Re: democracy?! (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:06:03 GMT
> From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: democracy?!
> 
> Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
> > What is a reasonable summary? Reasonable to who? What 'lot' of
> > democracies?
> 
> This is getting kind of repetitive. 

I agree, I keep asking for your examples and proof and you keep avoiding
providing them. You should consider being a politician or a lawyer. It's a
real pity you can't seem to approach this discussion in good faith and with
a sense of open analysis.

> Perhaps you could provide a
> counter example to disprove my claim that democracies result in more
> petty privacy and freedom invasive laws than would be the case with a
> pure market anarchy

Pure market anarchy? What the hell is a pure market? I know what a free
market is. Define it first. Explain how it, without an explicit
bill of rights, will protect my rights? Explain how we don't end up with a
Microsoft that owns everything which effectively reduces to a commercial
communism? Where are my 'exit' choices then? What in the world would
motivate such an entity to provide me with the resources to be a direct
competitor, something clearly not in its best interest for long-term
survival? How will others learn the technology and its applications outside
the purvue of these economic regulatory entities. The unlimited expansion of
the rail-roads in the 1800's is a excellent simili for comparison for both
what such a system would be like as well as the major problems it *doesn't*
address. Taminy Hall ring any bells? There was a free market political
system if there ever was one; pay me and I'll do it for you, don't and you 
can freeze in hell. A more modern example is the history of the
telecommunications companies which even after being broken up have now
re-combined so that we in effect only have 3 domestic tel-comm providers, and
they are discussing how to combine their resources. Further explain why such
a system will guarantee that my views will at least be addressed at some
level and not relegated a priori to a trash-heap because it goes against the
market analysis of some bunch of bean-counters? Who do I go to for
resolution of claims against these entities, the self-same entities? You
call that justice, equality, or even representation? Explain why and how such
a economic based system will guarantee my right to free speech or even to run
a small business which I currently do when it is clear that I am in open
competition with the very entities which provide me the resources to make the
money? What is the economic motivation for the resource controlling entities
to support my freedoms when it reduces their income? Explain how your system
prevents economic black-balling? Another implication is that we will see more
of the sort of business stategies implimented by PGP Inc. (for example) where
they want a percentage of your income *without* accepting a percentage of the
risk, economic tyrany is tyrany just the same. What recourse do I have if the
monopolies which arise in such a system decide that the services or resources
I need won't be provided? Am I then supposed to just calmly accept becoming
some prole for some zaibatsu? What happens when those monopolies decide that
if they work together they can further streamline the market, and my going to 
church or taking a vacation goes against those business requirements?

It sounds like you are supporting Hirshleifer who says:

"The mere fact of low income under anarchy... of itself provides no clear
indication as to what is likely to happen next."

[Personly, Hirshleifer is an idiot who apparently doesn't hang out on the
wrong side of the tracks and therefore has no clue as to what motivates
the poor or stupid.]

Which in effect breaks down into one of two results for individuals (which
all free market anarchists admit openly) who don't have sufficient income
to buy their indipendance and their say:

1.  they devote a great deal of effort to fighting to gain control over
    resources.

or 

2.  they capitulate to some other party and turn over their resources
    for food and shelter.

History would argue that people will accept neither of these as a solution
to day-to-day living. Economists should stay out of politics. It's one of
the reasons that at no point in either the Declaration of Indipendance or
the Constitution that businesses are given rights are even given
consideration except in regards of taxation of inter-state commerce. People
should have seperation of government and religion and that includes the
worship of wealth.

> (perhaps old Iceland would be a suitable anarchy
> to consider as a comparison).

If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore? If it provided such
a superior governmental system providing the maximum return on investment
why did it go away? Why did they instead elect to go with a king? Futher,
explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without demonstrating
the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual democracies such as
ancient Greek ran into? It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of
people who are related, share world-models and have limited resources and
quite another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not thousands 
of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs?

>  Do you have a democracy in mind which
> doesn't result in lots thought crimes and other "crimes" which are so
> far removed from normal free market schelling points.  It's just a
> natural tendency of a democracy.

Thought crimes and such are not a result of any political system but a
result of the psychology of people. Please be so kind as to demonstrate
(along with my previous questions I am still waiting on) how a political
system effects the basic psychological development of the participants.
Further, explain how the belief in the resolving power of money is any
different than the resolving power of Buddha? You seem to be claiming that
if we pray to the all mighty dollar all will be right with the world.

> > > But they do share a characteristic:
> > > distortions of free market in the form of voting for theft and
> > > redistribution of other peoples money leading to annoying government
> > > micro-management, and general do-gooder busy-body-ness, and the many
> > > laws on thought crimes.
> > 
> > Again, demostrate your assertion(s).
> > 
> > Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?
> 
> Who?  What?  Current democracices.  When?  Now.  Why?  Market
> distortion.  How?  Politicians brokering legalised mass theft and
> market distortion for game theoretic reasons.

You seriously expect any reasonable person to be satisfied with such a
side-step?

And in case you hadn't realized it, the entire concept of free-market is a
result of those same game theories. Are you claiming that such free market
based systems will abandon game theory when it clearly provides insight into
how those free markets operate?

> > >  Your constitution says you can own and carry
> > > guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you
> > > can not.  Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand
> > > the constitution?
> > 
> > No, my responce is prove your assertions. 
> 
> You prove your assertion: are you saying there are no gun controls in

The simply fact that one has a constitution that guarantees certain rights is
*not* a guarantee that others won't find those rights threatening and want to
take them away (see Hirshleifer's two alternatives above). And your assertion
is that if we go to a free market anarchy then we no longer have to worry
about anyone telling us what we can and can't do? Please be so kind as to
demonstrate why a free market anarchy will prohibit monopolistic
organizations who would be just as threatened by armed individuals as any
other centralized organization?

> > Explain to me why you believe these are valid views 
> 
> because they are a statement of readily observable reality?

Where do I observe them? Give examples. Whose reality? Are you seriously
claiming that there is one absolute reality?

> > What you did say was that back in the old days people ran around
> > killing those who bothered them. Which isn't true either.
> 
> That bit was a statement of a belief that few people would be inclined
> to invade someones privacy and attempt to impose sanctions for what
> they viewed as thought crimes.  It takes governments or religions to
> do this kind of thing, individuals aren't likely to

Governments and religions *ARE* people. There are times where I think you
have said the stupidist thing possible and then you keep typing. Individuals
are the ones who killed the Jews, put pepper spray in the eyes of
demonstrators, and just about everything else that gets done.

> > > The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their
> > > neighbours what they could think.
> > 
> > Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997?
> > Demonstrate your point.
> 
> I say: there were less laws in 1897 US than 1997 US.
> 
> Tell me: do you refute that claim?

I don't know, never looked at the numbers *AND* it isn't my job to refute
it. *IT IS* your job to prove it since it is *YOUR* claim and apparently has
some relevance to your thesis' validity. The number of laws at any given time
is irrelevant and immaterial to my position (nice attempt at a straw man).
It is plain stupidity to make claims and not have a clue as to the reality.
I shure as hell won't be asking people to put their lives in my hands unless
I could address such issues in a manner that they would feel comfortable with.
Gut feelings are almost always wrong. The mere fact that you feel that we
should take such claims at face value is a clear indication of what kind of
worth you place in others. You believe yourself to be an angel apparently.

Oh, and for the record. Studies of deaths during the 1800's indicate that
the vast majority were accidental self-inflicted gunshot wounds, far more
than the Indians or other 3rd parties inflicted combined.



    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |    The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there   |
   |    be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.       |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                       -Alan Greenspan-             |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

> Governments and religions *ARE* people. There are times where I think you
> have said the stupidist thing possible and then you keep typing. Individuals
> are the ones who killed the Jews, put pepper spray in the eyes of
> demonstrators, and just about everything else that gets done.

Yes, but these people were "just obeying orders", these orders in turn 
came from a government which, although it consists of individuals is much 
more than that, The whole problem with demcracy is that it merges the 
views of those that give it a mandate to govern into one huge fudge, 
anarchies give less structural potential for the "mob rule" seen in 
modern democracies. Also, by and large, governments in modern democracies 
are free to commit small evils without ever influencing their share of 
the vote, the bigger evils are the ones that get noticed by the electorate.

Governments are just "collections of individuals", in the same way that a 
you are just "a load of assorted chemicals". To say something like that 
indicates a lack of understanding of the distinction between individual 
views and mob rule, I credit you with more intelligence than to ignore 
such a distinction Jim.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Now, on the receiving end of Jim's argument style I come to understand
how those 100 article long flame wars that I never bother reading that
he gets involved with come about :-) Anyway, heedless to the folly,
I'll dive right in, it is quite interesting  :-)

Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
> Forwarded message:

You complained earlier about misquotation, your quotation style is
unusual, it looks like you're pressing the `forward' button rather
than `reply'.

> Pure market anarchy? What the hell is a pure market? 

A free market.  (That should have said pure _free_ market).

Crypto anarchy is free market principles left to run with no
government.  Some people claim that this would actually work pretty
well.  The theory being that it gives you, the individual, maximal
choice.  Not only can you choose whether to purchase a "boob-tube", or
to instead spend the money on other things, but you can choose
protection services, laws, social insurance services, etc.

A problem with democracy is that some decisions are taken centrally
which reduces individual choice.

> Explain how it, without an explicit bill of rights, will protect my
> rights?

A bill of rights is nice, if anybody takes any notice of it.  If
nobody takes any notice it's just a piece of paper.

Crypto anarchy tends to protect your rights because typically your
rights are worth more to you than they are for others to take from
you.  Eg. your neigbours might not want to risk your wrath in invading
your house to see if you smoke something which they don't smoke.  Ie
it hardly matters one way or another to you what your neigbours do
inside their house.  But to you it matters a lot what you're free to
do.  So you can buy a .44 hand gun fairly cheaply.  Now if your
neigbour gets nosy, you can make clear that if he tries invading your
house you will be likely to aerate his skull.  Even if he is better
armed, or whatever, his small gained value in perverse amusement and
satisfaction in annoying you probably isn't worth the risk to him that
you may succeed in blowing him away.

> Explain how we don't end up with a Microsoft that owns everything
> which effectively reduces to a commercial communism?

Difficult to predict of course.  However large corporations are
typically subsidized by democratic governments.  This is a fairly
natural outcome if you think about it, because democracy is in most
current day examples quite biased to best represent the wishes of
those in positions to make large campaign contributions.  Hence the
term `corporate welfare'.

Microsoft's current $1M/day fine is one counter example.

> Where are my 'exit' choices then?

Do you have to buy microsoft software?  I sure don't buy any.  The
microsoft software that I have used (on equipment bought by employers)
is very poor quality, I'd recommend other vendors on quality for the
most part.

> What in the world would motivate such an entity to provide me with
> the resources to be a direct competitor, something clearly not in
> its best interest for long-term survival?

What do you figure they're going to do?  Nuke their competitors?

Someone will try to break the monopoly if it is charging to high
prices.  IBM could easily compete with Bill Gates -- however I hear
they don't bother upgrading OS/2 (an infinitely superior product) to
win95/winNT compatibility because they fear government monopoly
actions against themselves.

> How will others learn the technology and its applications outside
> the purvue of these economic regulatory entities. The unlimited expansion of
> the rail-roads in the 1800's is a excellent simili for comparison for both
> what such a system would be like as well as the major problems it *doesn't*
> address. Taminy Hall ring any bells? There was a free market political
> system if there ever was one; pay me and I'll do it for you, don't and you 
> can freeze in hell.

No pay, no goods.  Sounds good to me!

(I'm not sure what the stated problem was -- too many rail roads?
Surely that's self regulating: too many becomes too competitive, too
low profit margin, the less efficient ones go bankrupt.)

> A more modern example is the history of the telecommunications
> companies which even after being broken up have now re-combined so
> that we in effect only have 3 domestic tel-comm providers, and they
> are discussing how to combine their resources.

A government supported monopoly if ever I heard of one.  (Oooh that
statement is going to get me in trouble).

> Further explain why such a system will guarantee that my views will
> at least be addressed at some level and not relegated a priori to a
> trash-heap because it goes against the market analysis of some bunch
> of bean-counters?

I can't see any reason for any of your wishes to come true if there is
no one who can profit from fulfilling those wishes.

> Who do I go to for resolution of claims against these entities, the
> self-same entities?

An independent third party arbitrator service who's arbitration
services and terms were agreed up front in the contract?

> You call that justice, equality, or even representation?

Yes.  Representation of the $, excellent.

> Explain why and how such a economic based system will guarantee my
> right to free speech or even to run a small business which I
> currently do when it is clear that I am in open competition with the
> very entities which provide me the resources to make the money?

I don't know what your business is, but you're bright I'm sure you'll
thrive in a free market.

> What is the economic motivation for the resource controlling
> entities to support my freedoms when it reduces their income?

None.  Their interests are to keep their customers happy so that they
buy more products and services.  If you aren't a customer, or they
can't see any gain in helping you they may tell you to fuck off.
Sounds fair enough to me.  You want to pass laws telling them what
they can do with their resources?

> Explain how your system prevents economic black-balling? 

Anonymous payments, no reporting requirements.  Who are they going to
black ball?  Just start another nym.

> Another implication is that we will see more of the sort of business
> stategies implimented by PGP Inc. (for example) where they want a
> percentage of your income *without* accepting a percentage of the
> risk, economic tyrany is tyrany just the same.

That's fine by me.  If PGP Inc's price is fair, they'll do well.  If
it's too high they'll be under cut, and be forced to adjust or lose
trade to competition.

> What recourse do I have if the monopolies which arise in such a
> system decide that the services or resources I need won't be
> provided?

Go into a different line of business?  Buy the resources on the black
market?  Find another supplier of those resources, start a company to
supply those resoureces yourself.

> Am I then supposed to just calmly accept becoming some prole for
> some zaibatsu? What happens when those monopolies decide that if
> they work together they can further streamline the market, and my
> going to church or taking a vacation goes against those business
> requirements?

There is a danger that if monopolies thrive it could get dangerous.
However I'm not sure even then it's going to be worse than the current
situation... 50% income tax?  Corporations will I think learn that a
satisfied happy employee works harder.  It simply isn't worth it to
them to piss you off.  Also I'm not sure large corporations are the
most efficient company size -- I suspect some of them may fragment
without generous corporate welfare programs.

> It sounds like you are supporting Hirshleifer who says:
> 
> "The mere fact of low income under anarchy... of itself provides no clear
> indication as to what is likely to happen next."

I tend to think there would be an economic boom... all those previous
unproductive government employees joining the work productive force.

> Which in effect breaks down into one of two results for individuals (which
> all free market anarchists admit openly) who don't have sufficient income
> to buy their indipendance and their say:
> 
> 1.  they devote a great deal of effort to fighting to gain control over
>     resources.
> 
> or 
> 
> 2.  they capitulate to some other party and turn over their resources
>     for food and shelter.

Sounds fair enough to me.  If an individual can't manage his own
finances, perhaps he would be better off in some kind of managed
community.  Better than having the state steal money off productive
people to fund his laziness or ineptitude.

> History would argue that people will accept neither of these as a
> solution to day-to-day living. Economists should stay out of
> politics.

That's a strange statement.  Economics is reality.  If you can't
persuade people to part with their money through their own volition,
it's theft!  People's charity is your only recourse if you are unable
to provide any services.  Taking charity at gun point tends to annoy
people, and tends to be called theft.

> It's one of the reasons that at no point in either the Declaration
> of Indipendance or the Constitution that businesses are given rights
> are even given consideration except in regards of taxation of
> inter-state commerce. People should have seperation of government
> and religion and that includes the worship of wealth.

Disolve government, that should be a good way of separating it from
lobbying by religious fantasists.  Worship of wealth is much healthier
than worship of institutionalised theft.

> > (perhaps old Iceland would be a suitable anarchy
> > to consider as a comparison).
> 
> If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore?

Considering what a murderous bunch of savages they were it's simply
amazing that it lasted as long as it did.

> If it provided such a superior governmental system providing the
> maximum return on investment why did it go away? Why did they
> instead elect to go with a king? 

They didn't realise what they were losing.

> Futher, explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without
> demonstrating the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual
> democracies such as ancient Greek ran into?

It doesn't have to scale.  People will form all sorts of groups with
local ordnances, the choice is in picking one which suits you.

> It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of people who are
> related, share world-models and have limited resources and quite
> another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not
> thousands of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs?

If some people preferred democracy such sheeple could find a company
who would be happy to fleece them of 50% of their incomes, and
institute local ordnances such as 10 year incarceration for smoking of
selected herbs.

> >  Do you have a democracy in mind which
> > doesn't result in lots thought crimes and other "crimes" which are so
> > far removed from normal free market schelling points.  It's just a
> > natural tendency of a democracy.
> 
> Thought crimes and such are not a result of any political system but a
> result of the psychology of people.

Yes.  However democracy is a good way to ensure that some powerful
lobbying groups have increased ability to enforce their view points on
others.

> Please be so kind as to demonstrate (along with my previous
> questions I am still waiting on) how a political system effects the
> basic psychological development of the participants.

It avoids the moral bankruptcy of stealing money from people at the
point of a gun to enforce your personal preferences on other people.

People will live and let live if for no other reason than it is too
expensive to try to pressure their views on others.

> Further, explain how the belief in the resolving power of money is
> any different than the resolving power of Buddha? You seem to be
> claiming that if we pray to the all mighty dollar all will be right
> with the world.

Pray to Buddha for food and shelter if you like.  I reckon a $ is more
effective.  It also ensures that buyers and sellers tend to maximise
their happiness (they make trade choices to maximise their personal
hapiness, and they have more scope to make these choices because there
are less restrictions).

> The simply fact that one has a constitution that guarantees certain
> rights is *not* a guarantee that others won't find those rights
> threatening and want to take them away (see Hirshleifer's two
> alternatives above). And your assertion is that if we go to a free
> market anarchy then we no longer have to worry about anyone telling
> us what we can and can't do? Please be so kind as to demonstrate why
> a free market anarchy will prohibit monopolistic organizations who
> would be just as threatened by armed individuals as any other
> centralized organization?

> > > Explain to me why you believe these are valid views 
> > 
> > because they are a statement of readily observable reality?
> 
> Where do I observe them? 

Turn on your boob-tube:-) It's even observable through the brain
washing and spin doctoring.

> Give examples. Whose reality? Are you seriously claiming that there
> is one absolute reality?

Well there clearly is one reality.  Your perception of it may differ
from mine.  However I sort of presumed that you were vaguely
libertarian and had noticed some of the excesses of your
democractically elected and oh so accountable government :-)

> Governments and religions *ARE* people. There are times where I
> think you have said the stupidist thing possible and then you keep
> typing. Individuals are the ones who killed the Jews, put pepper
> spray in the eyes of demonstrators, and just about everything else
> that gets done.

Herds of people do much worse things than individuals no their own on
average.  Just following orders: I just turn on the gas, etc.

> > I say: there were less laws in 1897 US than 1997 US.
> > 
> > Tell me: do you refute that claim?
> 
> I don't know, never looked at the numbers *AND* it isn't my job to refute
> it. *IT IS* your job to prove it since it is *YOUR* claim and apparently has
> some relevance to your thesis' validity. 

I don't think the veracity is even debatable, it's obviously true.
Your point seems to be that I must now run off to a library and dig up
some references for you.  Go do it yourself, you don't seem to even
disagree with the claim!

> It is plain stupidity to make claims and not have a clue as to the
> reality.

I think it is a clear reality that the number of laws is increasing
over time in the US.

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

>> (perhaps old Iceland would be a suitable anarchy
>> to consider as a comparison).
>
>If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore? If it provided such
>a superior governmental system providing the maximum return on investment
>why did it go away? Why did they instead elect to go with a king? Futher,
>explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without demonstrating
>the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual democracies such as
>ancient Greek ran into? It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of
>people who are related, share world-models and have limited resources and
>quite another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not thousands
>of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs?

So, a solution is to encourage (e.g., through technological means) the
break-up of nation-states into smaller geo-political groupings.

--Steve