Re: Assassination
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok wrote: >Harry Browne ... said that the way a free society would handle war is to >offer a prize to the person or persons who assassinated the leader(s) of >the opposing country. ... say 500 million should provide plenty of >motivation to guards, wives, snipers etc. How reliably could we determine who it was that actually did the job? I could imagine a guard fearing that UG Govt types would put together fake evidence so they could give the money to someone they favored. >the only reason I can think of why we don't do this is that it >would work so well that our own leaders would fear for their lives. That seems a plausible theory to me. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Assassination terminology
If I am not mistaken, an homicide justified by moral reasons is called "execution", not "assassination". P.L. PIERRE LEMIEUX Visiting Professor , Université du Québec à Hull Director of the Groupe de Recherche Économie et Liberté (GREL) Research Fellow, Independent Institute http://www.pierrelemieux.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Backup: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Montréal address: C.P. 725, Tour de la Bourse, Montréal, Canada H4Z 1J9 Fax: 1(819)585-4423 PGP Key: 0xBDFFCD16 Fingerprint: CF3E 4A3F 57AB 8AB2 88FB A1D8 C83D 2E15 BDFF CD16 ** "L'homme vivant sous la servitude des lois prend sans s'en douter une âme d'esclave." The man who lives under the servitude of laws takes, without suspecting it, the soul of a slave. (Georges Ripert, Le Déclin du Droit, Paris, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1949, p. 94) **
Re: Assassination message dated "Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:35:26 -0700."
"Alex Tabarrok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Are there any good reasons for an anti-assassination policy? Let us consider two situations: * Not quite war (Cuba, Serbia until last week, Cold War USSR, etc.): Killing a leader will only make him a martyr, esp. if he has a strong popular mandate. This would only help galvanize an anti-American movement, leading to terrorism. At best, some successor would simply fill the vacuum. * War: Like above, such an action might serve only to intensify any fighting. Also, it would be a waste of resources. Unlike chess, the idea is not to eliminate the "king," but to capture your objective, which is not necessarily the same thing. No matter how charismatic your enemy leader is, the successor would probably be competent enough to continue to wage war. There are some special situations for which assassination might be exactly what the doctor ordered: * If the enemy cultural mobilization is founded primarily on a cult of personality. * If the enemy is highly disorganized in the ranks and the leader is a control freak. Then it would be like chess. So, for recent US enemies: * Hussein: Great candidate. The only thing the Iraqis hate more than Hussein is the US. If Hussein is eliminated, that would allow trade sanctions to be lifted. I doubt Hussein would be considered a martyr since Iraq has been condemned by most of the Muslim world, and because he ruled with a military iron fist w/o the pretense of being a religious leader. * Milosevic: Poor candidate. Until recently, what gave Milosevic his power was strong popular support among ethnic Serbs. Even if Milosevic were eliminated, the motivations for the Balkan wars would have still resided in the populace. In the current situation, if for some reason Milosevic were able retain support from the military, then he would be a ripe assassination candidate. I think it's important to note that if you're as libertarian as Harry Browne, you would probably not support US involvement in either the Persian Gulf or the Balkans. If that is the case, then I cannot imagine a possible conflict in which assassination would be worth the funding it would take and risks it would entail, apart from discombobulating the occasional violent cult. Regards, Sourav Mandal Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Assassination
In a message dated 10/5/00 5:54:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Harry Browne, the libertarian candidate, said that the way a free society would handle war is to offer a prize to the person or persons who assassinated the leader(s) of the opposing country. (..) This principle seems entirely reasonable to me. Indeed, the only reason I can think of why we don't do this is that it would work so well that our own leaders would fear for their lives. >> ...And what makes you be sure that actual prizes are not given to succesful military (perhaps secret) operations? ...Bodyguards surely behave as if that were the case... ...Maybe I've seen too many Bond movies... :) -Etch
Assassination
In the presidential debates the other night, Harry Browne, the libertarian candidate (did you think I would waste my time watching Bush and Gore?), said that the way a free society would handle war is to offer a prize to the person or persons who assassinated the leader(s) of the opposing country. A prize (ala Longitude, see also Robin Hanson's work) of say 500 million should provide plenty of motivation to guards, wives, snipers etc. In this way, a much reduced defense force could be maintained and it would spare thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians who we today bomb and kill to try to weaken the leader's resolve. This principle seems entirely reasonable to me. Indeed, the only reason I can think of why we don't do this is that it would work so well that our own leaders would fear for their lives. But, as noted above, we slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqi's in the Gulf War and continue to kill many innocent civilians through our embargo (also of course we subjected tens of thousands of US soldiers to possible death), millions died in WWII etc. - all this death just to protect a few leaders? That is surely monstrous - although it makes sense from the point of view of the leaders. Are there any good reasons for an anti-assassination policy? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
