Assassination Politics: Friedman Edition

A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally “revolutionary” idea, and I jokingly called it “Assassination Politics”: I speculated on the question of whether an organization could be set up to legally announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly “predicted” the death of one of a list of violators of rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or appointees.

That’s Jim Bell writing nearly 30 years ago about his idea that, if implemented, would ultimately bring down all of the world’s governments. And with technology doing what it does over the past three decades, and with hatred of the tax-fed at an all-time high, Bell’s idea is well worth a second look.

If Bell was disgusted with the political class 30 years ago, he must be appalled and outraged by it today. The federal government squanders our money to fund an unpopular proxy war against Russia and an even less popular war against Iran. State governments squander our trust by subordinating citizens to the interests of a foreign country, and local governments are so brazen in their loathing of the people they allegedly serve that they use the people’s money to treat each person like a would-be criminal, made insultingly clear by the ubiquity of Flock cameras.

Yes, there’s much reason to believe that government employees and officeholders are not at all responsive to voters’ desires, and Bell’s idea aims to reverse this century-long, tyrannical trend: “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?’” Though Bell’s idea would surely bring accountability to those who’ve never been held to account, would that ultimately fix a system that employs the perpetually corruptible, or would the system eventually cease to exist?

Bell believed in the latter: “Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner would even risk staying in office.” Therefore, for those who wish to reform a broken system, rather than assassinate “some government slimeball” for his malfeasance, why not reward him for it? Bear with me. Milton Friedman often said, “The right solution is not to elect the right people to office, but to make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.” Thomas Massie recently echoed Friedman’s sentiment: “You should focus your effort on not trying to get new clowns or better clowns, but try to get the clowns to do what you want.” Sure, that’s easier said than done, but tweaking Bell’s means just might bring about the accountability that he envisioned.

Today, the ‘wrong’ people do the ‘wrong’ thing, so if the ‘right’ thing is desired, it’s logical to not only accept but lean into the fact that those in government are the easiest to corrupt. People being what they are, there’s no changing human nature. Contra would-be social planners, laws cannot alter the human condition. Yes, laws can incentivize people to not act on their thoughts—whether the thoughts are racist, murderous, etc.—but there’s no changing or eliminating certain thoughts. General Stanley McChrystal demonstrated knowledge of this fact in “COIN Mathematics” just as George Orwell demonstrated in 1984:

In the Middle Ages there was the Inquisition. It was a failure. It set out to eradicate heresy, and ended by perpetuating it. For every heretic it burned at the stake, thousands of others rose up.

So, let’s dispense with the utopian notion that, via legislation, we can rid politics of corruption, as it seems more accurate to define Bell’s political “miscreant” as corruption personified. Donors and lobbyists distract those in government from the people they allegedly serve, but markets could help the ‘wrong’ people serve the people, thereby making “our democracy” less of a farce. Prediction markets could make it financially “profitable for the ‘wrong’ people to do the ‘right’ thing.” Yes, there will be insider trading—there’s no stopping it—but with this proposal, corruption is now a feature, not a bug.

Consider the following, hypothetical bet on Polymarket: “Will Representative ___ vote to repeal the 16th Amendment by ___?” Does it matter if each member of Congress desires to repeal the 16th Amendment? No. As they’ve shown, they don’t care about what we the people want. But if there’s a way for them to get paid above and beyond their salary to do what voters want, your author trusts they’ll find a way. Because insider trading is expected, think of this proposal as legally bribing the ‘wrong’ people to do the ‘right’ thing.

Critics of this idea might scoff, believing this proposal indecent, but “indecent” compared to what? The status quo could not be more indecent, so pearl-clutching by those who refuse to acknowledge the actual state of the political economy only perpetuates the status quo. In short, make the knowledge from markets pay more than the corruption from donors or lobbyists. And if this variation of Bell’s brilliant idea doesn’t work, those in government can be reminded that Bell’s original idea is likely far easier to implement today than it was 30 years ago.