Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?

At 08:21 AM 4/28/96 -0400, mkj@october.segno.com wrote:
>Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>> Income tax is the Godzilla of taxes.  It is THE TAX when it comes
>> to the US.  (Perhaps VAT has a similar status elsewhere, but both,
>> as pointed out, are subject to crypto-anarchistic subversion.)
>> 
>> > ...taxes existed, and governments sustained themselves perfectly
>> > well, long before these systems arose.
>> 
>> But at nowhere near the voracious levels of modern states.
>
>This is a point I hadn't considered.  If the govt doesn't know where
>most of the money is, they can't "harvest" it nearly as efficiently.
>Although they will almost certainly try to extract as much as possible
>from the poor, you can't get blood from a stone.  Hence the size of
>current governments will undoubtedly have to shrink.
>Most other arguments put forth so far in this thread, about how people
>"won't stand for" certain government behaviors and so forth, I don't
>find convincing.  Modern military technologies, especially in the
>U.S., make the prospects of a sucessful popular uprising dubious.

Then you obviously haven't read the essay (AP) I sent you yesterday.  
"Military technologies" only work effectively against a military target.  
Kill civilians and you just make other civilians angry.  At that point 
they'll be look for a weapon that "military technologies" cannot effectively 
oppose.  That weapon is already known to be possible.  

Quite the contrary, I think that a "successful popular uprising" will 
require only a very small investment in time and money, in which some of 
they key players in government are targeted and the prospect exists for 
easily and cheaply getting the rest.  At that point they will resign in droves.

>
>When you cut off someone's air supply, even the nicest, gentlest
>person will go into an unrestrained, murderous frenzy.  I expect
>something similar will happen to even the most "civilized" governments
>within the next few years, as popular crypto begins to cut off their
>money supply.  As I see it, only those relatively few citizens who can
>afford to flee will dare to resist.

Please read the essay.  I think it may enlighten you.  

Even with "conventional" analysis, there is no reason to believe that 
governement will be able to avoid shrinking.  Aside from making it easier to 
avoid taxation, the vast increase in information communicated by the 
Internet is taking a huge amount of power away from the traditional media, 
and the media is (despite the illusion they want you to believe!) the main 
backer of the government in most cases.  In addition, this information flow 
is making it ever more difficult to pass abusive laws; if the government 
does something stupid in the morning, by noon they are being flooded with 
faxes and emails.  And the whole concept of having a "governement" tends to 
be based on the assumption that people are incapable of making decisions for 
themselves.  That's an increasingly unrealistic position.

Government feeds on its own size; once government is dramatically reduced 
below its current size, it will become even less able to resist further 
contraction.  Probably few government employees realize this.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Jim:

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> Government feeds on its own size; once government is dramatically reduced 
> below its current size, it will become even less able to resist further 

	The only true part of this paragraph is that government feeds	
	on its own size.  

> contraction.  Probably few government employees realize this.

	What was the name of that government department that was
	created to obtain and store Helium for the US dirigible 
	fleet?   And just how recently was it abolished.

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com


**********************************************************************
*								     *
*	Opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own views.   *
*								     *
*	There is no way that they can be construed to represent      *
*	any organization's views.				     *
*								     *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*	ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/gr/graphology/home.html	     *
*								     *
*			     OR					     *
*								     *
*       http://members.tripod.com/~graphology/index.html             *
*								     *
***********************************************************************

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

[...]

> "Military technologies" only work effectively against a military target.  

While generally I agree with you, I believe Esper Sata, Gerald Bull and
Pablo Escobar might have more specific disagreements.

> Kill civilians and you just make other civilians angry.  At that point 
> they'll be look for a weapon that "military technologies" cannot effectively 
> oppose.  That weapon is already known to be possible.  

While strong cryptography is powerful, and secure communications
liberating, unplugging the phones would about cripple that 'weapon' for a
while.  Any group rebelling based only on high technology communication is
an extremely vulnerable group, both to widespread denial of service, and
more specific 'surgical' attacks.  (Motorola stock anyone?)

> Quite the contrary, I think that a "successful popular uprising" will 
> require only a very small investment in time and money, in which some of 
> they key players in government are targeted and the prospect exists for 
> easily and cheaply getting the rest.  At that point they will resign in
> droves.

Firstly, uprising, even kicking people out of power might take only a
small investment in time and money, but consolidating a new system (even a
decentralized one) will be extensively expensive and time consuming.

To the extent that a successful uprising depends on organizing the new
power structure, I can't see how a successful popular uprising can be
cheap.

In addition I believe the assumption that a few, even several official
deaths will cause mass resignations ignores history.  See e.g., Columbia,
South Africa, and any number of other examples.

[...]

> Government feeds on its own size; once government is dramatically reduced 
> below its current size, it will become even less able to resist further 
> contraction.  Probably few government employees realize this.

While I understand the point, I think that a slim efficient government is
much better able to resist "contraction."  The most effective covert
action/terrorist/political agitation groups have all been small and
closely held.  It's easier to control all aspects of operation and a
greater concentration can be put into internal security concerns as
government shrinks.  Obviously there is a critical mass, but I don't think
you will see the "runaway refrigerator" effect with government shrinkage.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 08:21 AM 4/28/96 -0400, mkj@october.segno.com wrote:
> >Although they will almost certainly try to extract as much as possible
> >from the poor, you can't get blood from a stone.  Hence the size of
> >U.S., make the prospects of a sucessful popular uprising dubious.
> 
> Quite the contrary, I think that a "successful popular uprising" will 
> require only a very small investment in time and money, in which some of 
> they key players in government are targeted and the prospect exists for 
> easily and cheaply getting the rest.  At that point they will resign in droves.

	Damnit, I KNEW I was gonna wind up agreeing with him. ;)

> avoid taxation, the vast increase in information communicated by the 
> Internet is taking a huge amount of power away from the traditional media, 
> backer of the government in most cases.  In addition, this information flow 
> is making it ever more difficult to pass abusive laws; if the government 

	On the contrary, just as the increased communications let 
opponents know about the legislation, it also lets the proponents know, 
and they supposedly send faxes and email in support. 

> does something stupid in the morning, by noon they are being flooded with 
> faxes and emails.  And the whole concept of having a "governement" tends to 
> be based on the assumption that people are incapable of making decisions for 
> themselves.  That's an increasingly unrealistic position.

	Literacy rates are dropping, the High School Dropout rates are on 
the rise. Hell, listen to talk radio for a while, and you tell me if 
these are the people YOU want running the country. They are motivated 
enough to call in and/or vote, but they aren't motivated enough to 
actually stop and think about the subject, much less learn about it. 
	I am not saying that the average person can't make good 
decesions, only that many of them are not equipped to sort out the 
complexites, nor are they willing to think long term about things. 
Unfortunately this is also true of our leadership. 

Petro, Chistopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered>
snow@crash.suba.com