RE: Why does the state still stand:

On 14 May 96 at 22:01, blanc wrote:

> From: 	Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously]
> 
> It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people
> can think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed
> solutions and workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important
> (some might say ultimate) cypherpunk model.
> ....................................................................
> 
> 
> I think this is a much needed discussion  - in particular as it
> comes at a time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the
> defeatist attitude of some cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting
> ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill of Rights regarding the
> subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence (heh). 
> 
> 3 problems which immediately come to mind:
> 
> .  What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another,
> decides in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or
> other fine government agency)?
> 
> .  What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting
> Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards
> getting their expected remuneration for work done?

The nature of anonimity, IMO, precludes any legal mechanism since the 
anonymity structure was established precisely to avoid any legal 
consequences.

Here, I might be tempted to differeciate between two cases:
1) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of the governmental 
system
2) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of everybody (to con 
others)

The only problem is, how will you differentiate between 1) and 2) 
*before* a conflict arises?

  The involved party would then have to resort to use 
some sort of unofficial tribunal.  It would create a set of parrallel 
law system, and as much of them as there would be groups doing 
business together.

Again, depending on the context, AP might wery well be the only 
solution or be no workable solution at all.

But here, I think that AP would be the single most important factor
ruling the socio-economical behavior of individuals or entities in
the world.  It already works that way in many countries of the
world, especially in south america.  In many places, you don't screw
around too much or you get killed.  As a friend of mine who lived in
the jungle told me "if a guy fools around with you wife, you just
shut up and take it, but if a guy fools around with your girlfriend,
you have the sorcerer mix you a beverage...  One of my friend had
one and he died within ten days..."

He said: "This system might very well go against our common moral
principles, but in theses places, you can leave anything on the
public place for several days and when you come back, it'll still be
there.  In theses countries, when you give your word, it *is*
binding.  Most business deals are simply verbal and there is an
astonishing low level of defaulting on them.  Thoses who tend to
default dishonestly tend very much to die quickly.  In thoses
countries, no con man ever survives."

 
> .  Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly
> accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where
> suppliers do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has
> mentioned before about the need to pay for some things in tiny
> quantities - like quarters for a phone call, etc.)

Any physical currency can be made traceable (put a chemical or
radioactive tracer or a zillion other tricks...)

JFA
PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S
SYSTEM.  MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS
AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE
THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT
THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED.  IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE.

 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee  
 Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses

 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants.
 Physists, technologists and engineers.

 PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
 ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

On Wed, 15 May 1996, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:

> On 14 May 96 at 22:01, blanc wrote:
> 
> > 3 problems which immediately come to mind:
> > 
> > .  What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another,
> > decides in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or
> > other fine government agency)?
> > 
> > .  What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting
> > Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards
> > getting their expected remuneration for work done?
> 
> The nature of anonimity, IMO, precludes any legal mechanism since the 
> anonymity structure was established precisely to avoid any legal 
> consequences.
> 
> Here, I might be tempted to differeciate between two cases:
> 1) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of the governmental 
> system
> 2) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of everybody (to con 
> others)
> 
> The only problem is, how will you differentiate between 1) and 2) 
> *before* a conflict arises?
> 
>   The involved party would then have to resort to use 
> some sort of unofficial tribunal.  It would create a set of parrallel 
> law system, and as much of them as there would be groups doing 
> business together.

I disagree.  The key is prior or on site clearing.  Anonymous businesses
will have to depend more on reputation, and even reputation has its limits
when it comes to parties that obviously have no accountabilty at all.

Participants in such a market will have to be wary of the "last shot" or
"last round" problem.  (Specifically that one party to the transaction may
no longer wish to participate in the market, and not need to and thus is
free to screw the market, "cash in" his reputation and retire on the
proceeds as a result.

Still, escrows or multiple escrows will be the answer here.

 
> Again, depending on the context, AP might wery well be the only 
> solution or be no workable solution at all.

Now, tell me how AP is a solution if everyone in the corporation is double
blinded?  Who do anonymous parties put out betting pools on?

[As AP has been discredited in this application, your argument for it is
deleted.]

> > .  Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly
> > accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where
> > suppliers do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has
> > mentioned before about the need to pay for some things in tiny
> > quantities - like quarters for a phone call, etc.)
> 
> Any physical currency can be made traceable (put a chemical or
> radioactive tracer or a zillion other tricks...)

And so?  Because I possess or have received cash from someone does not
mean that it is mine, nor that I earned it, nor that I am not merely
holding it, nor that I am not acting as trustee.

Income tax and currency taxes depend on realization events.  Even in the
strictest sense, realization is a thin and vague concept.

Your only remaining option is to tax possession of currency.  Good luck.

> JFA

[...]

> THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED.  IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE.

Again, who are you going to kill?

> 
>  DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee  
>  Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses
> 
>  JFA Technologies, R&D consultants.
>  Physists, technologists and engineers.
> 
>  PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
>  ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
> 

---
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