From: Hastings@courier8.aero.org
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 11:33:27 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Electric Fooling Machine
Message-ID: <0006ECF1.MAI*Hastings@courier8.aero.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Homer: "You couldn't fool your own mother on the foolingest day of the
year, even if you had an electric fooling machine."
 
> *pragmatic* descriptions of Electronic Democracy ...
 
You're walking down the street, and a gang of thugs jumps out
from behind some bushes. Their leader approaches you and says:
 
"Don't be alarmed, we're your very local community - we believe
in the noble principle of Democracy, majority rule, and you
have an equal vote with each of us."
 
You say, "Whew. I guess my marshmallow-philosophical Libertarianism
clouded my vision of the great ideal that is our American way of
life. What should we vote on first?"
 
The gang leader says, "Glad to hear someone with confidence in the
system. A concerned member of our community, upset at the unfair
distribution of wealth in our society, has proposed an equal
sharing of whatever cash we have on hand at the moment. Since
none of us have any cash, the implementation would require you to
give an equal share to each of us. Now, that seems reasonable,
doesn't it?"
 
You say, "Oh no, my worst nightmare come true, even while I am
awake! But, the essence of Democracy is my right to vote, and
if I'm unhappy that I'm completely ruined this election, why I
have a chance to get screwed every couple of years forever!
But, wait, if this process were AUTOMATED, ELECTRONICALLY, why,
I could be ripped off continuously every single nanosecond!"
 
> and to my great chagrin all have been virtually completely
> ignored...
 
Could anyone really BELIEVE that high school civics class garbage?
 
>I'm really quite amazed at all the deathly pessimism and antipathy
>herein toward genuinely improving our governmental system.
 
On this list, we've all probably experienced firsthand, the joys
of "our" government in the person of an IRS (or state tax) agent,
and after that enlightening encounter, have sworn uncompromising
revenge on THEM, THE ENEMY. Maybe someone had their kid taken
from them to die in some stinking jungle or desert. Or maybe
someone owns a gun for protection, or has an unapproved
hygienic practice (smoking, drugs, booze, midwife, health food)
and isn't thrilled with the zero-tolerance, no-conviction-needed
asset forfeiture revenue-enhancing scam, or the threats on privacy
because of "money-laundering" or "terrorism".
 
Can you stand to watch the "cleared by military censors" media
prattle on about how government needs to stick everyone in a
hamster cage for their own good without getting totally pissed?
If so, I'm jealous.
 
Now, what is the most effective tactic to achieve a universal
respect for rights? Oops. Nobody has any rights, that would
support Natural Law. We'd have to shovel heretics into the
fire according to religious revelation if we accept NL/NR.
 
Begging for our "rights" from the Secret Masters' puppets, or
buying "our own" politicians into office, may bring
temporary relief, but a lasting victory will come by
cutting the supply lines (taxes and inflation) and their
brainwashing stranglehold on the media (and "public" education).
 
Digital cash might "nuke" tax collection, as Tim May puts it.
Anything other than Federal Reserve Units as the unit of
account removes the enemy's benefit from any inflation that
occurs.
 
Unlicensed broadcasts (perhaps starting with wireless
spread-sprectrum internet extensions) muscles in on media
territory and can cause reader/viewers to question the absurd
establishment interpretations of current and historic events.
 
>It seems everyone here is interested in debating the issue in
>terms of how they see government, how it has functioned in the
>past, *irrespective* of any novel mechanisms presented...
 
Gee, if only the Nazis would have an e-mail address, everything
would be wonderful. Email: hitler@nazi.edu or stalin@commie.org.
 
>N. Szabo <szabo@netcom.com> [said:]
 
>>* A basic problem with E.D. is that nobody has an
>>incentive to vote correctly.
 
A Nobel Prize was awarded to the Public Choice school for just
this insight. The selfless, dedicated public servants have the
same motivations as the most ruthless wolves on Wall Street.
I think David Friedman covers this, and you could do worse than
to read The Machinery of Freedom. (This is NOT a direct quote):
A political victory is winner-take-all, completely shutting
out the desires of a minority. In a free market, if a good or
service is favored by the majority, guess what: The majority
rules! You'll see whatever they want just about everywhere.
But minority tastes will be catered to as well, perhaps not at
the supermarket, but in a little boutique somewhere.
 
>suppose that a `vote' is not something static but rather a
>pledge of support for a proposal that can vary over time...
 
If this is what you have in mind for political decisions, then
you've reinvented proprietary communities, described in Spencer
Heath McCallum's (sp?) The Art of Community (1970), which provides
agreeable structures to the signatories of their covenants.
 
But you would NOT be talking about the coercive, tax-and-draft,
master-and-subject relationships which define a "government."
 
Kent - <jkhastings@aol.com>