Re: Voluntary Governments?

This is probably not really relevant to cypherpunks, but I think it needs
to be addressed.

Jason Solinsky said:
>Government has nothing to do with throwing people into prison or using
>guns. It is an entity that exercises authority. Or an entity that enforces
>laws.

Er.  No.  Government has _everything_ to do with throwing people into
prisons, _and_ with using guns.  Further, "exercises authority" is a
code phrase that means "throws people into prisons and uses guns."

If you want a working definition of government, it would have to be "a
group of people who have assumed to themselves the exclusive power to 
regulate and use coercive force within a set of established borders."
...And, given the USA vs. Manuel Noriega, the nature of the "established
borders" becomes subject to flexible interpretation.

It's not the case that any use of force defines a government.  It _is_
the case that only government pretends to be the sole arbiter of who may
use force, and how much they may use.

If you inspect the matter carefully, without the threat of force there
could be no government.  Otherwise, how would they collect taxes and
tarriffs?  Moreover, they must declare themselves to be the only authorized
users of force, or their "enforcement" (look carefully at that word) power
will be limited in its effectiveness by the strength of the resistive
force.  Government depends for its existence on being the biggest gang
with guns anywhere in the area.

			-- Elton

> Er.  No.  Government has _everything_ to do with throwing people into
> prisons, _and_ with using guns.  Further, "exercises authority" is a
> code phrase that means "throws people into prisons and uses guns."

Lets ignore the dictionary, which says you are wrong, and return to the
issue. Can a government (in cyberspace or otherwise) wield the authority
to tax and regulate behavior without guns?

> If you inspect the matter carefully, without the threat of force there
> could be no government.  Otherwise, how would they collect taxes and
> tarriffs?

Easily. They could deny you access to services of greater value than the
tax being imposed. MIT weilds this power quite successfully. This thread
arose because I was talking about cyberspatial governments. A cyberspatial
government might collect a deposit from you before you have access to its
citizenry. If you don't follow the rules... if you don't pay your taxes,
the government takes your property away. How much less powerful is this
crypto weilding cybergovernment than a gun toting physical government?

Clearly not being able to kill you puts it at a disadvantage, but if I'm
under investigation for breaking the law of a cybergovernment the result
of which is the loss of a large fraction of my property, I WILL be coerced.

> Moreover, they must declare themselves to be the only authorized
> users of force, or their "enforcement" (look carefully at that word) power
> will be limited in its effectiveness by the strength of the resistive
> force.

That assumes that one entity with power will naturally oppose the others.
They frequently do not. USA/MA/Cambridge/MIT all get along quite nicely
and all weild quite a bit of authority over me. In cyberspace mutiple
governments are even more likely to get along, since they can't directly
attack each other.

Jason W. Solinsky

Jason Solinsky wrote:

> Lets ignore the dictionary, which says you are wrong, and return to the
> issue. Can a government (in cyberspace or otherwise) wield the authority
> to tax and regulate behavior without guns?
> 
> > If you inspect the matter carefully, without the threat of force there
> > could be no government.  Otherwise, how would they collect taxes and
> > tarriffs?
> 
> Easily. They could deny you access to services of greater value than the
> tax being imposed. MIT weilds this power quite successfully. This thread

Jason is confusing markets and governments.

A movie theater that sells tickets is not "taxing" its patrons--it is
selling access. A university that charges tuition is not "taxing" its
customers.

(I will grant, and always have, that various businesses and
universities and whatnot have various links to government:
franchises, special enabling regulations, subsidies, etc. These
complicate the issue, and make for what economists used to call
"mixed" markets. Libertarians and others decry these mix-ins. But I
don't take this to be the point Jason was making.)


To call all negotiated prices "taxes" is, bluntly,
absurd. It also cheapens the language by throwing away the essential
distinction between market prices and taxes.

In any case, something is a "market price" if one can walk away from
the transaction. I know of almost nothing the U.S. government calls a
"tax" that taxpayers are free to walk away from, to not pay (and thus
not receive the service).

If Jason is arguing that goods and services will be bought and paid
for in cyberspace, who could disagree with this? They're just not
taxes. 


--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

[Tim sez]
  [I say]
    [elton quoth]
> > > If you inspect the matter carefully, without the threat of force there
> > > could be no government.  Otherwise, how would they collect taxes and
> > > tarriffs?
> > 
> > Easily. They could deny you access to services of greater value than the
> > tax being imposed. MIT weilds this power quite successfully. This thread
> 
> Jason is confusing markets and governments.

I'm sorry. I did not mean to call MIT tuition a tax, I meant to call MIT
a government (which you may very well may object to equally). If MIT were
just some store where you walk in, wait four years and receive an
education, that would be one thing. But MIT is a full community. As such,
MIT imposes many rules on the way we live. It collects fines from offenders.
It has a treaty with the surrounding town of Cambridge according to which
each year we conduct a ceremony in which we present them with a big check
representing one year's tribute, and each Fall we send the new immigrants
to give the town free labor. In return the town gives us protection from
fires and backs up our police department. And we have a police department.
And we have mechanisms for creating rules and enforcing them. And I have
seen a number of people put in situations where MIT told them "These are
our rules, live by them or go some where else", just like Democrats tell
me when I preach Anarchy, "move somewhere else if you don't like it here".

When does this move somewhere else concept cease to be legitimate?

From the cypherpunks point of view, the interesting thing about the "MIT
is a government" argument is law enforcement. Although police tend to hang
around parties, I have never observed one take action against an MITer.
Enforcement of the rules at MIT is accomplished by economic coercion. If
you are an employee, you have a job which MIT can take away. If you are a
student you have given MIT a large amount of money towards a degree and
they can take that away. This is precisely how a cyberspatial government
might function. Physical threat is not a necessary element of enforcement.

The argument I keep on hearing seems to be that governments are the bad
things, so since MIT and cybergovernments are good, they must not be
governments. This "good" "bad" stuff doesn't hold water with me.

A cybergovernment says "Do as we say or you can't communicate with our 
citizens"
MIT says "Do as we say or go somewhere else"
US democrats say "If you don't like US laws, move somewhere else"

Where do we draw the line between government and non-government and why?

> In any case, something is a "market price" if one can walk away from
> the transaction. I know of almost nothing the U.S. government calls a
> "tax" that taxpayers are free to walk away from, to not pay (and thus
> not receive the service).

True enough. Most of our rules have been bundled together. Either you accept
all of them or you walk away. So Tim, if you don't like the FBI monitoring
all of your communications and requiring you to give them copies of all
your secret keys, why don't you just leave? [or are you planing to do that?]

JWS

> 
> When does this move somewhere else concept cease to be legitimate?
> 
I would say such attitudes cease to be legitimate about the time they
are expressed. This is a democracy and every(!) citizen has a right
to express their pleasure and displeasure at the society we each build.
If a person were to say some thing along those lines I would tell them this
is my country and if I don't like it I will change it. They are welcome
to meet me somewhere in the middle if they are even remotely open minded 
(which rules out all standard political parties with an agenda based on
obtaining a majority instead of finding a middle ground for everyone to
live their own lives under). A government/society is something similar to
a forest, it is silly to think of it without also considering the plight of
the individual tree (the whole point of the Bill of Rights I believe). An
example would be position and velocity relating to uncertainty principles
in physics. You can't now both position and velocity to a arbitary precision
and governments can't write laws which don't have inherent limitations to
their applicability to both society and the individual. They are opposite
sides of the same coin.

The persons who express such monotheistic views are the ones who should move
to the most convenient dictatorship...

Jason W Solinsky writes
> [Argues that MIT is a government.]
>
> Where do we draw the line between government and non-government and why?

Obviously most people do not call MIT a government.

And if MIT built some prison cells under the Admin building and started
locking people up in the dungeons for long periods, then people would
call MIT a government.

Seems pretty simple to me.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com

> 
> And if MIT built some prison cells under the Admin building and started
> locking people up in the dungeons for long periods, then people would
> call MIT a government.

Can't speak for MIT but I can speak for UT Austin, they do have cells to hold
prisoners. The security forces at that school attend the Tx Dept. of Public
Safety training school and hold state law enforcement positions. The last
thing you want to do is really piss one of these guys, you would end up
in one of the state prisons for several years, Huntsville probably.

Schools can use physical force against their students. I have personaly seen
assaults on the presidents office when a group of students took it over in
the late 80's because of UT Austin holdings in S. Africa.  I have seen them
knock the holy shit out of students for nothing more than simply refusing to
move fast enough. The officers stormed the office in full riot gear with 
M16 automatic rifles and smoke grenades.

I suspect that MIT's security forces, even though it is a private school,
hold 'peace officer' ratings and this implies that they can carry weapons
at any time (though they don't usually). This holds for the small community
college that I work at now as well. The officers don't carry guns as a regular
part of their uniform except during registration when there are large amounts
of cash on campus or when important officials visit the campus(es).

Contact the head of security at MIT and ask for a tour of their facilities.
they usually grant such requests.

Jim choate says:
> > And if MIT built some prison cells under the Admin building and started
> > locking people up in the dungeons for long periods, then people would
> > call MIT a government.
> 
> Can't speak for MIT but I can speak for UT Austin, they do have cells to hold
> prisoners. The security forces at that school attend the Tx Dept. of Public
> Safety training school and hold state law enforcement positions.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Need we say more?

Perry

From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
   Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 14:37:07 -0500 (CDT)
   X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
   Content-Type: text
   Content-Length: 1527      
   Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
   Precedence: bulk

   I suspect that MIT's security forces, even though it is a private school,
   hold 'peace officer' ratings and this implies that they can carry weapons
   at any time (though they don't usually). 

They're armed police; I've never seen a one without a gun.  MIT's CPs
(Campus Police) were kind enough to put their pamphlet "About the MIT
Campus Police" on the net.  Here are some relevant portions:

BACKGROUND: In order to be considered for employment as an MIT campus
police officer, the Department normally requires three years of prior
police experience as a campus, municipal or state police officer.
Finalists for all police positions undergo background checks (including
criminal record checks) prior to hiring.

AUTHORITY: All MIT Campus Police officers are qualified under Chapter
22C Section 63 of the Massachusetts General Laws and have full powers as
police with regard to crimes occurring on MIT property. In addition, all
officers hired on or after December 1, 1987 are sworn as Deputy Sheriffs
in Middlesex County.  MIT police officers do not exercise police
authority in the City of Boston and therefore do not patrol MIT
fraternities, sororities or independent living groups located in Boston.
However, the MIT Police do provide emergency medical services.

WEAPONS: MIT police officers and supervisors are armed and must undergo
annual firearms qualifications based on Massachusetts Criminal Justice
Training Council standards. The Department has written deadly force and
non-lethal force policies which are reviewed with officers on an annual
basis.

In addition, they have some control over what gets reported to Cambridge
and state law enforecement authorities. 

					--bal

> I suspect that MIT's security forces, even though it is a private
> school, hold 'peace officer' ratings and this implies that they can
> carry weapons at any time (though they don't usually). This holds for
> the small community college that I work at now as well. The officers
> don't carry guns as a regular part of their uniform except during
> registration when there are large amounts of cash on campus or when
> important officials visit the campus(es).

MIT Campus Police are full police officers as far as the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts is concerned.  They have all gone through the state
police academy, and they are all cops.  They have complete
jurisdiction over the MIT property.  And yes, they _do_ carry guns
at all times (at least while in uniform).

I've seen some of the MIT CP HQ, although I've not received a full
tour of the facilities (maybe I will some day).

Also, it is considered bad form for an MIT CP to arrest an MIT
student.  However I have seen them arrest people (although I've
never seen a firefight ;-)

-derek