Re: Voluntary Governments?

Right ... I had taken this offline, but it looks as though it ain't quite
dead yet.  Kindly stop reading now if you wish this subject would go away.

Consolidating two messages from Jim Dixon:

>Jason's use of the term 'tax' in a special sense is no more an abuse
>of the language than the attempt to change the conventional meaning
>of the word 'government'.

and

>You can't simply take over the ownership of words in the English
>language.  'Government' is indeed the name used for an entity that
>exercises authority or enforces laws.

Of course we can -- it happens all the time.  However, this time I
haven't usurped the meaning of anything.  Force -- the threat or actual
use of violence -- is the essence of government.  You just said so
yourself:  "enforces laws".

Here's the closest applicable dictionary definition of "government",
taken from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language:  "1. the
political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members,
citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction
of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration."
This is amplified by looking at "govern" in the same dictionary: "1. to
rule by right of authority, as a sovereign does."

"Rule", or "political ... control" are only ever exercised through force.
People keep using that word, "enforce", without looking carefully at it.
From the same dictionary:  "to put or keep in force; compel obedience to."
"Enforcement", regardless of the dry dictionary definition, is the essence
of government.  Without the power to enforce arbitrary rules, there can be
no government.

There are several methods of achieving compliance with a set of rules:
social pressure (shunning, as some religious sects do); withholding of
goods or services (the degree that Jason spoke about being denied); and
topical application of violence ("enforcement").  Of these, the first
two are related, and are commonly practiced by social units that don't
recognize the right to use force on one another.  The last named is the
only one that results in physical damage to the person being "ruled", and
is also the only one that can physically prevent that person from engaging
in the proscribed behavior.  The others can make life bloody unpleasant,
but they won't terminate it.

One other thing:
>I grew up in a small town of 5,000.  It had a city government.	The
>county government was in the same town.  No one denies that California
>has a government, I think.  And then there was the US government.  And
>we had city police, the sheriff's office, the Highway Patrol, and the
>FBI paid an occasional visit.

Uh ... you _do_ understand that that's a specious argument, yes?  What
do you suppose the outcome would be if your home town were to legalize
marijuana, and then attempted to prevent the DEA from enforcing the
overriding federal law?  Yes, we have a distributed government, with
each layer operating under the authority of the next layer up; but each
layer can only add restrictions, never remove them, and each enforces
its restrictions by the same method as the layers above it:  main force.
Further, each attempts to prevent other agencies from enforcing sets of
rules counter to the ones they themselves enforce.  That's what makes
them true "governments", rather than some other social institution.

Here, someone will surely object that by this definition, the Mafia can
be considered a government.  Well, if they can successfully kick the
existing thugs off of some plot of ground, and then defend it against
all comers, then yes:  that's exactly what they'll be.  How else do you
suppose that governments become established?

			-- Elton

> Of course we can -- it happens all the time.  However, this time I
> haven't usurped the meaning of anything.  Force -- the threat or actual
> use of violence -- is the essence of government.  You just said so
> yourself:  "enforces laws".

This is how we got into this in the first place. You CAN enforce laws in
cyberspace without the use of physical realm force. You can form a fairly
potent government using economic coercion. [monetary deposits, denial of
communication, and out right banishment]. This rather unfortunate thread
started because people objected to my use of the term government when
refering to a cyberspatial entity that makes and enforces laws... without
force.

> Here's the closest applicable dictionary definition of "government",
> taken from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language:  "1. the
> political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members,
> citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction
> of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration."
> This is amplified by looking at "govern" in the same dictionary: "1. to
> rule by right of authority, as a sovereign does."

Yup.

> "Rule", or "political ... control" are only ever exercised through force.

Nope. Because of the nonlinear nature of an information economy [the total
value of information is greater when shared in a communty], the power of a
cybergovernment to banish citizens gives it the abilility to enforce its
regulations. This power is enhanced substantially by the availability of
cryptographic protocols to escrow e-cash and withdraw fines from it.

And despite my anarchic tendencies, I think it is important that relatively
powerful cybergovernments come into existence. If they don't, if the average
Joe is not able to enter cyberspace and feel secure, then physical realm
governments will absolutely insist (more than they do now) on extending their
authority into cyberspace and it will take a fair part of my lifetime before
they realize its futility.

JWS