From: solman@MIT.EDU
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 16:28:11 PDT
To: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Subject: Re: Force is not physical
In-Reply-To: <199408312117.OAA19380@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <9408312327.AA06999@ua.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Hal sez:
> 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).

Force is something that happens in the physical realm and the government
reigns supreme there. Do you want the Government getting involved in
cyberspace? They surely will try, but we needn't encourage them.

Perhaps, however, a more important consideration is the fact that our
systems are highly flawed if we can NOT rely on them to protect us without
government intervention. Its a good sound design criterion. Besides, what
is the probability of a physical realm Government [Duncan's convention for
the great evil :) ] catching an anonymous thief who went through a well
designed remailer system. Not bloody likely...

> 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).

A contract should ALWAYS contain enforceable breach provisions. The amount
of misery that is caused in the physical realm each year due to people not
following this rule is enormous. In cyberspace there is even less excuse
for not following this rule because transaction costs are so low. [In the
physical realm there are numerous situations in which high transaction costs
render the negotiation of breach provisions for low probability events
inefficient.]

If you can't enforce a contract or the enforcement is not explicitly
spelled out you've done something wrong and you are inviting both
misery and inefficient litigation.


Cheers,

Jason W. Solinsky