From: doug@netcom4.netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 93 10:28:23 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: nada against the gubbamess...
Message-ID: <9309121720.AA17362@netcom4.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


loki@convex1.TCS.Tulane.EDU (the mischeivious god) said:
>nobody@alumni.cco.caltech.edu (I think) said:
>> 1.  There have been some recent posts suggesting that 
>>     privacy is not fundamentally subversive of 
>>     government, and that cypherpunks should emphasize  
>>     the privacy and keep quite about the anarchy.  I 
>>     find these arguments disingenuous in the extreme, 
>>     and strategically unsound as well. 
>
>no doubt....I have a question for everyone though. How does anarchy
>deal with justice and who would be the ones to provide this service. 

That's one of the problems with absolute anarchy; it's unstable. Most
"anarchists" believe in relative anarchy rather than absolute; some would
call that simply "libertarian", but others dislike that label because
a lot of libertarians are less extreme in their views.

Regardless of fine distinctions in labelling, it is possible to come up
with schemes for things like justice that do not involve centralized
monolithic government, anyway. As I recall, Ursula LeGuin had justice
provided by ad hoc peer review committees, for instance. Snow Crash
had it provided by franchised companies that were called "governments",
but that sure didn't resemble today's governments in most details.

One scheme for future cyberspace would involve digital voting by established
reputable personas (anonymous or not) and enforcement via stakes involving
digital cash and/or digital reputation. Although building and establishing
reputation would require some kind of investment of time and energy, it's
difficult to maintain a "one physical body one vote" scheme. Randomized
selection of juries might assist in that in a statistical sense.

(I arrived late at the cypherpunk meeting Saturday, but from the printed
agenda it looks like some aspects of that had been discussed?)

As for the original point about whether cypherpunks should be quiet
about anarchy or not, this is a question of PR and of politics (of course).
If you're talking to a person with libertarian or anarchist leanings,
then that would be a selling point. If you're talking to the press, who
will in turn be talking to everyone including Peoria, the game is to be
more moderate while still offering the sizzle.

For instance, even mainstream Republicans and Democrats from the bible
belt may distrust the IRS and the CIA enough to want some protection from
*them*. But they may not sympathize with people who say that we need
protection from the government overall.

It's a selling game.

It's also worth keeping in mind that there are a variety of political
views among cypherpunks, and it would be dishonest to paint all cypherpunks
as being in absolute agreement about all aspects of politics.

>Also is society outside of our Ivory tower cases with twin cooling fans ready
>for an anarchical harmony???

Not a chance. But the sizzle might sell anyway, if it's packaged right.
	Doug
--
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife HC_III
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci SF GA VR CASE TLAs