At 1:06 PM -0700 4/24/01, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote:
>
>>And I really did not get started on this path toward "crypto anarchy"
>>because I was _seeking_ anarchy as some sort of utopian fantasy. In
>>fact, I had largely moved away from politics by the mid-70s, and was
>>not very political in the 1987-88 period when I figured out that the
>>technologies then emerging would make new forms of anarchy nearly
>>inevitable.
>
>I'll go as far as "workable". "Inevitable" is perhaps a bit strong.
"Inevitable" in a sense analogous to how the invention of the
printing press made certain societal changes (forms of anarchies,
actually) "inevitable."
-- the widespread dissemination of printed knowledge, with the
resulting loss of monopolies on forms of knowledge by guilds,
priesthoods, and kings.
-- the spread of political tracts, calls for revolution, broadsheets,
Samizdats, etc.
-- the development of corporations and other large enterprises
dependent on literacy and the printed word to disseminate orders,
instructions, book accounting, etc.
The spread of "book anarchy" was a profound development, as we are
all taught. It led directly, and within only several decades, to a
mostly anarchic religious schism: Martin Luther, Protestantism,
independent Bibles in the popular languages of the time (Luther's
German version, the King James version, etc.), and the explosion of
sects into Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Church of England,
Baptist, etc.
In parallel with the recent discussions of crypto anarchy, a
"skeptic" in 1450, looking toward the coming changes predicted by
some, might have wondered: "But I don't see how it will all work. I
don't see how alternatives to the Church can give us the things we've
become accustomed to. I'd like to see a detailed plan of how all of
this is going to work!"
That the future evolution of complicated systems is not easily
predicted does not make the inevitability of change less likely.
Books and printing altered the basic equations. A fork in the road
appeared and the world veered in a different direction. Forks like
this have happened many times.
"And then things were different..."
Importantly, books, magazines, Web sites, broadsheets, fliers,
pamphlets, and so on form one of the _best_ examples of "anarchy" we
have. (I mentioned this to David Friedman, that we don't need to go
to examples from 10th century Iceland to find excellent examples of
anarchies...they are all around us if we are able to open our eyes
and recognize them for what they are.)
The wide availability of tools to make completely voluntary and
uncoerced transactions, regardless of the country or even continent
of the participants is just such a fork in the road.
Governments know this, too. Even if many government agents and
consultants are bozos, some of them are smart enough to see what's
coming. (I like to think we saw the implications several years before
their consultants, like Dorothy Denning and the NSA and FBI folks
did, but they eventually got the picture.)
This is why the U.S.S.R. cracked down on copy machines, fax machines,
etc. This is why the PRC is _still_ cracking down. This is why
neo-fascist countries like France and Germany are banning free speech
in order, they say, to save free speech. This is why the U.S. tried
to limit crypto exports, hoped to get encryption even inside the U.S.
restricted and backdoored, and is still gibbering about the dangers
of uncontrolled "crypto anarchy!"
(This was the third intended pun from this name.)
>Certainly there are some statutes (mainly IP laws) that simply
>cannot stand in the presence of a crypto-enabled people, and there
>are some goods (information, entertainment, etc) on which monopolies,
>including the monopoly granted by copyright, cannot exist.
>
>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.
The implications of not being able to interfere in transactions are
quite profound. The implications of not being able to tax certain
transactions is also profound. How long it might take for a "tipping
point" to be reached where _other_ parts of society are affected is
debatable.
Just as it was with books. Sure, the Catholic Church continues, and
still continues. Sure, governments still exist. But the widespread
use of reading and books changed the equation and led us to where we
are today.
This is all I hope for. I am not interested in "ab initio" anarchies,
such as many hypothesis for asteroid colonies and parallel earths.
Interesting to read about, but not interesting for implementation
purposes.
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
