Re: your mail

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

Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net> wrote:

> Anonymous scripsit
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a
> > > "Cypherpunk victory."
> > >
> > > 1.  Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology,
> >            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > regulated only by market forces.  This implies the lack of import/export
> > > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit
> >                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper.
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I think you overgeneralize.  No limits on toxic waste incinerators,
> >low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food,
> >or nuclear reactors?  "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage
> >dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are
> >markedby their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical
> >devices).
>
> It is you who have overgeneralized.  No limits on technology certainly
> does not mean allowing low tech and poor incinerators to continue operating.
> The fact that low mileage cars still drive is a result of poor markets
> than anything else (baring colletables).  How would you argue that some
> low mileage cars are the result of a no limitations on technology policy?

A lack of mileage standards, which are regulations on technology, can be
expected to result in technology that doesn't meet the standard.

> Unsafe medical devices?  I would say this is a problem with testing
> technology, not a lack of limitation on technological advance.

If medical devices are sold without ANY limitation, e.g. the requirement
that they be safe and effective, the result is unsafe equipment.
Improved testing technology isn't useful if there's no requirement to
use it.  And "the market" is composed of people who have neither the
expertise to test the equipment before they consent to its use, nor (in
the case of someone's who's bleeding or in labor) the time.

> Genetically tampered food?  Why is this dangerous?  Have any evidence?
> Most of the livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way
> or another, be it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or
> genetic/hormonal therapy.  You see this as a regression?

In some cases, yes, I see problems in biotech.  For example, hormones
used in cattle in high doses are known to cause tumors in women in low
doses.  Whether people would choose to eat horemone-treated meat is
debatable; I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by
cypherpunks as an article of faith.  Without regulation on the
technology, even an innocuous labeling requirement, the right to choose
is taken away because consumers can't detect the difference between
hormone-treated beef and organic beef.

> You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote and
> regulation designed to deter technological advance.

Technological advance is a means to an end.  Regulations should properly
be about insuring the public welfare.  While we might reasonably
disagree about what that welfare is, clearly technological anarchy
doesn't promote it.

> Market
> forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost.  I propose this boost
> be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market assisters and
> privatization.

Either the market works or it doesn't.  You can't decry all government
regulation and then call for handouts to businessmen.

> When Germany wanted to promote environmentally sound
> packaging and manufacture, they started a program called Gruun Punkt (The
> Green Point)  They allow manufactures to place the green point sticker on
> their products provided they meet XYZ specifications.

Actually, I think this is a great way to proceed.


=======================================================================
     Crim Tideson                     Privacy is its own justification.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUBLpKieKvOblMnt4MdAQH72wP+NiE1e/wGy5t2XZla3gRXLRRGpCFeEX5J
YtcKLqbym/pV9XRLBuEGIETnrsmJoOrWN+PDlzW02HXRmiad+Wbf1jp/QjPwXkQm
0ysSrrTIkZMsjIlY5ffxzwR8LzQZMhAMliFmFjhE8rAz/fLAqY1N+kT7NLiPyP54
TPOVSSyEhKU=
=1dU3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This recent debate about untested/dangerous/unapproved technology,
such as medical equipment, vitamins, automobile features, is
ideological. I'm not likely to convince the disbelievers here, nor are
they likely--experience shows--to go read the recommended books which
might answer these questions to their satisfaction.

But arguing that the government needs to intervene in markets and
limit free choice to "protect" customers and consumers is precisely
how our present mess got started. And how crypto and communications is
being afffected. (Imagine PGP being outlawed because of its
"uncertified" nature, the bugs is clearly still contains, etc.)

Anonymous wrote:

> A lack of mileage standards, which are regulations on technology, can be
> expected to result in technology that doesn't meet the standard.

No, if customers want good mileage more than they want other features
(like prices, performance, 4-wheel drive, etc.), then they'll pay more
for them. Some do. Some drive little 60 mpg econoboxes, while I drive
an 18 mpg (with a tailwind) Ford Explorer. The market in action.

I could do some calculations on just how unimportant the "fuel
economy" standards are, but I lack the energy and time to make these
points here. Fuel economy standards are about the worst possible case
that can be made for government interference.

> If medical devices are sold without ANY limitation, e.g. the requirement
> that they be safe and effective, the result is unsafe equipment.
> Improved testing technology isn't useful if there's no requirement to
> use it.  And "the market" is composed of people who have neither the
> expertise to test the equipment before they consent to its use, nor (in
> the case of someone's who's bleeding or in labor) the time.

Underwriters Laboratories, Good Housekeeping ("Seal of Appproval"),
and Consumer Reports are better testers than any bureacrats in
Washington, and they are private. Insurance companies have a strong
interest in safe equipment, as do hospitals, doctors, and even
patients. 

The specter of people killing themselves absent a government standard
is false.


> doses.  Whether people would choose to eat horemone-treated meat is
> debatable; I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by
> cypherpunks as an article of faith.  Without regulation on the
> technology, even an innocuous labeling requirement, the right to choose
> is taken away because consumers can't detect the difference between
> hormone-treated beef and organic beef.

Again, faslse. If people are concerned, they can ask. They can
patronize organic food stores, as they do in huge numbers here in the
Northern California area. And so on.

What often happens with government-imposed standards is that some
lobbying group decides that "cheese is good for you" and so gets
cheese installed as one of the government-mandated "basic food
groups." (If you think I'm exaggerating, you didn't grow up in the 50s
and 60s, when the "four basic food groups" had to be fed to children
in school lunch programs. Political views have now shifted to the
point where soy milk, bean sprouts, and sun-ripened tomatoes must now
be included in all school lunch programs. :-})

Government standards are a two-edged sword. Many of us would prefer to
"opt out" of their idea of what's healthy and safe and what's not.

Motorcycle helmet laws are a good example. Which I won't get started
on here. 


--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.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

Tim May writes:
> Government standards are a two-edged sword. Many of us would prefer to
> "opt out" of their idea of what's healthy and safe and what's not.

   Are you crazy? If you were allowed to opt out of government
standards and eat what you want, you'd be driving up healthcare
costs! That's unfair to your brothers and sisters! The government
will stop you anyway by requiring everyone to have quarterly checkups
and then have the medical records of people with unhealthy lifestyles
sent to them. If you refuse, you won't get to be in the government
healthcare system, which is only fair since you're driving up
everyone else's costs like a sociopath.




-Ray
p.s. I hate to have to do this, but some people lack a sacasm detector,
so: ;-) ;-) ;-)

"Be very afraid, the Flavor Savor(tm) tomatoes are going to kill us
all!"

Ray writes:
> Tim May writes:
> > Government standards are a two-edged sword. Many of us would prefer to
> > "opt out" of their idea of what's healthy and safe and what's not.
> 
>    Are you crazy? If you were allowed to opt out of government
> standards and eat what you want, you'd be driving up healthcare
> costs! That's unfair to your brothers and sisters! The government
> will stop you anyway by requiring everyone to have quarterly checkups
> and then have the medical records of people with unhealthy lifestyles
> sent to them. If you refuse, you won't get to be in the government
> healthcare system, which is only fair since you're driving up
> everyone else's costs like a sociopath.

It would be helpful if we could define the word "government."  Is a
government any organization of people, or is it any organization
wherein some people hold coercive power over others?  In either case,
how are corporations different from governments?  If it is argued that
corporations are different because, as an employee of a corporation, I
am free to terminate my employment contract and to enter a contract
with a different corporation, then it can also be argued that, as a
citizen of the U.S., I am free to terminate my citizenship and assume
citizenship in another country.

In large measure, privatization really amounts to nothing more than
removing programs from the incompetent, technocratic control of state
bureaucracies and submitting them to the incompetent, totalitarian
control of business.  There is no question but that our government
works very poorly by any standard; I just don't see the argument for
privatization as being an argument between statism and anarchism
(Bakunin would agree :}).  It is, rather, merely an argument between
two different, equally decrepit organizational precepts.


--
Mark Chen 
chen@netcom.com
415/329-6913
finger for PGP public key
D4 99 54 2A 98 B1 48 0C  CF 95 A5 B0 6E E0 1E 1D

From: chen@intuit.com (Mark Chen)
   Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT)

   It would be helpful if we could define the word "government."  Is a
   government any organization of people, or is it any organization
   wherein some people hold coercive power over others?

It's any organization that is allowed to have a monopoly on legitimate
coercion.  When the IRA collects taxes, and provides protection,
that's thuggery.  When the British Government does the same thing,
that's perfectly fine.  <cough!>

   In either case, how are corporations different from governments?

In the main, corporations persuade and governments force.

-- 
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>    http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html
Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX)  | What is thee doing about it?
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.

I wasn't sure whether to respond to this message, or your other one,
which admonished that this is off-topic.

nelson@crynwr.dom writes:
>    From: chen@intuit.com (Mark Chen)
>    Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
> 
>    It would be helpful if we could define the word "government."  Is a
>    government any organization of people, or is it any organization
>    wherein some people hold coercive power over others?
> 
> It's any organization that is allowed to have a monopoly on legitimate
> coercion.  When the IRA collects taxes, and provides protection,
> that's thuggery.  When the British Government does the same thing,
> that's perfectly fine.  <cough!>

And within the scope of their operations - among their employees -
corporations have a monopoly on the means of economic coercion
(forgive me if I omit your editorial use of the word "legitimate").
They have exclusive control over livelihoods.

>    In either case, how are corporations different from governments?
> 
> In the main, corporations persuade and governments force.

So maquiladora workers are "persuaded" to work twelve hours a day for
fifteen cents an hour.  Salvadoran workers are "persuaded" (at
gunpoint) to contribute to the welfare of their latifundista
benefactors for either a handful of beans or nothing at all.
Similarly, I am "persuaded" to contribute my labor to the designs of
my employer - truly, because if I don't like it, I can leave.

Perhaps your will elaborate your assertion.


--
Mark Chen 
chen@netcom.com
415/329-6913
finger for PGP public key
D4 99 54 2A 98 B1 48 0C  CF 95 A5 B0 6E E0 1E 1D

-----BEGIN OF PGP DECRYPTED TEXT-----

Mark Chen writes:
> I wasn't sure whether to respond to this message, or your other one,
> which admonished that this is off-topic.

> nelson@crynwr.dom writes:
> > It's any organization that is allowed to have a monopoly on legitimate
> > coercion.  When the IRA collects taxes, and provides protection,
> > that's thuggery.  When the British Government does the same thing,
> > that's perfectly fine.  <cough!>

> And within the scope of their operations - among their employees -
> corporations have a monopoly on the means of economic coercion
> (forgive me if I omit your editorial use of the word "legitimate").
> They have exclusive control over livelihoods.

    What is "economic coercion"?  Within the scope of schools,
teachers have a "monopoly" on the means of educational coercion. Within
the scope of church, preachers have a "monopoly" on the means of religious
coercion. Within the scope of the home, parents have a "monopoly" on
the means of parental coercion. Are you seriously suggesting
that any of these structures even compare to a government? Do you
know what a monopoly is? You analogy doesn't hold water. It's like
saying "within the scope of the people who patronize my store, I have
a monopoly." Typical of socialists, they are unfamilar with economics
and resort to semantic games. A monopoly is defined by (1) one seller, 
many buyers, and (2) restriction on entry.  Unless a corporation
has a monopoly on its market, it exists within a job market
as one of many sellers. So unless your skills are very specialized
and *only* that corporation supplies jobs needing that skill,
in no sense does a corporation have exclusive control over livelihoods.
However, specializing in a skill that not many people want to buy is
as much your fault anyway. Finally, one doesn't have to work for
a corporation anyway, it's a red herring. There are 4 million 
corporations in this country but 14 million small businesses.

  Trying to let governments off the hook because one can "move
elsewhere" doesn't let them off the hook. For one thing, it ignores
the fact that some governments *prevent* you from moving elsewhere
(whereas, no corporation in a free market has the legal authority to
stop you from quitting).  Secondly, it ignores the transaction cost
differences between switching jobs and switching countries. Third,
barrier to entry is extraordinarily high -- try starting your own
government vs starting your own corporation. Finally, there are
19 million businesses in this country to choose from, whereas
there are only a handful of countries to move to. Governments have
an oligopoly on countries.

> >    In either case, how are corporations different from governments?
> > 
> > In the main, corporations persuade and governments force.

> So maquiladora workers are "persuaded" to work twelve hours a day for
> fifteen cents an hour.  Salvadoran workers are "persuaded" (at

   I thought it was 49 cents an hour, however, no one ever accused
a socialist knowing the facts. BTW, what's the cost of living
in maquiladora. You know that comparing wages between different
areas without purchasing power corrections is nonsense, don't you?

> gunpoint) to contribute to the welfare of their latifundista
> benefactors for either a handful of beans or nothing at all.

   If they're forced via guns, it isn't exactly a free market isn't it?
Actually, it sounds like state socialism.

> Similarly, I am "persuaded" to contribute my labor to the designs of
> my employer - truly, because if I don't like it, I can leave.

   Then why don't you? What's stopping you from working for yourself? 
If you don't like the services your employer is providing you
(workplace, tools, investment management, capital contributions, etc)
and you don't have the ambition or skills to work for yourself, stop
whining. If you have any computer skills at all, you can work for yourself
without a large amount of capital. My sister got her CS and degree,
did some consulting for a consulting firm, and after she aquired
the skills, she quit and started doing her own consulting. She now
works from home. In most small businesses, the workers are near
partners with the management (and often earn equivalent wages)

> Perhaps your will elaborate your assertion.

  Simple: businesses are not governments. There is very little common
ground between them. Governments operate by force alone, governments
can prevent you from leaving, a business in a free market can't. 
You can found your own business, you can't found your own government.
Businesses operate by selling products to people who voluntarily
buy them. Governments operate by stealing your money at gunpoint.

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

chen@intuit.com (Mark Chen) writes:

> If it is argued that
> corporations are different because, as an employee of a corporation, I
> am free to terminate my employment contract and to enter a contract
> with a different corporation, then it can also be argued that, as a
> citizen of the U.S., I am free to terminate my citizenship and assume
> citizenship in another country.

- From the frying pan into the fire?  Why assume another?  Why not drop
your U.S. citizenship and be done with it?

Can't be done you say? (*)  Then this is a significant difference between
terminating employment and terminating citizenship.  Employees regularly
terminate and go it alone forever after.

(*) You may be right.  Their statute may not provide for citizenship
termination unless you first go to a place over which they don't claim
jurisdiction.  Good reason to never affirm that citizenship in the first
place.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLpNkysDhz44ugybJAQF9CQP/fdh3P4YYy4gvvm6kE8JkQmy4IkCQTxfd
Jqg6m95fZokW28hmd8ogPa6wlcyr6qvWWrL9wb+7IMNf34BhV+8KJK/2tsgM496o
PEruV31ucpbLNa97o81keZcp3F0gJeNjZiZO+1fl20R0ZvGmc3zArPsBebN24rJQ
LRReyyIZ4Bs=
=A9ZC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----