From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 14:17:35 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Force is not physical
In-Reply-To: <gate.u2TwRc1w165w@dxm.ernet.in>
Message-ID: <199408312117.OAA19380@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


rishab@dxm.ernet.in writes:

>"Force" is not necessarily physical and cannot be equated solely with the
>monopoly over guns. This whole thing started in the context of governance in
>cyberspace.

One question I have been thinking about based on the recent discussions
with Tim May, Eric Hughes, Jason Solinsky, and others, is whether it
makes sense to say that nothing done in cyberspace should be considered
to be punishable by force.  This leads to the position that double
spending is OK if you can get away with it (but we set up the system so
you can't get away with it).  It also suggests that contracts as such
cannot really be binding (in the usual sense) since they are just words
and people can repudiate them freely.  Nobody puts a gun to your head
and forces you to believe someone else's promise to pay you for work
you do and deliver.  If he wants to say, "tough luck, ha ha," then
there's nothing much you can do about it other than try to be more
careful next time (and let other people know who screwed you).

I think this position is consistent and interesting, but it does seem
like it may be inefficient compared to a system in which people can
authorize the use of physical force applied against themselves under
agreed-upon circumstances.  It also seems like historically people have
not used non-binding contracts as much as binding ones, and I wonder
whether this suggests that non-binding contracts are less useful.

Hal