力相對較差，他不喜歡由草率的AP獎金獵人可能造成附帶損害的道德含義。

羅伯特·弗羅曼（Robert Vroman）撰寫的意見書「吉姆·貝爾系統再訪」於2002年8月15日首次在anti-state.com上發表。

儘管有詳盡的研究，但第一點恐怕是完全錯誤的，因為AP殺死受害者的機制與過去的暗殺活動根本不同。聽到少數自殺的思想家開槍殺了一些不幸的貴族，我一點都不感到驚訝。暫時假設AP的基本功能已經實現（稍後我將討論Murphy的反對意見）。刺客的數量立即從瘋狂的政治極端主義者擴展到了世界上可以訪問計算機的每個暴力機會主義者。美聯社代表著一場真正的針對國家的全面戰爭，它是由社會的敗類組織進行的鬥爭，並且是由各個政黨在政治範圍內的不滿引起的。一個世紀來發生的十二次暗殺事件肯定不會使任何政治家對他們的職業選擇產生任何反省。在過去的50年中，十多次飛機被劫持使我不安，因為看到商務艙的頭巾使我感到不安。但是，從邏輯上講，必須有一個轉折點，在這個轉折點上，政客想到的最緊迫的統計數字是。美聯社將超越這個臨界點，歷史上的籃子革命者註定要失敗。國家當然會以令人討厭的方式作出反應，但面對無法維持的，支持持續而廣泛的進攻的網路，不可避免地，這些行動將無效。

其次，揚格擔心美聯社會加強對無政府主義者的刻板印象，使之成為19世紀的瘋狂轟炸機和20世紀的星巴克縱火犯。然後，這將消除通過激動人心的在線文章贏得我們的思想和心智的任何機會，最糟糕的是，讓我們所有人陷入困境。

他沒有意識到的是，無政府主義者和AP之間絕對沒有任何聯繫的理由。如果實際上啟動了AP，那麼我肯定不會公開為它加油（寫了這篇文章，我可能甚至沒有冒險待在該國的風險）。將要捐贈的人不會出於無政府主義的理由而這樣做，他們不會認為自己正在促進無政府主義，也不會建立聯繫。目標也不會像無政府主義者那樣被優先考慮。對於我們的投注（如果有的話），前鋒隊的規模太小，以至於不會產生重大影響，因此，如果偶爾下注，則從統計學上講不可能成為我們的一員。刺客也不會是Ancaps，除非你們中的任何一個都沒有透露出僱傭軍的痕迹。如果一切順利，管理員將不存在或保持匿名，因此他們的政治角度無關緊要。

在沒有無政府主義者主要參與AP的任何核心職能或沒有明顯支持的情況下，我不明白為什麼揚認為政府將AP的崛起歸咎於無政府主義者。實際上，如果我的預測是正確的，刺客將主要是現有的犯罪分子。如果國家選擇任何替罪羊，那將是黑人好戰分子，吸毒者或民兵運動等，即實際攻擊他們的人。政府沒有譴責無政府主義者的世貿中心，他們指責伊斯蘭原教旨主義者。阿拉伯人沒有在拘留所里圍捕Ancap。儘管無政府主義者常常在事後說出這樣的話：「他們來找了他們。」或多或少是我在這裡所說的。無政府主義者與AP的關係與他們與WTC的關係一樣。遭受國家反應首當其衝的人是暴力的真正煽動者，如果我正確地閱讀我的聽眾，那麼你們中的任何一個都不會。您是否特別在意（除了對Statist十字軍的普遍厭惡之外），該州是否發起了針對強硬派和專業殺手的十字軍東征？

如果非博彩人群在工作中受到AP的排斥，則其憤怒將針對不同的政治利益和無關的暴徒。毫無疑問，紐約州將加大對AP的執法力度，但是，當存在更多直接威脅時，沒有理由將無政府主義者單獨挑出來。

如果國家確實選擇了無政府資本主義者作為一切邪惡的根源，而不是像甘賈斯坦共和國這樣的其他任意集團，那麼我建議我們所有人離開或準備成為烈士。在某些時候，無論是Ashcroft Inc的定期排程節目，還是AP狂熱的極權主義運動，對於非統計人員來說，事情都會變得不舒服。無論哪種情況，我都打算當那個專家。我們總是可以在事後再回來，並在美國的前美國成立相當於Awdal Roads Company的公司。

第三個是附帶損害的問題，可以在AP協議中創造性地加以緩解。可以想像得到的AP玩家可能會習慣於等待許多高價目標進入同一座建築物，然後用卡車轟炸整個結構以索取多個大獎，而不用擔心沿途砍掉數十個非目標方式。我相信，這裡的道德失敗完全是由刺客造成的。但是，我的看法無關緊要，因為如果投注者自己覺得自己有責任感並且有良心，他們不會因為擔心投入資金的目標而打賭他們會失去一百個目標不明的同事。因此，AP需要減輕投注者將面臨的道德障礙，以便獲得最大的收益流。答案是允許使用任意數量的規定啟動礦池。例如，政客Z的獎金可能包含以下規則：

「如果有任何旁觀者在目標的死亡中喪生，則90％的獎金將捐贈給他們的近親。其餘的10％將通過常規方法平均分配給正確的猜測者。」

或者這樣的措辭將極大地激發刺客在計劃其進攻時要謹慎。

通過這種方案，可以為同一目標提供多個獎礦池，每個獎礦池都有不同的免責聲明。例如，除了Z先生90％的受害者支付礦池外，對於同一個人，可能沒有任何疑問。據推測，獎勵所遵循的規則越少，刺客越有機會贏得獎勵。因此，投注者必須在有關附帶損害的道德觀念與看到結果的願望之間取得平衡。如果他們更關心旁觀者，則應該押注規則重礦池，如果他們更關心消除目標，則押注於開放式礦池。

除非「以任何方式殺死」礦池中有大量金錢，否則「謹慎殺死」礦池的存在應使說客達到儘可能多的離散，從而贏得兩個獎項。因此，即使AP投注者總體上嗜血而不是具有社會意識，很少有人有所顧忌，這將對AP玩家的經營方式產生重大影響。實際上，如果AP玩家確實確實為了破壞自己的分數而趨向於肆意破壞，那可能符合人們的最大利益，他們要麼緊鄰最高目標，要麼對旁觀者抱有同情心，下注即使他們不想看到目標已死，也只能在受約束的資金礦池中使用，但除了確保他死後沒有其他原因外，刺客將有條件地受到有條件資金礦池中的錢的激勵，並避免平民傷亡。

Young譴責AP的理由是，AP對國家本身使用了國家的戰術，即「恐怖」，這是一個應受譴責的缺陷。說AP之所以恐怖是因為它殺死了暴君，就好像說開槍搶劫是恐怖的。嗯，是。如果您足夠不幸地生活在幫派居住的社區中，並且因毫不猶豫地射擊騷擾者而享有聲譽，那麼這將有效地「嚇」」幫派，使您安居樂業，或者「武裝社會是有禮貌的社會」學派。

但是，從政治意義上講，美聯社甚至不算是恐怖分子。

恐怖主義的精確政治學定義是「使用武力打擊中間目標，以便從最終目標中做出期望的決定的組織」。換句話說，恐怖分子沒有能力直接攻擊仇恨的政府，因此他炸毀了校車，並發出公開最後通atum，除非政府滿足他的一些小要求，否則他將再次發動襲擊。邏輯是，政府無力一直保護每輛校車，恐怖分子除了計划下一次炸彈襲擊外別無他法，因此他基本上可以隨意襲擊。他希望政府最終會厭倦這種騷擾和默許，通常是因為民眾對政府無效的制止襲擊感到憤怒，並且有失去權力的危險，而不是因為對學童的同情。

美聯社沒有遵循這種模式，主要是因為與恐怖分子不同，美聯社確實可以直接打擊最終目標，不需要玩帶有中間符號的致命遊戲。如果有的話，美聯社應被描述為游擊戰。

即使從普遍意義上來說，AP的影響最終變成恐怖分子，這也與Al Quaeda密謀在一個塵土飛揚的沙坑中密謀完全不同。 AP是一個去中心化系統，不同於以往任何時候。如果沒有像恐怖組織這樣的中央決策機構，美聯社光顧的公眾所選擇的目標將反映出其用戶的意識形態。如果AP的用戶本身絕大多數都具有恐怖傾向，那麼AP僅會明確使用恐怖手段，鑒於AP提供的卓越能力，這是徒勞的行動，浪費金錢。

我希望這是對Young的出色文章的良好回應。繼續墨菲先生的作品。

First Murphy首先非常合理地擔心AP的可行性，如果系統真的是所有調查人員都無法理解的秘密，那麼就沒有什麼可以阻止AP運營商從所有捐款中掏出錢來的，但聲稱得獎者已經付款，原因是發現，以及被搶奪的獲勝者渴望保持匿名的願望（因為他可能手上沾滿了鮮血）。更好的騙局可能包括人為地創造豐厚的獎金，然後只支付彩礦池中的實際金額。由於如果同一天有多個質押，則獎賞將在兩個質押之間平均分配，因此刺客將不知道他是否被騙了，或者實際上是否有足夠的其他隨機猜測者將他的獎賞稀釋為他實際獲得的份額。管理員也可以脫穎而出，沒有人會更明智。這可能是管理員不誠實地對系統進行遊戲以使其充實自己的最佳方法。刺客感到失望，但沒有得到背叛的證據；賞金高於正常水平，從而誘使更多易變質的暴徒。

那麼這真的有問題嗎？在我看來，無論管理員是否誠實，該系統仍然可以按計劃正常運行。唯一的問題是讓人們首先信任該系統，我將在一分鐘內介紹它。

如果我們假設管理員創建AP的目的是為了儘可能多地賺錢，那麼他們就不想公然剝奪殺手，因為他們擔心不可避免地會在AP級別不高的犯罪人群中脫口而出。 。但是，即使在極端情況下，管理員確實挪用了每一分錢，也沒關係。由於很少有參與AP的人實際上會殺死任何人，因此只有極少數的用戶會覺得自己被騙了，而更多的人會相信他們物有所值。因此，他們將繼續使用該系統。未來的刺客如果不與吉普賽的同事保持聯繫，也會導致他們相信其他人也得到了報酬。因此，一切仍然有效，金錢流入，獎金上漲，目標被淘汰。

如果管理員確實有能力隱藏所有證據並熟練地精鍊系統，那麼該系統確實將被精鍊，如此精巧，以至於儘管被一遍又一遍地腐蝕，它仍將繼續運行。唯一的問題是，這種可能性是否會阻止人們開始下注，並說服他們公平地對待他們。

對此有兩個答案：AP業務可以使用自身的極端版本​​來緩慢地建立信任，以及人們對潛在的欺詐性在線服務具有驚人的高容忍度而被忽視的事實。

為了使自己成為一家可靠的公司，可能不會將AP用作成熟的死亡機器，而是作為一種低調的博彩礦池系統，使用戶可以在體育賽事上投入資金或猜測某些名人將離婚的日子，以及其他瑣碎的質押。賣點是在苛刻的保姆州為用戶提供的硬核匿名功能。在這個相對較低的風險階段，優勝者可以出於自我的考慮而公開宣布，這將證明該系統按預期運行。然後逐漸地，越來越多的險惡質押將被允許，直到它變得完全不受限制並且AP誕生為止。

正如墨菲（Murphy）預測的那樣，這樣的系統不會被淘汰，因為目前正在運行著無數的地下博彩組織，而Proto-AP可以說由於其在互聯網上的獨家存在而可以從執法中更加安全。可靠的加密貨幣，用戶之間沒有面對面的聯繫。即使在中間半病態階段，其可能的原始AP也不會引起政府的廣泛關注。看看這個http://www.stiffs.com。

顯然無害，但它沒有引起任何法律投訴的事實，很好地表明，在美聯儲弄清威脅的源頭之前，真正的美聯社將能夠繼續進攻。

我仍然認為最好的主意是設計一個甚至在原型階段都沒有公開確定的管理員的自治系統，這是否會隨著密碼學的未來發展而變得可行尚待觀察。

即使AP沒有麻煩逐步建立客戶群，也不一定意味著它將失敗。檢查在線博彩的情況。在這裡，我們有一些人把錢花在遊戲上，而「房子」只需更改幾行代碼就可以完全操縱自己的賠率，除非用戶詳細記錄獲勝百分比，否則用戶永遠不會知道。他們甚至沒有像傳統的拉斯維加斯賭場那樣stake可危，它的電子老虎機也可以做到這一點。如果維加斯一家公司表示其老虎機支出為99％左右，那麼沒有充分理由相信的人仍然會成千上萬的玩家。許多人甚至沒有意識到內華達州遊戲委員會的存在，而且幾乎沒人知道他們在執行博彩法規方面做得多麼出色。莫名其妙的是，他們也玩這些相同的可疑遊戲的在線版本，在那裡他們的控制權大大降低，而且離「信譽良好」的實體賭場的信任相去甚遠。儘管存在明顯的安全漏洞和濫用機會，但在線博彩仍在成千上萬的掠奪中。一項指標表明，即使AP在保護賭徒的錢免受管理員的攻擊方面並非萬無一失，人們仍然會捐贈和預測。也許他們只是愚蠢，也許在線賭場實際上是誠實的。

墨菲還指出，如果政治家訴諸於在NORAD地堡內舉行國會，那麼有關山內死亡的任何信息都可以由政府輕易操縱，從而破壞對正確猜測者的獎勵。我懷疑這將是對付AP的有效對策。如果外界永遠不知道美聯儲會在死刑日期附近撒謊，那麼潛在的刺客將不會意識到他們成功的打擊可能是徒勞的。然後，他們仍然有發動攻擊的動機，直到後來才意識到政府的新聞集團欺騙了他們，使他們失去了應得的獎賞。但是，捐錢的人仍然得到了他們想要的東西：一個死了的政治家，因此將繼續捐款。由於刺客可能會死亡，被俘或藏匿，因此他將無法警告任何人政府正在對AP實施信息戰。因此，系統按計劃繼續進行。

另一方面，如果眾所周知政府不是可靠的信息來源，那麼將由刺客來告知真正的死亡日期。也許從受害者那裡獲取組織樣本，然後匿名轉發到獨立媒體，或者用某種可證明的日期戳記拍攝殺害鏡頭。這意味著刺客必須承擔額外的風險，即離身體足夠近以獲取一些證據，或者不小心在磁帶上提供了有罪證供的證據，並且還冒著進一步接觸媒體的風險。如果AP伺服器是自主運行的，則必須對其進行編程，以考慮到誤導政府資源與可能的堅果類印記媒體的相對可信度，然後決定實際的死亡日期。如果信息太含糊，則可以根據正確的概率將獎金百分比擴展到臨近日期的預測。鑒於這種可能性，刺客會很聰明地拿出高息貸款，並在計劃的殺戮日期前後的幾天里將自己的全部凈資產投入質押。

該意見文章於2002年8月15日首次發布在anti-state.com上。

鑒於這種發展，刺客將不得不承擔更多的風險，因此在抓住機會之前堅持要求更高的獎勵。因此，這種政府策略只會起到提高暗殺的均衡價格的作用，就像它們進入掩體本身一樣。

馬特·蘋果（Matt Apple）在論壇上提出了類似的潛在騙局：

「另一個問題是目標可能會偽造他們的死亡。假設我是您的目標強大的人。我只買一天，然後在那一天假死。我拿出了偽造的死亡證明，也許我甚至提供了一些令人毛骨悚然的照片，證明我死了。媒體報道我死了，操作員將麵糰釋放給「猜測者」即我。匿名交易一旦完成，我就會在現場新聞發布會上出現在攝像機上，並宣布邪惡的電子恐怖分子的計劃已被挫敗，具有諷刺意味的是，我將自己頭上的賞金捐贈給了FBI。 。如果這種情況只發生一次，那麼所有抽出這些賞金的人都會對系統失去信心。」

如果媒體如此公然地說謊，那麼，比起美聯社的賭徒，媒體本身就不會相信未來的死亡報道。他們將要在屍檢時拍照，或者做任何鐵定的證據證明這個傢伙真的死了。如果媒體成為國家的公開工具，那麼無論是否是AP同情者，仍然會有人要求客觀的新聞來源。這種需求將支持世界各地的馬特·德拉吉斯（Matt Drudges），他們將找到解決主流霸權問題的方法，而且美聯社可以通過編程來忽略統計學家的媒體。

墨菲（Murphy）懷疑我的排水溝軍隊能否在統治階級中佔便宜。也許他是對的，普通的街頭流氓只會成功地殺死州政府無法提供足夠安全保障的中層官僚。但是，如果那是真的，那真的是一個至關重要的缺陷嗎？如果美聯社的投注者意識到金字塔的頂端可以發現難以穿透的導彈筒倉，那麼以更高的捐款追逐他們不再具有成本效益。像任何機構一樣，國家顯然也需要支持人員，即使他們確實選擇躲藏在山頂。夏安（Cheyenne），他們仍然至少需要地面上的人打碎頭腦並收稅，以將燈一直關在洞里。如果AP投注者對多汁的目標超出範圍感到沮喪，那麼下一個下跌將使它首當其衝。成為一名突擊隊員可能會很有趣，但是如果突然之間，由於缺乏選擇，您成為暗殺市場的優先目標，也許是時候交出徽章並回到職業學校了。此外，如果您是直到現在還沒有參與過AP的普通公民，但是突然之間您發現留在地面上的收稅員正在以驚人的頻率被處決，那麼您可能更傾向於博彩來欺騙您的個人回報或根本不付款，並希望AP提供的持續騷擾將阻止收款人注意到您。

如果國家剝奪了其代理人和互動手段，那麼它就像被直接砍掉一樣無害。

但是，紮根自然會更有效率。如果刺客即使在他們的超級掩體中也能擊中政客，則AP最快就能達到最終目標，附帶損失也最少。有人爭論說，有一個上限，超過這個上限，額外的資金將不再影響發生暗殺的幾率。這意味著，如果5億美元不足以說服任何人抓住目標，那麼5B美元可能也不會。對於個人而言可能是這種情況，但對於AP玩家群體而言並非如此。如果僱傭軍或恐怖組織對開展像WTC襲擊這樣的多人行動感興趣，那麼賞金越高，他們可以購買的設備就越多，可以為該計劃招募更多的人員。如果說的話，薩達姆·海珊（Saddam Hussein）及其所有高級將領和中尉都有數百萬美元的懸賞，使他們的掩體成為中心化的巨型賞金，某些准軍事部隊有可能遭受突襲。全球薪水最高的專業僱傭軍受雇於Sandline International，據聯合國（他們希望禁止他們的工作線）稱，他們的年收入不超過300,000美元。那不是小事，但對於一個用獵槍騎著獵槍追趕非洲游擊隊謀生的人來說，開車進入巴格達的額外風險可能值得美聯社提供的危險賠償。

得出合理的結論是，如果一個國家的領導人有足夠多的高額賞金，他們全都聚集在一個地方，無論防禦得如何好，動員軍隊規模的軍隊來奪取獎項都是合算的。因此，即使頂級黃銅確實在超級掩體中破洞了，整個民兵團或其他冒險小夥子也可能會a之以鼻，以搶走所有這些數十億人。

墨菲繼續說，美聯社的想法會讓普通美國人感到恐懼。沒錯，百分之五十的不願投票的人可能不會覺得自己的時間花在了通過AP或任何其他方法來影響政治制度上。在另一半中，大多數人可能對這些問題沒有濃厚的興趣，或者對履行公民職責沒有任何了解。實際上，無論是哪種觀點，都有強烈強烈的熱情的那部分人，其中就是AP的人口統計信息。鮑勃未能意識到的是，長期以來，美聯社的投注者都不知道他們在做什麼。很少有人會自覺地決定他們要擺脫政府並向其投入資金。取而代之的是，他們將向特定的政治家捐款，希望這將有助於推進他們如此深陷其中的任何寵物。想想AP是否早在2000年選舉中就位。您是無法接受石油公司GW強姦可憐的蓋亞人的綠黨嗎？給AP一些雜草錢，看看會發生什麼。您是一個好孩子嗎？他認為生態女性主義者阿爾·戈爾（Al Gore）會將心愛的美國送往羅馬帝國的道路嗎？推遲購買那輛新卡車，看看美聯社能做什麼。即使是曾經投票的最專制的混蛋，也可以列舉一些與他略有不同的國家統計學家，而不是用錯誤的方式來him摩他。您是否會懷疑槍支文化會否有機會埋葬一些自由主義者，或者是宗教權利偽君子去掉華盛頓一些不敬虔的同志，還是激進的女權主義者將他們的79美分兌美元兌換成「深南地毯」？而且比私人公民更重要的是，不要偽造公司統計學家，例如Big Ass Subdiesdies Inc，他的袖珍政客可能會輸給那些希望通過平台搶劫其他笨蛋的候選人。如果他們在低谷處的現貨處於危險之中，他們當然可以承受一百萬美元的沖銷。

關鍵是，也許足球媽媽太太沒有很強的見解，也永遠不會考慮下注，但是有很多人都擁有強烈的政治見解，無論他們是什麼樣。如果敵人被上漲的AP選項卡嚇倒了，那麼頑固不強或缺乏道德的人肯定會看到他們增加了獲勝的機會。

隨著AP在世界上留下自己的印記，沸騰的青蛙效應開始發揮作用。當國家可以預見地增加其執法措施時，更多的人會看到最大的利益是打賭侵害法西斯主義者。

如果您懷疑美國人是否會以相關數量購買該系統，那麼我會重複我第一篇文章中墨菲沒有提到的觀點。我可以承認美國人會拒絕參加比賽，或者美聯儲會設法保護自己（我沒有），但這並不意味著美聯社無法奏效。一分鐘忽略北約國家。想像一下，AP紮根於奈及利亞等異國風情的地區。我敢打賭，那些做得比較好的白人農民可能會趁機上網，為穆加貝投入一些錢。我還認為，他的一位虐待狂的推銷員也許可以算算得出AP獎金比他未來的總收入還要高。第三世界的缺點是缺乏通信基礎設施，但是在未來幾年中，越來越便宜的電子產品將成為越來越少的障礙。當然，這樣做的好處是，領導人對自己的掠奪一無所知，而且經常有人堅決憎恨他們。此外，這些國家還沒有較複雜的手段來打擊它所不贊成的在線活動，而且人口習慣於政治家強行企圖奪取王位。結論是，在赤道以南沒有發現許多適用於美國和「文明」世界的潛在反對意見。這可能是該協議的一個有趣的測試平台。如果可行，我們將獲得另一個蓬勃發展的索馬利亞。如果失敗了，那該國還是一個地獄。

墨菲說，如果美聯社運作得足夠好以摧毀國家，它將不會就此止步，並將徹底摧毀文明。

他舉例說，就像心懷不滿的公民可以隨意砍掉政客一樣，下崗工人也可以砍掉削減成本的前僱主，而個人可以使用的任何辯護措施，對於國家來說都更加容易使用。

兩種說法都是錯誤的。資本家不僅更難被殺死，而且他們可以更輕鬆地為自己抗擊AP。

首先，高級企業主比高級官僚要多得多。 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.

是否要創建自己的安全冷藏紙錢包？檢查我們的工具部分。您也可以與我們一起享受最簡單的在線購買比特幣的方式。下載免費的比特幣錢包，然後前往我們的「購買比特幣」頁面，您可以在此安全地購買BCH和BTC。