From: Alexander Reynolds <chrome@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 15:07:18 PDT
To: David Williams <dwwillia@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu>
Subject: William Gibson
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9310161230.A2011-0100000@hestia.iucf.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9310161726.A6517-b100000@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like
> Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his
> own good: capitalism.

	It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
 If you have read all his novels (I assume you have) you'll notice that he
mentions how the economy, and the resulting power from that pure
free-market economy, is of a corporate nature, and that power lies not in
the members of the board, but of the zaibatsus in themselves; that they
behave as organic beings.  His vision is far from anarchy, and his
version of free-market libertarian economics should never be confused with the
apolitical (antibehavior-control) aspects of anarchy. [also, I think that he
isn't trying to make political or economic statements with his books, but
that those details enhance the effect of his stories (just my opinion)] 
	All this talk about one particular form of digicash has me
wondering: why not multiple forms of digicurrency?  This would decentralize
any kind of power electronic banks would have through monetary strength, and
ensure that those banks do not add themselves to the system as inconspicuous
political parties (anarchy is the end, and reducing, not creating,
political power is the means, right?).