crypto anarchy vs AP

Been reading the AP thread, and thought I'd donate some of my views.

To me, crypto anarchy is a means to achieve a more libertarian
government, it is a pivotal tool to reduce government power, and
enable freedom and privacy.  A libertarian government means a less
powerful government, less taxes, less onerous laws, more freedoms.  I
don't think AP as stated by Jim could escalate quickly enough as a
mechanism to introduce a libertarian government, because if it got to
the state that too many politicians were openly threatened, and
killed, the government would declare a state of war, and switch off
the Internet.  You'd just cause the government to panic, and this
would have negative effects, it would take ages for them to calm down,
and the laws they'd pass in the mean time would mean a near certainty
of mandatory GAK as a condition to switching the Internet back on.

(Before someone takes me to task for the impossibility of switching
the Internet off, it all depends on the level of government panic.
More specifically perhaps they would disconnect key backbones, and
ISPs briefly while they rushed into effect a few presidential decrees
outlawing non GAKed crypto, anonymous ecash, remailers, PGP, DC-nets,
etc.)

I think I understand what Jim is saying with AP, that it might be a
way to accelerate the arrival of libertarian government.  I'm not
saying I have any moral problems with a suitably restrained version of
AP, if it saved lives and resulted in a better life for many people.
(Some people might even view it as having a certain element of poetic
justice:-)

However I don't think it would survive the above hurdle.

(Also I have some thoughts on why AP might not achieve the desired
effects even if it could survive the hurdle which I will save for now,
in the interests of keeping this to a digestible length.)

Libertarian governments, if they come, I think will be more easily,
and more likely achieved via non-violent means.  I think it will be a
much more gradual process, and that government power will just be
gradually eroded as international businesses gain power, and borders
become more open, trade more free, as travel becomes cheaper, and
moving to another country becomes less of a hassle.  Telecommuting,
and remote education should help reduce the problems of moving
country.  If you telecommute, and your kids (if you have any) are
taught via the Net, and you can talk to your friends in photo
realistic real time VR chat rooms, it becomes much less important
where on the planet you live.

As information based work becomes more important, significant
proportions of government tax revenues may be siphoned off to
tele-workers from tax havens, and to those who just ignore local tax
laws in favor of anonymous ecash.  The ability to jurisdiction shop
for laws, and taxes in itself will reduce governments options.  It
will induce governments to try to provide incentives for international
businesses to use their jurisdictions, and to create the appearance of
as free a life style as they can for individuals.  The jurisdiction
shopping will start amongst the disenfranchised, and the adventurous,
but will spread as the advantages become clearer, and the hurdles are
reduced.  Tax collection will be restructured to tax tangibles, and
reduced to encourage customers (citizens).

Governments are currently flailing around trying to prolong the
inevitable.  The fall out from this is beginning to annoy some people.
If it annoys enough people soon enough that they vote in a Libertarian
candidate for president in the next 20 years, crypto anarchy, and
libertarian governments could be reached more quickly.  I'm not sure
it will ever get that far though, because the more votes the
libertarians get over the following years, the closer we get to
libertarian anyway, because the government has to start adopting their
policies to get the votes back.  (Much like the green movement, which
once it started getting significant votes, and media attention, was
pandered to by politicians of all parties.  They're all green now:-)
And so libertarian thinking starts to affect government thinking.
Crypto anarchy privacy preserving goodies such as anonymous ecash,
anonymous email, strongly free speech, right to encryption start to
fair better, and so start to undermine whats left of government.
Politicians, now posturing to try and look more libertarian might even
start to take on board the idea that there are simply too many
government employees, that may be the war on drugs causes more
problems than it solves, that sounding pro free speech is something
that might carry some votes, etc.

By the time governments get weak enough for AP to be feasible, they
will be so weak, and eager to entice you into their jurisdiction with
promised single digit tax rates, private dietary recommendation
services, friendly police forces, advertised local highlights: local
casinos, brothels, cuisine, favorable climate, reasonably priced
housing, etc, etc. that no one will care much about offing the fawning
officials (head salesmen, and brochure designer) anyway.

Well thats my theory :-)

It could all suffer a huge set-back if the government panics too soon,
and passes mandatory GAK by presidential decree or something.  One
hopes that whats left of the US first ammendment, and judicial system
would be enough to repeal such a move, but you never know.

Adam
--
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

Mr. Beck said:
> Been reading the AP thread, and thought I'd donate some of my views.

> the Internet.  You'd just cause the government to panic, and this
> would have negative effects, it would take ages for them to calm down,
> and the laws they'd pass in the mean time would mean a near certainty
> of mandatory GAK as a condition to switching the Internet back on.
> (Before someone takes me to task for the impossibility of switching
> the Internet off, it all depends on the level of government panic.
> More specifically perhaps they would disconnect key backbones, and
> ISPs briefly while they rushed into effect a few presidential decrees
> outlawing non GAKed crypto, anonymous ecash, remailers, PGP, DC-nets,
> etc.)

     This would be cutting their own throats. There is SO much commercial
and government traffic going across "The Net" that many businesses would 
scream bloody murder, and the government would have MASSIVE trouble with 
it's agenda.

> Libertarian governments, if they come, I think will be more easily,
> and more likely achieved via non-violent means.  I think it will be a
> much more gradual process, and that government power will just be
> gradually eroded as international businesses gain power, and borders
> become more open, trade more free, as travel becomes cheaper, and
> moving to another country becomes less of a hassle.  Telecommuting,

     A very nice pipe dream. You sir have entirely too much faith in
humanity. 

> Governments are currently flailing around trying to prolong the
> inevitable.  The fall out from this is beginning to annoy some people.
> If it annoys enough people soon enough that they vote in a Libertarian
> candidate for president in the next 20 years, crypto anarchy, and
> libertarian governments could be reached more quickly.  I'm not sure
> it will ever get that far though, because the more votes the
> libertarians get over the following years, the closer we get to
> libertarian anyway, because the government has to start adopting their
> policies to get the votes back.  (Much like the green movement, which
> once it started getting significant votes, and media attention, was
> pandered to by politicians of all parties.  They're all green now:-)

     They are TALKING green, but their actions aren't. This shows that
the "libertarianization" of the ruling party would be in talk only.
Unfortunately people vote THEIR pockets, regardless of why their pockets are
the way they are. They vote their fears as well. They will almost always
vote for politicos who claim "anti-crime" (more like "more-prisons") and
"anti-drug" (read "more inner city youth inprisoned"), and soon 
"anti-crypto" (which will be based on 4-horsemen hysteria). People,
being for the most part stupid and short sighted, will vote away thier 
rights, just as they have done for the last 200 years. 

     No, I am not the LEAST BIT fatalist about this. I am trying to 
fight it with the limited resources I have, but...


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

>government power will just be gradually eroded as international 
>businesses gain power, and borders become more open, trade more free, as 
>travel becomes cheaper, and moving to another country becomes less of a 
>hassle. 

Okay, from the top: there are a number of reasons why this won't happen. 
One of the most obvious being that businesses are NOT in the business of 
helping people, they are in the business of making money. Trade will not 
become free, travel will not become cheaper, and if they are given the 
powers of a government they would not likely let it's consumer base move 
to a country with a better dental plan, thus borders would not become more 
open. In fact, I can easily picture business leaders inthe throes of 
ecstacy over the prospect of having 260 million people who have no choice 
but to buy their product because there are no other manufacturers. Another
reson is that government is like a giant bumblebee, not too bright, but if
you keep poking at it with a sharp stick it will sting you. Government 
officials are interested in keeping their cushy jobs and expensive hookers, 
if they start to feel threatened by crypto anarchy, who do you think they're 
going to retaliate against? The guy who runs the blockbuster video on the 
corner? 

>to create the appearance of as free a life style as they can for
>individuals

ever read "1984"? the appearance of a free lifestyle is most definitely 
not a free lifestyle. I am hardly a friend of the state, and far from 
being an advocate of the church, but multinational corporations running 
the world for their own fun and profit makes my sphincter clench. 


clint barnett
emily carr institute