IRS LEARNING . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  SANDY SANDFORT               Reply to:  ssandfort@attmail.com
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Punksters,

I wrote:

    My favorite *fun* solution would be to buy $80,000 in
    travellers cheques and then *burn* them.

To which Phil Karn responded:

    Well, yes, I suppose you could then leave the country,
    find an **Amex** office and file a claim for the missing
    $80,000 of travelers checks, but wouldn't this generate
    precisely the kind of paper trail you're trying to
    avoid?

    . . . I do suspect that **the** government will
    eventually point to digital cash as justification for
    controlling all of cryptography.  [**emphasis** added.]

Folks, you have to stop thinking so parochially.  The world is
full of travelers check companies.  Most of them protect their
clients' privacy.  Moreover, there is no *the government*.  At
any given time, their are 100-200 competing nation-states and
other semi-autonomous political entities.

Phil went on to say:

    Or they will refuse to back it [digital cash] up in
    court as legal tender, thus helping undermine it. I know
    there's this concept called "reputation" that's supposed
    to take the place of the government enforcing contracts,
    but I have a hard time understanding just how it will
    work for very large transactions between individuals
    (like buying a house or even a used car).

Think a minute here.  What legal tender laws back up the very
travelers checks we have been discussing?  What government says
merchants must accept your Amex/Bank of American/Citibank/Thomas
Cook/etc. travelers checks?

As for "very large transactions," I again leave that as an
exercise for the student.  (Hint:  How might an escrow be used?)

I apologize to Phil for using him as an example of the provincial
nature of the Cypherpunks list.  At least, he is working with the
concepts.  The Cypherpunks list, though nominally international,
is dominated by Americans.  Unfortunately, we Yanks bring our own
peculiar form of ethnocentrism to the list.  (I also apologize to
non-US list members for belaboring the obvious.)

Punksters, we live in a transnational world.  We work and play on
the transnational Internet.  Our computers and our cryptography
transcend the evil empires.  Transnationalize yourself; and swim
like a fish through the sea of the nation-states.

With apologies to Mao,

 S a n d y

>>>>>>    Please send e-mail to:  ssandfort@attmail.com    <<<<<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Punksters, we live in a transnational world.  We work and play on
> the transnational Internet.  Our computers and our cryptography
> transcend the evil empires.  Transnationalize yourself; and swim
> like a fish through the sea of the nation-states.
> 
> With apologies to Mao,
> 
>  S a n d y
> 

I have found myself writing things with nearly the same revolutionary bent
to congresional e-mail addresses.  Reading what Sandy has written, it 
finally struck me that the world we are envisioning and fighting to 
can very easily be cast as a communist/socialist movement.

On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like
Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his
own good: capitalism.

Lets have a discussion as to what political organization we ultimately
want to bring about.  If this has already been done, then please send me
references. 

I hope a world to come with an omnipresent network and widespread public
key encryption.  

National governments remain, but in a much diminished roll.  A global
government comes into being.  Represenative democracy is augumented with
the option of direct representation.  Everyone has a professional
represenative who is authorized and required to cast their vote on issues
which are appropriate for his domain.  At anytime, a voter can exercise
his own right to vote directly, thus reducing my represenative's voting
power by one.  There are represenatives at levels which might be
consistent with the current scheme: city, county, state, national, and
global. I believe that the inertia of the massess will give represenatives
in the larger domains the leway they require to impliment necessary but
less than popular policies.  Perhaps it should be implimented so that the 
larger the domain, the larger the percentage required to change a policy 
in that domain.

> On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like
> Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his
> own good: capitalism.

	It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
 If you have read all his novels (I assume you have) you'll notice that he
mentions how the economy, and the resulting power from that pure
free-market economy, is of a corporate nature, and that power lies not in
the members of the board, but of the zaibatsus in themselves; that they
behave as organic beings.  His vision is far from anarchy, and his
version of free-market libertarian economics should never be confused with the
apolitical (antibehavior-control) aspects of anarchy. [also, I think that he
isn't trying to make political or economic statements with his books, but
that those details enhance the effect of his stories (just my opinion)] 
	All this talk about one particular form of digicash has me
wondering: why not multiple forms of digicurrency?  This would decentralize
any kind of power electronic banks would have through monetary strength, and
ensure that those banks do not add themselves to the system as inconspicuous
political parties (anarchy is the end, and reducing, not creating,
political power is the means, right?).

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> 
> 
> > On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like
> > Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his
> > own good: capitalism.
> 
> 	It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
> exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
> futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.

  The very same thing could be said about anarchosocialism. Without the
fictional non-selfinterested man and the postulate of non-scarcity it couldn't
possibly work. (taking 3. anarchy - "absolute and complete freedom")

   I have never seen someone argue economic theory by quoting _fiction_
books. Gibson (and Sterling) are as clueless on economic issues as they
are on computers (e.g. Gibson's plan to improve schools by forcing telephone
companies to give teachers "free" long distance)

   The only way the super corporations in Gibson's world could exist is
through government help (e.g. Japan's restrictions on trade, distribution,
and banking) The barriers to entry in many markets are historically
low, there's no way a natural monopoly could exist, for instance, in
software, unless software patents (e.g. GOVERNMENT) prevent you from
developing. Stop reading fiction for your education and pick up
David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_.

  Anarchy is the non-existence of rulers, not the non-existence of rules.

-Ray, capitalist exploiter extraordinaire


-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
-- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --

On Sat, 16 Oct 1993, Ray wrote:
> > > On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like
> > > Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his
> > > own good: capitalism.
> > 
> > 	It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
> > exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
> > futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
> 
>   The very same thing could be said about anarchosocialism. Without the
> fictional non-selfinterested man and the postulate of non-scarcity it couldn't
> possibly work. (taking 3. anarchy - "absolute and complete freedom")

Freedom is a tricky word.  Is freedom from governoeconomic restrictions
"absolute and complete freedom?"  Skinner (the behaviorologist) would say
no, because the money which isn't under the government's control is under
some businessman's control.  Ayn Rand would say that non-scarcity isn't an
issue, i.e. when the sun dies, mankind will have found a substitute, etc.
You can't throw around terms like anarchy and anarchosocialism, etc. 
Anarchy means no rules, no rulers, period.  Rulers use many tools,
yes, including money, to coerce behavior out of people and enforce rules
upon them.  This includes the grand scheme of net-cash people are throwing
around.

> 
>    I have never seen someone argue economic theory by quoting _fiction_
> books. Gibson (and Sterling) are as clueless on economic issues as they
> are on computers (e.g. Gibson's plan to improve schools by forcing telephone
> companies to give teachers "free" long distance)
> 

Some authors (including Rand) use fiction as a means to present their
individual political and economical theories.  Aldous Huxley did so in his
_Brave New World_.  Using numerous Rand works I could argue a pseudoanarchist
"free-"market state.  Like I said before, I feel Gibson is not intending
to argue any economic theories but to add depth to his storytelling.


>    The only way the super corporations in Gibson's world could exist is
> through government help (e.g. Japan's restrictions on trade, distribution,
> and banking) 

	In this country, the same argument is wrong.  There are anti-trust
laws which prevent American zaibatsus to form.  Some theorize that this is
the reason Japan has grown so fast.

> The barriers to entry in many markets are historically
> low, 

	????  Go to Japan and try to start a business there!

> developing. Stop reading fiction for your education and pick up
> David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_.

	I'll take that as a friendly jibe.
> 
>   Anarchy is the non-existence of rulers, not the non-existence of rules.
> 

	It's both.  Do some fiction and non-fiction reading.

	Alex Reynolds

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> 
> On Sat, 16 Oct 1993, Ray wrote:
> > > > On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like
> > > > Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his
> > > > own good: capitalism.
> > > 
> > > 	It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
> > > exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
> > > futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
> > 
> >   The very same thing could be said about anarchosocialism. Without the
> > fictional non-selfinterested man and the postulate of non-scarcity it couldn't
> > possibly work. (taking 3. anarchy - "absolute and complete freedom")
> 
> Freedom is a tricky word.  Is freedom from governoeconomic restrictions
> "absolute and complete freedom?"  Skinner (the behaviorologist) would say
> no, because the money which isn't under the government's control is under
> some businessman's control.  Ayn Rand would say that non-scarcity isn't an
> issue, i.e. when the sun dies, mankind will have found a substitute, etc.

   Absolute and complete freedom means "freedom from ALL restrictions" If
you collectively own property, you are under the restriction of the majority's
will to control that property.

   Non-scarcity _is_ an issue. If there is scarcity, there will be competition
for the limited resources -- whether it is individuals, businesses, or 
nations. We see this all throughout nature and all throughout history and
there isn't anything to indicate that you can just ignore it. Your brand
of anarchism won't work without massive reprogramming of the populace's
meme structures.  Since you're so keen on "proof by fiction", take a look
at Demolition Man, or perhaps Star Trek where everything is free and
replicated.

> You can't throw around terms like anarchy and anarchosocialism, etc. 

  Actually I can, I have a dictionary.

> Anarchy means no rules, no rulers, period.  Rulers use many tools,

 Well if that is what it means than anarchy is physically impossible. You can't
avoid the laws of physics. To survive, you must eat, to eat, you must work,
or someone must work for you. If you are forced to work, you are being
ruled, if someone else is, you are ruling them. No doubt someone will
bring up automation or nanotechnology, but they work because they
significantly lower scarcity, hence the non-scarcity requirement.

> yes, including money, to coerce behavior out of people and enforce rules
> upon them.  This includes the grand scheme of net-cash people are throwing
> around.

  If net-cash is a tool used by rules, then we are the rulers, and we are
ruling ourselves. I don't subscribe to these absurd socialist buzzwords
though. Money was invented for specific reasons which benefit everyone --
both rulers and the ruled. If you don't understand that, you don't understand
how economics works.
 
> > 
> >    I have never seen someone argue economic theory by quoting _fiction_
> > books. Gibson (and Sterling) are as clueless on economic issues as they
> > are on computers (e.g. Gibson's plan to improve schools by forcing telephone
> > companies to give teachers "free" long distance)
> > 
> 
> Some authors (including Rand) use fiction as a means to present their
> individual political and economical theories.  Aldous Huxley did so in his
> _Brave New World_.  Using numerous Rand works I could argue a pseudoanarchist
> "free-"market state.  Like I said before, I feel Gibson is not intending
> to argue any economic theories but to add depth to his storytelling.

   Rand did not present an economic theory, she presented a philosophy.
You can present a theory through fiction, but you can not prove or disprove
it through a story book world, hence I take object to your ridiculous
assertion:
 
>   It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
> exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's

  Here you imply Atlas Shrugged proves that an anarchocapitalist
state can only exist in theory. Whoops, back to logic 101.

> 
> >    The only way the super corporations in Gibson's world could exist is
> > through government help (e.g. Japan's restrictions on trade, distribution,
> > and banking) 
> 
> 	In this country, the same argument is wrong.  There are anti-trust
> laws which prevent American zaibatsus to form.  Some theorize that this is
> the reason Japan has grown so fast.

  Actually, Japan has grown so fast because it came from so little. Look
at the growth rates of South American economies, many averaging 10+%
annual growth. Once you reach the level of complexity and bureaucracy of
a typical western economy, you start to slow down. (e.g. marginal returns)
It's easy to get 100% economic growth if your GNP is smaller than
McDonalds and you are just switching to a capitalist industrial system.

 Anyway, My argument was that zaibatsus are metastable and will break up 
without government restrictions in the market. Your argument is that I am wrong
because America has anti-trust laws?? Again, your argument is circular and 
makes no sense.  America's antitrust laws do more harm than good.

> > The barriers to entry in many markets are historically
> > low, 
> 
> 	????  Go to Japan and try to start a business there!

  Because they have an anti-capitalist INTERVENTIONIST system, this is an
argument against GOVERNMENT, not free markets.

> > developing. Stop reading fiction for your education and pick up
> > David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_.
> 
> 	I'll take that as a friendly jibe.

   I intended for you to read it so you could learn something.

> > 
> >   Anarchy is the non-existence of rulers, not the non-existence of rules.
> > 
> 
> 	It's both.  Do some fiction and non-fiction reading.

  Fine, may I suggest you pick up a dictionary?

Anarchy: 1. the condition of a society without a government 2. an ideal
society having no government and made up of individuals who enjoy
complete freedom.

  Taken directly from Webster's.

-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
-- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --

> > > > > On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like
> > > > > Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his
> > > > > own good: capitalism.
> > > > 
> > > > 	It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
> > > > exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
> > > > futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
> > > 
> > >   The very same thing could be said about anarchosocialism. Without the
> > > fictional non-selfinterested man and the postulate of non-scarcity it couldn't
> > > possibly work. (taking 3. anarchy - "absolute and complete freedom")
> > 
> > Freedom is a tricky word.  Is freedom from governoeconomic restrictions
> > "absolute and complete freedom?"  Skinner (the behaviorologist) would say
> > no, because the money which isn't under the government's control is under
> > some businessman's control.  Ayn Rand would say that non-scarcity isn't an
> > issue, i.e. when the sun dies, mankind will have found a substitute, etc.
> 
>    Absolute and complete freedom means "freedom from ALL restrictions" If
> you collectively own property, you are under the restriction of the majority's
> will to control that property.

That assumes that the majority has a will.

> 
>    Non-scarcity _is_ an issue. If there is scarcity, there will be competition
> for the limited resources -- whether it is individuals, businesses, or 
> nations. We see this all throughout nature and all throughout history and
> there isn't anything to indicate that you can just ignore it. Your brand
> of anarchism won't work without massive reprogramming of the populace's
> meme structures. 

You're also assuming that I am pushing Ayn Rand's pseudoanarchist
theories on you.  Quit it, I never made any statement defending her
stance.

> Since you're so keen on "proof by fiction", take a look
> at Demolition Man, or perhaps Star Trek where everything is free and
> replicated.

I am not "keen on proof by fiction."  You are putting words in my mouth
just so you can have a moral high ground upon which to stand!  Again, quit
it!

I'll make myself clear, OK?  Some fiction writers present ideas and
theories and philosophies, all of which are compatible metaphors in my
mind.  So if a writer takes 1000 pages to present her view of utopia, and
defends it with logic and clear-cut style, then she obviously has more on
her mind than a few opinions which she likes to spew.

Proof itself is circumspect; I could use statistics on almost anything to
run circles around you no matter where you might stand.  I never said you
could prove with fiction, but I did say that you could theorize using
fiction.  Ayn Rand did.  She said that people working for their own good
will prosper and that "resources be damned!" etc. etc.
 
> > You can't throw around terms like anarchy and anarchosocialism, etc. 
> 
>   Actually I can, I have a dictionary.

Yes, with only a dictionary and obviously a closed mind you can define and
isolate anything the world!

 > 
> > Anarchy means no rules, no rulers, period.  Rulers use many tools,
> 
>  Well if that is what it means than anarchy is physically impossible. You can't
> avoid the laws of physics. To survive, you must eat, to eat, you must work,
> or someone must work for you. 

I never said anarchy was easy.  If you want to starve, then that is your
choice; that is anarchy: nobody forcing you to behave as THEY want you to
by THEIR rules.  

> If you are forced to work, you are being
> ruled, if someone else is, you are ruling them. 

That is what a "free-"market economy does!  It removes government rule
over people and replaces it with business/oligarchial rule.

> No doubt someone will bring up automation or nanotechnology, but they work 
because they significantly lower scarcity, hence the non-scarcity requirement.
> 
> > yes, including money, to coerce behavior out of people and enforce rules
> > upon them.  This includes the grand scheme of net-cash people are throwing
> > around.
> 
>   If net-cash is a tool used by rules, then we are the rulers, and we are
> ruling ourselves. I don't subscribe to these absurd socialist buzzwords
> though. Money was invented for specific reasons which benefit everyone --
> both rulers and the ruled. If you don't understand that, you don't understand
> how economics works.

I have read a good deal on the nature of money; its history and its use. 
Money is a tool to perpetuate the power of its possessor.  Its use
doesn't neccessarily benefit the "ruled," but it certainly benefits the
ruler, otherwise it would not have been created.  Don't tell me that money
is a means to quantify value of product, and that it has no power effects,
because a Monetarist would show you why it does. 

  > > > 
> > >    I have never seen someone argue economic theory by quoting _fiction_
> > > books. Gibson (and Sterling) are as clueless on economic issues as they
> > > are on computers (e.g. Gibson's plan to improve schools by forcing telephone
> > > companies to give teachers "free" long distance)
> > > 
> > 
> > Some authors (including Rand) use fiction as a means to present their
> > individual political and economical theories.  Aldous Huxley did so in his
> > _Brave New World_.  Using numerous Rand works I could argue a pseudoanarchist
> > "free-"market state.  Like I said before, I feel Gibson is not intending
> > to argue any economic theories but to add depth to his storytelling.
> 
>    Rand did not present an economic theory, she presented a philosophy.

You didn't read the book.

> You can present a theory through fiction, but you can not prove or disprove
> it through a story book world, hence I take object to your ridiculous
> assertion:
>  
> >   It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
> > exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
> 
>   Here you imply Atlas Shrugged proves that an anarchocapitalist
> state can only exist in theory. Whoops, back to logic 101.
> 

Again you do not understand what anarchy is!  Read Skinner's Beyond Freedom or
Dignity!  That is a non-fiction book with an incredibly scientific view,
so you should have no moral qualms at least reading it!

> > 
> > >    The only way the super corporations in Gibson's world could exist is
> > > through government help (e.g. Japan's restrictions on trade, distribution,
> > > and banking) 
> > 
> > 	In this country, the same argument is wrong.  There are anti-trust
> > laws which prevent American zaibatsus to form.  Some theorize that this is
> > the reason Japan has grown so fast.
> 
>   Actually, Japan has grown so fast because it came from so little. Look
> at the growth rates of South American economies, many averaging 10+%
> annual growth. Once you reach the level of complexity and bureaucracy of
> a typical western economy, you start to slow down. (e.g. marginal returns)
> It's easy to get 100% economic growth if your GNP is smaller than
> McDonalds and you are just switching to a capitalist industrial system.
> 
I said : "SOME THEORIZE."  I did not say that I feel this way!  Stop
attacking me for total bullshit!

>  Anyway, My argument was that zaibatsus are metastable and will break up 
> without government restrictions in the market. Your argument is that I am wrong
> because America has anti-trust laws?? Again, your argument is circular and 
> makes no sense.  America's antitrust laws do more harm than good.

Ok, how is it a circular argument?  You feel that monopolies cannot exist
without government intervention, yet at the same time America cannot have
monopolies with government intervention.  Your argument is contradictory.

 >  >
> > The barriers to entry in many markets are historically > > > low, 
> > 
> > 	????  Go to Japan and try to start a business there!
> 
>   Because they have an anti-capitalist INTERVENTIONIST system, this is an
> argument against GOVERNMENT, not free markets.
> 
> > > developing. Stop reading fiction for your education and pick up
> > > David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_.
> > 
> > 	I'll take that as a friendly jibe.
> 
>    I intended for you to read it so you could learn something.

Obviously we BOTH have some things to learn.

> 
> > > 
> > >   Anarchy is the non-existence of rulers, not the non-existence of rules.
> > > 
> > 
> > 	It's both.  Do some fiction and non-fiction reading.
> 
>   Fine, may I suggest you pick up a dictionary?

Fine, may I suggest you read something other than a dictionary?

> 
> Anarchy: 1. the condition of a society without a government 2. an ideal
> society having no government and made up of individuals who enjoy
> complete freedom.

Freedom from others monetary sytems?  Freedom from each others guns?

> 
>   Taken directly from Webster's.

Well, you can read alright, but can you _understand_?

> 
> -- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
> -- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
> -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --

Science IS faith, as much as religion is, but on a much more inconspicuous
level.

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> >   Absolute and complete freedom means "freedom from ALL restrictions" If
> > you collectively own property, you are under the restriction of the majority's
> > will to control that property.
> 
> That assumes that the majority has a will.

   Sooner or later there is going to be a conflict. If you can do anything
you desire with your body and the surrounding matter/energy, that is
equivalent to absolute property rights. If a sufficiently large group of 
people come along and restrict your activity, you don't have absolute and 
complete freedom, QED. 

> I never said anarchy was easy.  If you want to starve, then that is your
> choice; that is anarchy: nobody forcing you to behave as THEY want you to
> by THEIR rules.  

  And if you disagree with the way the majority of your "collective"/commune
is using the collective property? Love it or leave it? What happens
if a capitalist is magically transported to this society and he wishes
to start a business. No one is going to force him to not behave like
an entrepreneur?

> > If you are forced to work, you are being
> > ruled, if someone else is, you are ruling them. 
> 
> That is what a "free-"market economy does!  It removes government rule
> over people and replaces it with business/oligarchial rule.

  And anarchosocialism removes it from business and places it among
the group. Either way, a group of people has some control over your
life. By your definition of anarchism, it is an oxymoron.

> >    Rand did not present an economic theory, she presented a philosophy.
> 
> You didn't read the book.

  Objectivism is a _philosophy_, not an economic theory. Objectivists
tend to be pro-laissez-faire simply because it follows naturally from
individualism. That's why the objectivism usenet group is called
alt.philosophy.objectivism, not sci.econ.objectivism. If Atlas Shrugged
presented an economic theory, could you please define the model rigorously?
(If you have taken atleast Econ 101 you will know what I mean by "model")

>> You can present a theory through fiction, but you can not prove or disprove
>> it through a story book world, hence I take objection to your ridiculous
>> assertion:
>>>   It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
>>> exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
>> 
>>   Here you imply Atlas Shrugged proves that an anarchocapitalist
>> state can only exist in theory. Whoops, back to logic 101.
>> 
> 
> Again you do not understand what anarchy is!  Read Skinner's Beyond Freedom or

   You still didn't answer my criticism. In the quote above you state
"It is only through theory that a pseudoanarchist capitalist state can
exist" and as proof of this bald assertion, you state "read Atlas Shrugged"
The implication you made was, by reading a book of fiction book you 
can disprove a economic theory. Care to explain that? There are two
ways to disprove a theory: 1) show that it isn't self-consistent
2) apply the theory and produce a counter example from reality.
You haven't shown (1), and since Atlas Shrugged isn't reality and never
has been, (2) doesn't work either.

  This is my last message on the subject. You should think about what
cypher technology can do and compare that to your philosophy. A functioning
BlackNet(tm) won't produce a non-market non-laissez-faire system. If 
anything it will promote buying and selling of data, dossiers, stolen
designs, property, etc.


-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
-- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --

According to Alexander Reynolds:
> 
> > On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like
> > Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his
> > own good: capitalism.

I agree.  I was relieved to read a sci-fi which wasn't socialistic.


> 	It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
> exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
> futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.

I have to differ here.  These mutli-national (all-powerfull?) corporations were
held powerless by those with the technology to do so.  This is the essence of 
why I have developed strong computer skills; technology is power.  Power to 
protect yourself from many threats.

> His vision is far from anarchy, and his
> version of free-market libertarian economics should never be confused with the
> apolitical (antibehavior-control) aspects of anarchy. [also, I think that he
> isn't trying to make political or economic statements with his books, but
> that those details enhance the effect of his stories (just my opinion)] 

Well, I don't think mankind will ever shed all forms of behavioral control.  Man
has an inherent set of norms which I doubt he will shed, and remain civilized.

J. Michael Diehl   ;^)  |*The 2nd Amendment is there in case the 
mdiehl@triton.unm.edu   | Government forgets about the 1st!  <RL>
Mike.Diehl@f29.n301.z1  |*God is a good Physicist, and an even 
    .fidonet.org        | better Mathematician.  <Me>
al945@cwns9.ins.cwru.edu|*I'm just looking for the opportunity to 
 (505) 299-2282 (voice) | be Politically Incorrect! <Me>
Can we impeach him yet? |*Protected by 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703. 
PGP Key = 7C06F1 = A6 27 E1 1D 5F B2 F2 F1  12 E7 53 2D 85 A2 10 5D

Dear Sir,

          Without enrolling in yours and others discussion about
anarcho/capital/social/ isms Ad Nauseam... would you mind
taking this SOMPLACE ELSE... this discussion is NOT appropriate for the list
WE have REAL issues and problems to address... Thanx in advance...
    cheers
    kelly
--

On Sun, 17 Oct 1993, Kelly Goen wrote:

> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 17:17:19 -0400
> From: Kelly Goen <kelly@netcom.com>
> To: chrome@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: ENOUGH ALREADY!!!(Was Re: Gibson
> 
>  Dear Sir,
> 
>           Without enrolling in yours and others discussion about
> anarcho/capital/social/ isms Ad Nauseam... would you mind
> taking this SOMPLACE ELSE... this discussion is NOT appropriate for the list
> WE have REAL issues and problems to address... Thanx in advance...
>     cheers
>     kelly
> -- 

I said this once, and I guess I'll have to enlighten those who were
ignorant enough not to read the first time around!

My first message ended something like this:  "how about multiple forms of
digital cash?  This removes a centralized monopolized bank as a form of
electronic power, i.e. the bank president could refuse digi-loans to those
elements of society he figured would usurp his(her?) bank's power."

Does this figure into the ideological framework of your newsgroup?  It
looked like, but if you still think that I am way out of line with that
comment, just drop a line and I'll have myself removed from the list.  OK?
 That's all for now, and please don't hesitate if something else like thi
bothers you!

-Sincerely pissed off at everyone who keeps sending me mail like this,

-Alex Reynolds

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> My first message ended something like this:  "how about multiple forms of
> digital cash?  This removes a centralized monopolized bank as a form of
> electronic power, i.e. the bank president could refuse digi-loans to those
> elements of society he figured would usurp his(her?) bank's power."

   Sounds good but money isn't fiction. If there's nothing of value backing
these "multiple forms of digital cash" you will still need to go to the
evil nasty bank president. Otherwise, it's just monopoly money.

   That's what the bank of the internet proposes to do (provide
digicash with backing). I doubt real banks would bother with digicash
anyway since they like having financial data on you.  The cost of
implementing such a system for the bank would be far more expensive
than the benefit received by the few customers who appreciate privacy.

   An enterprising credit card company might chance it sooner or later.

-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
-- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --

> Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> > My first message ended something like this:  "how about multiple forms of
> > digital cash?  This removes a centralized monopolized bank as a form of
> > electronic power, i.e. the bank president could refuse digi-loans to those
> > elements of society he figured would usurp his(her?) bank's power."
> 
>    Sounds good but money isn't fiction. If there's nothing of value backing
> these "multiple forms of digital cash" you will still need to go to the
> evil nasty bank president. Otherwise, it's just monopoly money.
> 
>    That's what the bank of the internet proposes to do (provide
> digicash with backing). I doubt real banks would bother with digicash

	So what would back digicash?  A promise to pay?  That is all I can
see at the moment, other than the physical force of a government, which
would give digicash its worth, and somehow, human nature being what it is,
I doubt that would be a strong foundation for a digital economy.