Bear wrote:
> However, this is not the same as saying that anarchy (in terms of
> a change in form of government) is inevitable. It simply says that
> there are some things government (of *any* kind) cannot do when
> people have access to cryptography. The inability to do those
> things is not sufficient to substantially undermine government
> power and authority.
Well, as to that last sentence, I'd say that remains to be seen. I mean,
that's a statement of belief, not a fact that's been established.
I mean, if Jim Bell was right, one of the things government "cannot do when
people have access to cryptography" is keep its more notorious agents alive.
That would substantially undermine government power and authority, I should
think.
I don't really have an opinion on whether crypto can enable the sort of systems
Bell was on about, and I don't worry about it because I don't think Bell-style
crypto-facilitated joint action is the main threat government should be
worrying about even if that sort of joint action is theoretically possible.
Instead, I think the way crypto facilitates the rise and survival of competing
gangs, and lets those gangs have a chance to eat the government gang for lunch,
is much more important. So far I can't point to anywhere where this effect has
"substantially undermined government power and authority" but I quite frankly
think examples will be evident within the next decade or two, most likely
within the former soviet union.
-- Daniel
