The level of political violence in the US is so low that every time antifa and Proud Boys have a rumble it’s national news. If there was a real political violence problem every governor, senator and congressman would have their own security detail. Supreme Court justices sure as hell wouldn’t take public transport in DC.
And I'm arguing that adding drones and crypto isn't going to move the needle very far. The US already has the Second Amendment, a thoroughly armed populace and a deeply ingrained cultural belief in the necessity of political violence to a free state (watering the "Tree of Liberty" and such.)
Violence isn't going to explode exponentially merely because an efficient market forms to enable it - if that were the case, the US would already be knee deep in blood, because having that is literally baked into its system as a feature.
The key here is anonymous market. Random "well-armed" individual contemplating a political assassination is most likely considering it as a suicide attack. An easy-to-use anonymous assassination market would be a qualitative change here.
That still assumes there is a large and untapped consumer base of potential assassins out there who are only not killing politicians because doing so isn't easy enough or anonymous.
People like Jim Bell assume everyone is as sociopathic as they are, but most people aren't. Everyone hates politicians, the government, taxes, etc, but most people aren't willing to kill even if they can get technically away with it. Meanwhile, the personality type willing to commit political violence to begin with is already radicalized enough in their beliefs to likely be willing to risk being caught, even if only for the notoriety. There's no real "casual" market, here.
Then, when you consider the fact that most such sites will always be either honeypots or scams, and the fact that people make OPSEC mistakes all the time (DPR,) meaning people will be caught (and thus, people will know that it's possible to be caught,) then it doesn't seem as qualitative a change as it initially appears.
> That still assumes there is a large and untapped consumer base of potential assassins out there who are only not killing politicians because doing so isn't easy enough or anonymous.
I don’t think it does.
Consider that the purpose of a marketplace is to connect people who want to produce a good or service with those who want to consume it. Right now, there is a disconnect between “people who want to kill <public figure>” and “people who are willing to kill <public figure>”. A market would change that dynamic.
> People like Jim Bell assume everyone is as sociopathic as they are, but most people aren't. Everyone hates politicians, the government, taxes, etc, but most people aren't willing to kill even if they can get technically away with it. Meanwhile, the personality type willing to commit political violence to begin with is already radicalized enough in their beliefs to likely be willing to risk being caught, even if only for the notoriety. There's no real "casual" market, here.
A market would require two parties: someone who cares enough to pay, and someone who needs the money enough to do it.
If payments are truly anonymous and untraceable, then I’m sure that there are plenty of people and entities out there willing to post the bounty.
If payments are ensured and publicly verifiable, then the consumer here isn’t an “assassin” - it’s someone who needs money badly. Someone who is suicidal but wants to set their family up for life, for instance - or someone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and sees claiming an assassination contract as a means of ensuring that their family is taken care of after they’re gone.
At any rate, it’s all in the essay. At the end of the day it’s just a thought exercise.
Politicians still attend planned outdoor events. Drones can be deployed at the security perimeter, fly rather quickly, and carry an explosive payload. I'm not sure security is good enough to stop a swarm of such.
They already have that threat from guns, and already have ways to protect themselves. Bulletproof glass would stop a drone too. Drones don't sound like a real problem compared to guns which somehow haven't assassinated every politician despite being remote controlled point and click instant killing machines that are also cheap and widely available.
If you haven’t, I recommend reading “Assassination Politics” by Jim Bell. It’s an interesting though exercise.