Could we see another Assassination of Politics essay in a near future?

[darkv0rt3x]

Hi.

With all that is happening in the world, among war, politics, control, surveillance, corruption, poverty and all other things, can we ever see again another anarchist movement such the one started by Jim Dalton Bell in the mid 90ies called "Assassination Politics" aka AP where assassination of politics and other empowered personalities could be arrangement with the help of cryptography to help these arrangements??? I mnea, we see this happening in some countries but in a disguised way by means of saying that some "persona non grata" died due to a fall off of an hospital window or that someone was found dead in the bushes or whatever excuse we see governments/states to put out on government controlled media! This is going completely out of control and we see more and more riots everywhere, shootings in schools, people being murdered almost for free... USA, France, and even in Islamic countries where people fight for women rights. In other countries is the overwhelming level of surveillance and population control.

Jim Dalton Bell wrote an essay in 10 parts that can be read here.

Jim Belton fought countless times against the authorities, loosing some battles and granting victories in some others.

Obviously that this time of action / movement can be seen as some kind of terrorist act against states / governments / politicians, but isn't also the people being a target of these people's attacks disguised of laws, restrictions, prohibitions, etc etc?

I would love to see what people think about the anarchist movements and actions, generally speaking. This is a sensitive topic, I guess, so, let's try to keep it minimally sane!

Thanks
dkx

[1714288312]

1714288312

[1714288312]

1714288312

[Gyfts]

Jim Bell wanting to create a silk road for political assassinations... seems mentally stable. You're telling me the feds only got this guy for tax fraud 

I would love to see what people think about the anarchist movements and actions, generally speaking. This is a sensitive topic, I guess, so, let's try to keep it minimally sane!

Pure anarchism is built on chaos, and in order to achieve anarchism you would need a violent revolution. Pure anarchism exists as a thought experiment. But you can still have a stateless government/economic system through anarcho-capitalism. It would work in theory could work if a civil society wanted it badly enough because it takes in libertarianism, classical liberalism, and combines it into a stateless society with some basic rules of governing without actually imposing a central entity of enforcement. Reminds me of Bitcoin, in a way.

[Zlantann]

I would love to see what people think about the anarchist movements and actions, generally speaking. This is a sensitive topic, I guess, so, let's try to keep it minimally sane!

Thanks
dkx

I will be one of the happiest people if the political system in my country goes through a revolutionary change. Let corrupt politicians that have destroyed the economic, political, and social system of the nation be tried and sentenced accordingly. But the problem is who will take over leadership? Many countries have gone through bloody evolution that was propelled and staged by the masses. The common man thought that life will be better after this uprising. But to their greatest surprise, things became worst. It happened in Ghana, West Africa spearheaded by a man called Jerry Rawlings. Another example is the wave of the Arab Spring. All these revolutions brought more suffering and disappointments. I am not against a revolution but I am more concerned about leadership after the uprising.

[darkv0rt3x]

Jim Bell wanting to create a silk road for political assassinations... seems mentally stable. You're telling me the feds only got this guy for tax fraud 

I don't know if you're being sarcastic there about the "seems mentally stable" but I see it as an evolution of mandated assassinations.
And I don't have the facts about what was he arrested for but certainly hhe did more than just that.

I don't think pure anarchism is built on chaos. That is probably the worst scenario but even so, we are witnessing close to that in the current political scenario, so, it wouldn't be much different. Anarchism refuses all forms of oppression such as the ones coming from states and also capitalism. They believe in individual liberty and consensus.
As you mention, a more practical ideology would be anarco-capitalism where they believe in private property and other libertarian principles.

However, the idea here is that we are getting so fed up of our politicians that I wouldn't admire if someone tries to put in practice such essay I mentioned!

I would love to see what people think about the anarchist movements and actions, generally speaking. This is a sensitive topic, I guess, so, let's try to keep it minimally sane!

Thanks
dkx

I will be one of the happiest people if the political system in my country goes through a revolutionary change. Let corrupt politicians that have destroyed the economic, political, and social system of the nation be tried and sentenced accordingly. But the problem is who will take over leadership? Many countries have gone through bloody evolution that was propelled and staged by the masses. The common man thought that life will be better after this uprising. But to their greatest surprise, things became worst. It happened in Ghana, West Africa spearheaded by a man called Jerry Rawlings. Another example is the wave of the Arab Spring. All these revolutions brought more suffering and disappointments. I am not against a revolution but I am more concerned about leadership after the uprising.

Good point. The leaderships have been always been worse than the previous ones. But think of it from a Bitcoin perspective. If someone takes such an essay into practice with the knowloedge of a Bitcoiner, I would be more confortable with such leadership than the ones we have been having constantly, that are always based on fiat, political power, corruption, etc!

[Kavelj22]

I would love to see what people think about the anarchist movements and actions, generally speaking. This is a sensitive topic, I guess, so, let's try to keep it minimally sane!

While some view points see anarchism as a necessary factor for change and liberation, some others may see them as destructive and chaotic. It's important to understand that not all anarchist movements and are the same, as they vary vastly in their ideologies, methods, and  even in their goals. However, it's also important to approach this topic with an open mind and a willingness to listen to different perspectives. By understanding some concepts, we can get a deeper understanding the real concept of anarchistic movements and their impact on society.

[Gyfts]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic there about the "seems mentally stable" but I see it as an evolution of mandated assassinations.
And I don't have the facts about what was he arrested for but certainly hhe did more than just that.

I don't think pure anarchism is built on chaos. That is probably the worst scenario but even so, we are witnessing close to that in the current political scenario, so, it wouldn't be much different. Anarchism refuses all forms of oppression such as the ones coming from states and also capitalism. They believe in individual liberty and consensus.
As you mention, a more practical ideology would be anarco-capitalism where they believe in private property and other libertarian principles.

It goes without saying that someone creating a marketplace to fund political assassination probably has a few screws loose. The feds only convicted him for tax fraud apparently. They must not have had much if that's all they could convict him on considering they win 95% of their cases.

How else could anarchism operate but for chaos? Humans are inherently chaotic but for basic civil structure. Would anarchism not do away with civil structures (ie government)? I'm interested in your view.

[darkv0rt3x]

It goes without saying that someone creating a marketplace to fund political assassination probably has a few screws loose. The feds only convicted him for tax fraud apparently. They must not have had much if that's all they could convict him on considering they win 95% of their cases.

I give you that! One must have courage to try something like that and expect not being caught or being able to perform more than a few of those "contracts".
But we also can't forget that the guy was a guy with knowledge in the cryptography field, so he should probably be good hiding behind the computer an be safe during such operations.

How else could anarchism operate but for chaos?

I unerstand what you mean and I can accept that the general idea of anarchism is pure chaos. But I think we should also contextualise "chaos". Like, I can say that in a pure anarchist society, if I went to a shop, took something and I was not feeling in the mood for paying, I coul create some chaos, fire some bullets from a gun, and with luck, I could get away with it.
I think this is the generic idea that people have about chaos in anarchism. Or that if I'm not happy with some situation, I simply start a riot out of nowhere! Ok, I can admit this could also fit in anarchism in an extreme sense of the ideology.
However, anarchism, can also be seen from a "perfect" point of view and we could say that anarchism means that  people could rule their lives without the intervention of a state figure or governments or whatever. Definition of anarchism is a bit of this too. Voluntary cooperation and direct action.

Humans are inherently chaotic but for basic civil structure. Would anarchism not do away with civil structures (ie government)? I'm interested in your view.

I'm not sure I understand your question.
Are you asking how could an anarchist society live without governemental structures? Such as the multiple ministry departments we have?

[Gyfts]

However, anarchism, can also be seen from a "perfect" point of view and we could say that anarchism means that  people could rule their lives without the intervention of a state figure or governments or whatever. Definition of anarchism is a bit of this too. Voluntary cooperation and direct action.

This work in theory, but not necessarily in actuality IMO.

Basic government structure is required to keep the peace. The early civilizations that were most prosperous were able to accomplish this through formations of laws and enforcement along with a democratically elected central figure. Anarchist might have laws and enforcers, just absent the central figure. Which in that case, the enforcers become the quasi central authority.

[darkv0rt3x]

However, anarchism, can also be seen from a "perfect" point of view and we could say that anarchism means that  people could rule their lives without the intervention of a state figure or governments or whatever. Definition of anarchism is a bit of this too. Voluntary cooperation and direct action.

This work in theory, but not necessarily in actuality IMO.

Basic government structure is required to keep the peace. The early civilizations that were most prosperous were able to accomplish this through formations of laws and enforcement along with a democratically elected central figure. Anarchist might have laws and enforcers, just absent the central figure. Which in that case, the enforcers become the quasi central authority.

Yeah, apparently there were never, in recorded history a country or society, based in pure anarchism. And it seems to exist only as a theoretical experiment and not in practice.
However, Anarco-capilaism, despite te fact of sharing quite a few characteristics with pure Anarchism, it is probably quite a different story. But I am not aware either of any country that implemented such political ideology at a national state level. It would be interesting to see how would it develop, if it ever would develop.
I think there are small comunities that tried to implement such ideologies but not even sure how did they managed themselves nor how long they lasted!