weak cryptoanarchy

Some non-cypherpunks seem afraid of Tim May's cryptoanarchy, 
which, to quote Dr. Denning's recent paper, "suggest the 
impending arrival of a Brave New World in which governments, as 
we know them, have crumbled, disappeared, and been replaced by 
virtual communities of individuals doing as they wish without 
interference."

Perhaps these people are worrying needlessly.  I don't think 
cryptoanarchy (in this strong form) is a likely scenario for the 
future.  Even if strong cryptography and anonymous transaction 
systems are used by everyone, governments can continue to 
control people's physical actions and properties.  The physical 
world will continue to exist, even if it becomes relatively less 
important.

I think a better prediction for the implications of strong 
crypto is what I would call "weak cryptoanarchy."  That is, 
cryptography will allow virtual communities the option to exist 
without the possibility of inteference by force.  Certainly some 
virtual communities, such as moderated discussion groups, will 
opt to have formal or informal governments.  The key is that 
people will have the choice of participating in communities 
where physical violence will be absolutely powerless.

Stated in this form, cryptoanarchy is hardly controversial.  
Plus, this weak form of cryptoanarchy has a much better chance 
of being realized, because it does not require the collapse of 
existing governments, only the creation of new communities 
without governments.

I don't think anarchy is the right word anyway. Anarchy is such a clumsy
word, with so many misuses. It's supposed to mean lack of rule, but I 
don't think most people (even Tim) want to throw away all the rules; they 
just prefer consensus, balance of power, and self-regulation. Maybe 
autoarchy or symarchy.

I find the distiction between government and non-government power centers
fallacious. All kinds of associations make rules, which are normally
followed, sometimes punished. The only formal distinction I can think of
is that government bodies are supposed to have a monopoly on the
legitimate use of violence. 

This distinction is blurring again, and not (just) by the increase of
random violence, which normal folks are afraid of. People are becoming
more civilized, and no longer believe that many of the violent things that
governments used to do habitually are legitimate anymore. Nobody does
ritual sacrifice to the ruler-god-king; few would now endorse locking the
King's estranged wife in a tower, or killing her; fewer and fewer believe
that war is glorious. 

On the other half of the walnut, non-government power centers now have
powers formerly reserved only to governments. Private security guards
assume some of the role of the police, and corporate espionage and
counter-espionage is getting more and more interesting. "Superstars" in 
all fields have interesting powers over other people.

We're not seeing a net decrease in the forces impinging on the individual,
but rather a broader distribution, which might even be an increase. 

Let's call those half-developed ideas my $0.01.

-rich