h a l f b a k e r yYeah, I wish it made more sense too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
People subscribe to this website for a small nominal fee (a pound say) and they are allowed to pledge that pound to pay for the assassination of someone. As people start to vote for the same victim so the bounty goes up. Anyone who can prove that they carried out the assassination would then get the
bounty. Would-be jackals can then see how much it is worth to bump someone off.
There would have to be strict rules:
1 Only one pound per person (thus stopping the rich from having too much of a say) until that pound is used on a successful topping and then you can subscribe again. You would be able to move your pound from one potential victim to another but the cut-off would be 24hrs before the assassination (it's only fair that the assassin knows what he or she is going to get).
2 The bounty is only payable if there is no collateral damage (ie no-one but the victim gets hurt). This would for instance stop nutters blowing up half of Docklands in an attempt just to get Chris Evans.
The website would have to be hosted in one of those more robust places where world opprobrium counts for nought like Pyong-Yang or Rangoon. And of course it would be financed by adverts - just think of how many people would have to check to see if they're on the list and then constantly checking to see how much is on their head so that they can improve their security if the amount starts to get large.
I see it being most useful in those areas of public life where the little man doesn't usually get his voice heard. My pound goes towards the bloke who designed CD jewel boxes whoever he or she is.
Assassination Politics
http://jya.com/ap.htm
Jim Bell's infamous essay [mab, Jan 25 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
Jim Bell's legal troubles
http://www.wired.co...,1283,35620,00.html
Read this before trying to set up an assassination service. [mab, Jan 25 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
Jim Bell's further legal troubles
http://www.wired.co...,1283,40300,00.html
And this. [mab, Jan 25 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
Bill Gates' Close Encounter with a Pie
http://www.mindspri.../~jaybab/gates.html
From Noel Godin's web site apparently. [Aristotle, Jan 25 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
The solution might be to find a government that doesn't look upon the death of an 'infidel' as being a punishible charge, to act as the broker. On the other hand, the $1,000,000 put up for the death of Salmone Rushdie didn't seem to be as motivating as you might suspect it would. |
|
| |
...the funny thing about the $1,000,000/Salmone Rushdie thing, was that a public radio station on a college campus[KCRW-FM] had him on a show called "Book Worm" to discuss the book which made him a target in the first place... |
|
| |
the assassin and contributors would have to utilize a trusted (?!) third party to ensure anonymity... this vaguely smacks of the street-performer protocol in my ccurently-confused head... ?? |
|
| |
Peter, the you-or-your-friends thing could be quite avoided by just not making a spectacle of your life. Hey, if you want to lay claim to that outlandish, unorthodox event or ideal, that's your business; just be aware that you'll prolly draw a pretty penny on PublicSubscriptionAssassinations.com (or ****edHighBrows.com?) |
|
| |
Somewhat baked: Jim Bell, a radical libertarian/cypherpunk/anti-government activist/net.kook, wrote an essay a while back called "Assassination Politics" in which he proposed a scheme, based on digital cash and anyonymous communication networks, that he claimed makes it possible for individuals to anonymously contribute to fund assassinations of unpopular government officials. Bell ended up in jail. |
|
| |
After reading part of the 2nd article about Jim Bell I think that I'm all for the pies. There was the famous case of a Belgium anarchist doing it to Bill Gates, when he was in Europe. Curiously enough this did not make Bill's public online European trip diary for that day ... |
|
| |
<mode=p++> Ack! UnaBubba! A plural subject with a singular verb!? Ye wound me! Rather, let it be, "Cream pies *seem* a much safer alternative."</mode> |
|
| |
When I wrote this idea up, I had no idea that some nutter had crawled out of his log cabin and already proposed it seriously. (How many bets required to shoot down the black helicopters, any idea?) However I think my idea is far superior. Jim Bell will allow anyone to "bet" anything. He's thus replacing tyranny of big government with the tyranny of big money. I know which I prefer (still vaguely mourning the passing of clause 4). My original idea was one non-transferable vote per person which is far more democratic.
I'm prepared to go namby-pamby and non-lethal, but really the bloke who designed CD jewel boxes is begging for something more publicly shaming than a custard pie. |
|
| |
Public humiliation... anyone remember "The Game" with Michael Douglas? Something like that... harrowing, but not lethal. Still illegal, probably. Sounds groovy to me. But think how deep this would get. |
|
| |
It's not quite as democratic as you claim Gordon. Only those in favour of an 'assassination' get to vote. In order to be truly democratic you'd have to be able to spend your pound on reducing the bounty as well. Personally I'd be in favour of impalement for anyone who sells my e-mail address without my express permission. |
|
| |
Isn't this just a pay-as-you-go Fatwah ? |
|
| |
I think this is already Baked, but you have to be a sovereign government to play. |
|
| |
I like the potential of having one-quid votes to REDUCE the bounty - that would also help to eliminate the need for advertising revenue ("Ack! Mom! I'm on the list! Call the extended family!"). |
|
| |
Plus, it might be better to just have it as a public pieing site, rather than assassination. Or perhaps rotten cabbage - at any rate, some sort of food product. That way, there's not quite as much incentive for the police to nab you for accessory, as the webmaster. |
|
| |
Definite croissant. The pie version should be quite bakable as well, after all you can admit to pieing someone. It really appeals to the naughty side of me (that's both of them). |
|
| |
Bun for the jewel case bit. |
|
| |
I'd give a pound to bring back [Gordon Comstock], preferably alive. Wonderful writer! One of only six persons to ever use the word "opprobrium" (properly, too!) in these logs. |
|
| |
I know we're all thinking Bush would be
dead by now if this idea were
implemented. |
|
| |
This won't be baked, unfortunately. But
just think: if you get rich enough, you
can pay to have all those fuckers you
hate killed. Thanks for giving me new
motivation to further my financial
status.. |
|
| |
i'd rather settle for the fact that Mr. Bush would be one of the, let's say, very important voters.. ? |
|
| |
[Gordon] is still around [jurist], albeit not frequently. He anno'd on the "Super Secret Hiding Place" idea last week. |
|
| |
I would suspect that pieing someone would fall somewhere between harrasment and assault [wags]. Although I have my suspicions that the guy that egged John Prescott a few years back may have been testing this concept. |
|
| |
I say you allow people to spend any amount of money on voting down a bet. You'd have to be a real asshole to run out of cash before you'd voted yourself to safety. |
|
| |
I'd also suggest allowing less-than-lethal preditictions. I'll put $50 on police finding five carjackers in a certain hospital with all their arms and legs broken. |
|
| |
I also predict Tom Cruise gets his nose broken beyond any hope of reconstructive surgery. |
|
| |
Also, I wish to inform any authorities who may be reading that I actually do NOT gamble on anything, have NOT spent money in the belief that these occurences may happen, and do NOT condone using violence to solve problems. |
|
| |