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

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

[I must *try* to quit rising to all this bloody bait, but:]

Michael Loomis wrote:

>[..."unfairness is kept within reasonable bounds"..."reasonable
> sized government"...]

I'm sure that we all agree on the meaning of the term, "reasonable."

>Consumption taxation would, of course,
>include a tax on the amount of information coming into your computer.  I
>don't think that the government will have any problem determining the
>quantity of the information & since it will be encrypted anyway, I don't
>see the privacy worries.

This would give a whole new meaning to the term "mailbomb," no?
JMR

Regards, Jim Ray <liberty@gate.net> 

"The FAA, FBI, Customs, CIA, Justice, DEA and the IRS were all involved
 in Mena. They won't say how they were involved, but they will tell you
 there is nothing there." -- Bill Plante, CBS News Correspondent, &
 Michael Singer, Producer, CBS News, New York. in Tuesday, May 3,
 1994's  Wall Street Journal letters to the editor section.
_______________________________________________________________________
PGP key Fingerprint  51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE  53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 
Public Key id. #  E9BD6D35   --   http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray
_______________________________________________________________________



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh.

iQCVAwUBMYoTt21lp8bpvW01AQE4WQP+KQyztz4V6jfYvboOrDhLLuItlTzkLmIv
6TfM3/7O+fLoNcyKXGOEmgc5y7j0/IiiXJJtMsDCsfH/ONpyEAY1GRnfREgMv9HW
OezSVVhYd/xoKg6pouAaWgZ2cD3RlH8SeE7LqCkeZhAXdcXHiNIAK8mAv78Eln0y
KjzImXWG9dw=
=ieam
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>Consumption taxation would, of course,
>include a tax on the amount of information coming into your computer.  I
>don't think that the government will have any problem determining the
>quantity of the information & since it will be encrypted anyway, I don't
>see the privacy worries.

The problem with a tax on data is that it would be *extremely* unfair. 

It would be like a tax on atoms. With a tax on atoms, the tax on a bag of
groceries would be hundreds of times greater than the tax on a diamond
ring, because there are more atoms in a bag of groceries

Bits are the digital equivalent of atoms. With a tax on bits, the tax on
the download of an up-to-date virus scanner would be hundreds of times
greater than the tax on an emailed business contract.

If this bit tax thing were attempted, the amount of time people spend
online would be determined entirely by their income; if you can't afford
the tax, you can't use the net. Conversely, with employment moving to the
net, people's income would be determined by how much time they spend
working on the net. That creates a nasty catch-22; if you can't afford to 
use the net, you can't get a job; and if you can't get a job, you can't 
afford to use the net.

I understand some ISPs currently charge for data, but it's very cheap 
(My company pays around $20 per gigabyte). The amount of taxation needed 
to sustain a government would be hundreds of times greater.

And of course, taxing on data would discourage new technology, since new 
technology usually requires a lot more bandwidth. People wouldn't use the 
new technology because it could easily quadruple (or more) their taxes.

This bit tax idea must have come directly from satan@hell.gov.

======================================================================
| Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/)     |
| Email: steve@edmweb.com   Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/  |
| PGP (2048/9F317269) Fingerprint: 11C89D1CD67287E68 C09EC52443F8830 |
|               -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, IANAL. --                 |
====================================================================:)