At 01:08 PM 3/4/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>The confusion about anarchy and what it means is common. We see it
here.
Not sure if this is intended towards us or not.
In any case, our comments about dropping 'anarchy'
for a BerkFlyer was simply to avoid attracting
raisethefist type black shirts. (Unless that's
the poster's goal, of course. )
...
On the relation of crypto and anarchy, sometimes its agonistic,
sometimes neutral, sometimes antagonistic. You're mixing tech &
politics in that phrase, a mixed relationship is expected.
Anarchy as a system (which you explore
etymologically below) strikes us as unstable, much like democracy.
Unstable with respect to protecting individual freedoms.
After all, some of the groups you might belong to in an anarchic
system would be pure democracies, and thus ready to
saponify you, or random others outside the group, as soon as enough
votes are in.
Democracy (or monarchy, or anarchy, or elders consulting tea leaves)
without
constitutional guarantees & courts (or however you implement the spec
of immutable rights) are latent dictatorships.
A far better phrase would be crypto & freedom. Including freedom to
choose one's risk level (as you mention below) in a free market
bound mostly by contract. Freedom to choose currency, etc. Freedom
from coercion to fund random projects that exist because some group of
voters figured
out how to get a slice of the pork pie.
In an anarchic system, you could have the same crypto-freedom-apocalypse
that you could in a fascist one: all computers registered, programmers
(in both hardware and software senses) licensed, state-daemons mandatory
in all machines, etc. Merely not having a central ruler, or rules, does
little to ensure freedom. And we doubt that competition between
units in an anarchic system would provide islands of freedom.
So we are not impressed by "crypto anarchy"
as an informative name; although as agitprop, it functions very nicely.
YMMV.
>
>Perhaps some of us have not done enough to try to educate people.
>Mostly, I think we have already written enough and if people will not
>think deeply about the issues, will not read at least _some_ of the
>readily-searchable (with Google, even) archives, and will not read some
>of the basic articles and books, then further blathering from us will
>not help.
>
>Anarchy is all around us. We write what we want, at least until
>Ashcroft and Bush get PATRIOT III passed by acclamation, and this is an
>anarchy ("without a top authority" -- "an arch"). We pick our
>restaurants by anarchic means. Anarchy doesn't mean "chaos, with people
>killing each other at will." Folks need to think about what "monarch"
>means ("one top"), about what oligarch means, etc.
>
>Here's a very practical example: medical malpractice. Much in the news,
>debated daily. Bush Himself spoke out this morning (or, as he put it,
>"We gotta open a can of Texas whoop-ass on those trial attorney bad
>boys!").
>
>This is a situation where an anarchic, voluntaristic, polycentric law
>solution is obvious: let people choose doctors and hospitals based on
>how much malpractice they will pay:
>
>Hospital Alpha and its doctors have this policy: "If you have any
>complaints whatsoever, if you stub your toe going to the toilet, or if
>your baby dies in childbirth, we will pay you multiple millions of
>dollars for your mental anguish. Of course, we will charge you $65,000
>for a baby delivery, $750,000 for heart transplant, and we don't take
>VISA or Mastercard."
>
>Hospital Beta and its doctors have this policy: "We use this group to
>adjudicate disputes about health care. If you choose to use us, you
>also choose them to adjudicate disputes. Our rates reflect our less
>outrageous payouts than the Hospital Alpha system. A baby delivery will
>cost you $3000, assuming no complications. A heart transplant is
>$63,500. You may die during the operation. Life is tough. You agree to
>the adjudication described above. We wish you well."
>
>This is what a society based on _contracts_ would allow. Free choice.
>
>Instead, contracts are toilet paper and free choice is a joke.
>
>Anarchy means "an arch" means free choice means responsibility for
>choice means noncoercion.
>
>But I don't expect most of you yahoos, those who have never read Hayek
>or Friedman or even Rand to grasp these points.
>
>The connection with crypto is obvious. Crypto means never having to let
>Big Brother intervene in contractual negotiations. Which is where
>"crypto anarchy" comes from. (That, and the pun on "hidden," as with
>Vidal's denunciation of Buckley as a crypto-fascist.)
>
>I read what some of you folks here write and all I can say is that I
>hope you are inside the fireballs when the freedom fighters take out
>the Great Satan.
>
>--Tim May
>"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
>hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
>around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet
