On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, David Honig wrote:
>At 10:18 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>>I don't think I care to waste any effort on figuring out
>>secure ways to kill people outside the law.
>
>Would you feel better if it were within the law?
Not very much better. I recognize that large groups of people
cannot function without somehow separating a few destructive
people from the group. Imprisoning them is one route, killing
them is another. Which is more cruel is open to interpretation.
I see no reason why I personally should be called upon to be
part of that machinery though -- nor any good reason why, if
called, I should comply.
>If
>the US could construct an anonymous payment system that only works
>for <insert country here>, they'd have uses for it.
Yep. This is pretty much my opinion about the whole assassination
thing; if an anonymous market for assassination existed, people
would be likely to use it the way the traditional assassination
markets are used; Governments to eliminate dissidents, major
corporations to eliminate competitors with better products and
innovators with ideas that threaten major markets, and the sheeple
to get rid of the people their spouses were sleeping with (or maybe
their spouses). Millionaire brats would use it to accellerate
their inheritances, rogue cops would use it to destroy people whom
they were unable to get quality evidence on, etc... Bell's idea
that government would feel the lash more deeply than anyone else
is plain nuts IMO.
Anybody want to bet Jeff Gordon has more money to spend on AP than
James Bell? I mean, if it came down to it, who could afford to have
whom eliminated?
Bear
