Part 10

"Non-Euclidean Thinking"

An interesting communication I had recently on the subject of "Assassination 
Politics."  My commentary is preceed with >> or nothing; the other person's 
commentary starts with a ">".  The subject is how to actually implement this 
sytem, and my first comment notices the fact that despite my efforts, the 
government has not attempted to use this issue to justify some sort of 
crackdown on net rights, or anything like that.

===================
>>  I think they're actually afraid to start the debate,
>

>I think they don't believe you're a threat. 

You're probably right about this.  I guess I'll have to think of something 
to change their minds, huh? 

> Remember, they have incredible 
>amounts of money with which to hire bright but greedy people.  All they have to 
>do is find the people running the "Guess the Death Date" lottery.  They would 
>have great incentive to apply their considerable resources to this end.

Your logic is excellent.  But as strange as it may seem, there may be a 
different way...  Let's see, how do I explain?  First, a little diversion that may or 
may not be relevant to this subject, but initially won't appear to be so.

Somewhere around 20-25 years ago, I read some item concerning Howard Hughes, 
the late billionaire.  It described the history of his business ventures, in 
fields such as aircraft ("Spruce Goose" is a well-known example) but also 
mentioned that Hughes Tool was (originally?) into oil-well drilling quipment.


I don't know how much you know about about oil well drilling and drill 
bits, but they look nothing like the classic fluted drill bits common in 
hardware stores.  Oil well dril bits consist of multiple ultra-hard carbide 
points mounted on rotating shafts mounted at the end of the drill "string," 
and these shafts must be connected to the main shaft with bearings.  They 
roll around on the rock, not sliding, and they "spall" off pieces of rock 
due to enormous applied pressure.

 Oil well drilling is done by lubricating the drilling operation with what 
is called "drilling mud," which is actually a slurry of solids in water, 
which is primarily used to cool the cutter and wash away the rock chips and 
dust produced in the operation.  Now, since the rotating cutter wheels must 
spin on their axis, that means they have to be run on shafts with bearings 
installed.  These bearings cannot be perfectly sealed and thus protected 
against rock and mud dust, and their useful lifetime is strongly limited by 
their quality.  

And since every time they wear out the whole drill string has to be pulled 
from the well, that's an EXTREMELY expensive proposition for well-drillers.  
So it should not be surprising that these guys considered bearing quality to 
be very, very important.  A little improvement was worth a lot of money.

"Quality", to a bearing manufacturer, is strongly related to surface 
hardness, and traditionally, the best bearings were (and, mostly, still are) 
the hardest.  But there's a problem:  Ultimately, a very hard circular 
bearing rotating on a very hard flat surface (especially if its heavily 
loaded) applies nearly all its for on a single point (for ball bearings) or 
on a single line (for roller bearings) and that eventually causes bearing 
failure.  So there was an upper limit, generally, on how good you could get 
in bearings.  And the hardest won.  Until Hughes.

[don't go to sleep yet... it gets relevent real soon]

According to the source I read, what Hughes Tool did that made them really 
rich was quite simple and counter-intuitive:  Rather than trying to make 
_his_ bearings as HARD as you can get, he made them SOFT, very soft, "almost 
as soft as lead."   (Which, if you know anything about metals, is very soft 
indeed.)  The bearings deformed on their raceways, spreading out the load 
over a far larger area, and the resulting bearings were the best in the 
business.  (He probably also applied a lot of research into how to avoid 
"metal fatigue," but that's quite another story.)

Very counter-intuitive, but he "won" precisely because he did exactly the 
opposite of what everyone "knew" was the proper way to go.  Okay, so that 
explains a genius who later became a billionaire who later turned into a 
neurotic, or worse.  "What," you will ask, "does this all have 
to do with Assassination Politics?"

Well, to draw an observation originally posited in an an essay titled the 
"Libertech Project," about 7 years ago, libertarians (of all people) are 
"non-Euclidean thinkers."  Basically, this means that we recognize that the 
best way to go from "point A" to "point B" is NOT NECESSARILY a straight 
line.  And like Columbus, who sailed west in order to go east, sometimes it 
is necessary to sit down, and totally re-think your strategy if you're 
trying to accomplish some goal.

By "classical" thinking, "Assassination Politics" would have to be the best, 
tightest-security, more protected organization that has ever existed on the 
face of this planet.  Just about EVERY powerful person would want to kill 
anybody who had anything to do with such a system.  The codes would have to 
be unbreakable, the remailers would have to be certain, but most 
importantly, each and every participant would have to be perfectly anonymous 
to even have a prayer of pulling it off.  Especially the operators of such a 
system.  Especially them.

That's classical thinking.  And that's what I thought a few months ago.  I 
thought, "it's do-able, but it's gonna be a lot of work!"

But let's suppose, for a moment, that somebody "pulls a Hughes."  Rather than trying 
to make the hardest bearings in the world, why doesn't somebody try to make 
the softest?  Rather than trying their darndest to stay anonymous, or wait and let 
somebody else implement this system, why not just "let it all hang out," (as 
the saying went in the 1960's) and publicly announce that they're 
implementing this system, come hell or high water, and invite anyone who 
wants to participate to help form what will be the LAST revolution on earth, 
the one that'll take down ALL the governments.

This sounds crazy, right?  I mean, who wants to die?  Who wants to commit 
suicide just to... just to... just to... make an ENTIRE WORLD FREE FOREVER?  
Free from wars, militaries, governments, taxes, political oppression.  Free 
from the kind of totalitarian governments that existed and currently exist.  
Free from the Holocausts that have killed Jews, Cambodians, Armenians, 
Russian Kulaks, Iraqi Kurds, Chinese dissidents, Native Americans, and oh so 
many others? "Who, exactly, would be stupid enough to risk death to make the 
world free???"

Everyone who volunteered to fight to fight Hitler, to name just one example. 
Remember, or have we forgotten so soon, that occasionally people die to 
keep the rest of us free.  That's the way it's been for hundreds of years.  
The United States of America was founded by people who risked death to shake 
off the yoke of a government that was, by the standards of the day, not 
particularly bad.  

Think about it.  Somebody had to be the first one to start banging on the 
Berlin Wall, with a sledgehammer,  in 1989.  Somebody had to be the first to 
walk through.  Somebody had to be the first to stand up and say, "Enough!"  
And the ironic thing is, the most strangely unusual thing, is that the 
entire Eastern Bloc fell, almost bloodlessly, in a couple weeks, because one 
by one everybody realized that all that's sometimes required is to finally 
stand up and be counted, and to just say no to the government.  When the 
time was right, all it took was a slight push and the dominoes tumbled down. 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not suggesting that EVERYONE would be 
identified.  The "donors" to the system would remain perfectly anonymous, 
and the "guessers" would likewise be perfectly anonymous, but the 
organization itself would be made up of real people, who have published 
addresses, who have simply decided that they have had enough of the current 
system and are going to participate in a PERFECTLY LEGAL enterprise by the 
laws of the country, and just DARE the government to try to stop them.

The organization wouldn't have to buy ads; the publicity firestorm would be 
enormous.  Suddenly, all the politicians would be put on the spot!  Instead 
of being asked by the reporters for their position on the economy, 
pollution, the budget deficit, or some other thing, they'll ask, "Why should 
the public NOT want to see you dead?"

When would be the best time to do it?  Why, during a major political 
campaign!  When Congress is out of session, and they can't pass
legislation without calling some sort of emergency session.  But it won't 
matter anyway, for a few weeks the organization doesn't actually have to 
take bets or make payments, they'll merely publicize their efforts for all 
to see.  To reassure the public, they could announce that they'll only take 
bets on elected and appointed political officeholders...and anyone who tries 
to stop the system.   And the politicians will be scurrying around, looking 
for political cover, trying to figure out how to NOT look scared, but at the 
same time each is wondering if he'll be the first to go.  And all the while, 
the public will be loving it, laughing at the efforts of the politicos to 
cover their collective asses, and taking private bets among themselves on 
who will be the first one to die.

Prosecute the participants?  On what charge?  "Conspiracy to commit 
gambling"?  Which prosecutor would risk appearing to be impeding the 
progress of a useful system?   At that point, the organization's members will 
just be publicly exercising their first-amendment rights.  Which judge would 
take the case?  Now THEY'RE on the spot, THEY have to decide what to do.  I 
contend that in an election year, before the election, there would be mass 
resignations from Congress, or members deciding "it's just not fun anymore" 
and decline to return even if re-elected, as well as the complete loss of 
whatever residual confidence the public has in the government. 

Whew!  Is this all just wishful thinking?  I really don't know!