Re: Voluntary Governments?

From: Hal

What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace?  It is the 
government in physical space I fear.  Its agents carry physical guns 
which shoot real bullets.
................................................................

Good point.
What does it mean to speak of governance (or 'govenment') at all?
Questions I would seek to have the answers to, in making decisions 
about government per se:

.  Who or what is to be governed?
.  What is inimical/destructive and to be regulated/prevented,
    or what is sacred which is to be upheld?
.  How will anyone come to know the difference?
   What difference does it really make (to anyone in the real world)?
.  Who is to do all the work of preventing or upholding
   (how do they qualify for the job)?
.  What is to be done about non-conformists to the rules
   (without contradicting the rules?)
.  When did you realize that you were an absolute authority on the subject?

Blanc

This started out as a reply to me when I last had time to go through most
of the posts here, So I'll try to answer it.

> From: Hal
> 
> What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace?  It is the 
> government in physical space I fear.  Its agents carry physical guns 
> which shoot real bullets.
> ................................................................
> 
> Good point.
> What does it mean to speak of governance (or 'govenment') at all?
> Questions I would seek to have the answers to, in making decisions 
> about government per se:
> 
> .  Who or what is to be governed?

People, or more precisely entities that control private keys.

> .  What is inimical/destructive and to be regulated/prevented,
>     or what is sacred which is to be upheld?

[I give two examples out of the infinitely large set of possibilities,
intellectual property rights and privacy]

It depends on the government. You could set up a government to monitor
intellectual property rights. You give government a deposit of the
maximum you can be fined under its laws. The companies that are also
"citizens" of that government then give you large (if not infinite)
discouts. In exchange you agree not to violate their intellectual
property rights (A term I purposefully leave open to definition as
different governments might make different choices).

Another government might protect privacy. If my infinitely buggy software
were working, corporations could examine the demographics of their customers
or the participating portion of the internet as a whole (while paying the
people involved a tiny fee of course). I've used random data perturbation
techniques to set things up so that on searches that generate with
one-dimensional results from multi-dimensional selection fields:

A) It is impossible for the searcher to figure out the specific
   characteristics of any individual.

B) The searchers results are not skewed in any way.

But for multidimensional results, the technique I am using breaks down.
Unless there is another way (There may well be), either A or B must be
violated. It seems to me that the solution is a government to which the
searchers and "data points :)" belong. B would be maintained intact but
A would be violated. The "data points" would have their privacy protected
by a system of fines imposed by the government.

Both of these examples are similar in that they are coercive. If you want
to conduct business with the governments citizens you have to obey all the
laws. But no force is involved. The will of the government is effected
entirely by economics. 

> .  Who is to do all the work of preventing or upholding
>    (how do they qualify for the job)?

They can be appointed, self appointed, or elected. The person who holds the
job will atempt to enforce his laws as thoroughly as possible, thus ensuring
the citizens  the security that they want (and will pay for).

> .  What is to be done about non-conformists to the rules
>    (without contradicting the rules?)

They are fined. If this doesn't work their communication priveliges are
curtailed and if this doesn't work they are banished. As I have noted
before, in an information economy this is an extreme punishment.

Jason W. Solinsky

Jason W Solinsky <solman@MIT.EDU> writes:
>It depends on the government. You could set up a government to monitor
>intellectual property rights. You give government a deposit of the
>maximum you can be fined under its laws. The companies that are also
>"citizens" of that government then give you large (if not infinite)
>discouts. In exchange you agree not to violate their intellectual
>property rights (A term I purposefully leave open to definition as
>different governments might make different choices).

I like this idea of voluntarily "escrowing" some valuables in order to
lend credibility to my promise to follow certain laws, and to get various
privileges in return.  You could have digital certificates from the
enforcement agency (it does not fit closely enough to my model of a govern-
ment to warrant that term in my usage) to show that you are a "paid up"
member.

>Both of these examples are similar in that they are coercive. If you want
>to conduct business with the governments citizens you have to obey all the
>laws. But no force is involved. The will of the government is effected
>entirely by economics. 

Well, again, an organization which I voluntarily join (for a fee) in order
to get some benefit (forfeiting some of my otherwise refundable fee if I
break various agreements) is not coercive in my usage of the term.  I
suspect people will understand this idea better if you avoided applying
concepts like coercion and governments to it, concepts which are usually
associated with use of force.

>> .  What is to be done about non-conformists to the rules
>>    (without contradicting the rules?)

>They are fined. If this doesn't work their communication priveliges are
>curtailed and if this doesn't work they are banished. As I have noted
>before, in an information economy this is an extreme punishment.

In an on-line world it would be much easier to enforce banishment or
selective ostracism than in real life.  Filtering agents could look for
certificates from accepted enforcement agencies before letting messages
through.  Each user could have a set of agencies which were compatible
with his principles, and another set of "outlaws".  You could even end up
with the effect of multiple "logical subnets" of people who communicate
with each other but not outside their subnet.  Some nets might respect
intellectual property, others not, and so on.

Hal

> In an on-line world it would be much easier to enforce banishment or
> selective ostracism than in real life.  Filtering agents could look for
> certificates from accepted enforcement agencies before letting messages
> through.  Each user could have a set of agencies which were compatible
> with his principles, and another set of "outlaws".  You could even end up
> with the effect of multiple "logical subnets" of people who communicate
> with each other but not outside their subnet.  Some nets might respect
> intellectual property, others not, and so on.

Yeah I've been thinking about this alot. It seems that my system has a high
probability of increasing cultural fragmentation. I have occasionally tried
to support the thesis that as the level of technology sophistication
increases, the fraction of the population that is employed in "artistic"
professions [jobs that create things, the purpose of which is our intellectual
stimulation] will increase and further that the number of artistic jobs that
can be supported by a population has a positive correlation with the
population's degree of cultural fragmentation. Perhaps there are some
_positive_ economic benefits to the creation of seperate "subnets", and
the cryptographic walls erected by cyberspatial governments will be the
mechanism by which this fragmentation occurs.

JWS

From: Hal
> > 
> > What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace?  It is the 
> > government in physical space I fear.  Its agents carry physical guns 
> > which shoot real bullets.

Jason W Solinsky writes
> It depends on the government. You could set up a government to....

You could set up a "government" to make shoes.   If they do not use
guns they are not a government.  If somebody does not make shoes
he is not a shoemaker.  Governments are in the business of violence. 

> Both of these examples are similar in that they are coercive. If you want
> to conduct business with the governments citizens you have to obey all the
> laws. But no force is involved. The will of the government is effected
> entirely by economics. 

And if I wish to conduct business in a shopping mall, either as customer
or shopkeeper, I have to abide by the mall rules.  This does not
make the mall a government.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

> From: Hal
> > > 
> > > What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace?  It is the 
> > > government in physical space I fear.  Its agents carry physical guns 
> > > which shoot real bullets.
> 
> Jason W Solinsky writes
> > It depends on the government. You could set up a government to....
> 
> You could set up a "government" to make shoes.   If they do not use
> guns they are not a government.  If somebody does not make shoes
> he is not a shoemaker.  Governments are in the business of violence.


I'm not going to post again on this subject since it is a question of
semantics, BUT:

A government is something that makes laws, enforces laws and punishes
offenders. I don't see why guns would determine whether or not something
is a government. The control of information resources in cyberspace can
be very nearly [though admitedly not quite] as coercive as the control of
physical resources in real space. It all depends on the distribution of
total resources between physical and intellectual. Presently the balance
clearly in favors physical resources, but that is changing rapidly.

> 
> > Both of these examples are similar in that they are coercive. If you want
> > to conduct business with the governments citizens you have to obey all the
> > laws. But no force is involved. The will of the government is effected
> > entirely by economics. 
> 
> And if I wish to conduct business in a shopping mall, either as customer
> or shopkeeper, I have to abide by the mall rules.  This does not
> make the mall a government.

Why not? If you want to do business in Massachusetts you have to abide by
Massachusetts law. If you want to do business in Cambridge you have to
abide by the rules there. If you want to do business in the Cambridge-side
Galleria (may my spelling RIP) you have to abide by its rules. What is the
difference?

There are a number of municipalities in the United States that have no laws
punishable by prison, just fines (of course they are located within larger
governments for which this can not be said). The entire power of the
government rests in its ability to take away your property if you violate
the rules. Does it really change things if your property is taken away using
the tools of cryptography instead of the weapons of war?

JWS

I wrote:
> > Governments are in the business of violence.

Jason W Solinsky writes
> A government is something that makes laws, enforces laws and punishes
> offenders. I don't see why guns would determine whether or not something
> is a government.

> > And if I wish to conduct business in a shopping mall, either as customer
> > or shopkeeper, I have to abide by the mall rules.  This does not
> > make the mall a government.

> Why not?

Because if you fail to obey the mall rules you will get thrown out.
(Possibly by men with guns.)

If you fail to obey the government rules men with guns will come
and kill you, imprison you, or take away your property at gunpoint.

That is why the shopping mall is not a government and that is
why your "cyberspace governments" are not governments, they
are private escrow agencies.

We do not call malls governments and we do not call private
escrow agencies governments.  So we should not call your
"cyberspace governments" governments.

It is not rules and enforcement that make a government a
government - every organization, every group of people, have
rules and enforcement, usually informal, sometimes formal.

It is killing, violence, and extortion that make government
organizations different from non government organizations.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

> I wrote:
> > > Governments are in the business of violence.
> 
> Jason W Solinsky writes
> > A government is something that makes laws, enforces laws and punishes
> > offenders. I don't see why guns would determine whether or not something
> > is a government.
> 
> > > And if I wish to conduct business in a shopping mall, either as customer
> > > or shopkeeper, I have to abide by the mall rules.  This does not
> > > make the mall a government.
> 
> > Why not?
> 
> Because if you fail to obey the mall rules you will get thrown out.
> (Possibly by men with guns.)
> 
> If you fail to obey the government rules men with guns will come
> and kill you, imprison you, or take away your property at gunpoint.

Assuming the language we are using is English, this is just plain wrong.
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. I understand that you feel strongly that certain types of punishment
are inappropriate. Fine, but that doesn't change the language. 

> That is why the shopping mall is not a government and that is
> why your "cyberspace governments" are not governments, they
> are private escrow agencies.

They can take away your personal property by force and they are not
governments? Why not?

> It is not rules and enforcement that make a government a
> government - every organization, every group of people, have
> rules and enforcement, usually informal, sometimes formal.

Well I know my definition of government and I know websters definition of
government, but this is the first I've heard of defining government by the
force it weilds. I guess all I have to do is buy a gun if I want to start a
government.

> It is killing, violence, and extortion that make government
> organizations different from non government organizations.

I'm curious were it is you got your definition. I looked around for it, but
I just couldn't find it.

JWS

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


> > If you fail to obey the government rules men with guns will come
> > and kill you, imprison you, or take away your property at gunpoint.

> Assuming the language we are using is English, this is just plain wrong.

[...]

> > It is not rules and enforcement that make a government a
> > government - every organization, every group of people, have
> > rules and enforcement, usually informal, sometimes formal.

> Well I know my definition of government and I know websters definition of
> government, but this is the first I've heard of defining government by the
> force it weilds. I guess all I have to do is buy a gun if I want to start a
> government.

This "argument by definitions" is idiotic. Different people use words in
different ways. Get used to it. Work around it. State your 'local'
definition clearly and then use it consistently. Let's move on to the
substance of the discussion, ok? 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.5

iQCVAgUBLlhCJ33YhjZY3fMNAQFNPwQAi8VP3YGm08ln96MdV3YW/O8J78qoUeY/
xM+tAZNWxrOgnfVKyNxyxJURO/oaIdaADpG1jqo9wJ5xsAcFfLyXWud1FrEEjb4Q
RsPQ8qvrygIXEt2dY4O7pQp2LwTG0HQUhClHpssT3orYkKfnzTrgGGc0+2f+4pMT
PENbIMceHQU=
=9KBq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> If you fail to obey the government rules men with guns will come
> and kill you, imprison you, or take away your property at gunpoint.

> That is why the shopping mall is not a government and that is
> why your "cyberspace governments" are not governments, they
> are private escrow agencies.

Errr: 

Today's Post has a story about Blockbuster Billionare Huizenga. Not
satisfied with buying himself baseball, hockey & football teams, he's
just arranged his own private county. They're calling it Wayne's World.
It will have powers even Reedy Creek Improvement District (aka
Disneyworld) lacks.

The story is lacking in one area -- nary a word about law enforcement
powers. Can you say Robocop or maybe Alien? [both situations where a
corporation becomes the law in & of itself]

-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433