From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:02:44 +0800
To: Louis Freeh <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: weak cryptoanarchy
In-Reply-To: <199601270114.CAA15160@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960126180313.19154p-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I don't think anarchy is the right word anyway. Anarchy is such a clumsy
word, with so many misuses. It's supposed to mean lack of rule, but I 
don't think most people (even Tim) want to throw away all the rules; they 
just prefer consensus, balance of power, and self-regulation. Maybe 
autoarchy or symarchy.

I find the distiction between government and non-government power centers
fallacious. All kinds of associations make rules, which are normally
followed, sometimes punished. The only formal distinction I can think of
is that government bodies are supposed to have a monopoly on the
legitimate use of violence. 

This distinction is blurring again, and not (just) by the increase of
random violence, which normal folks are afraid of. People are becoming
more civilized, and no longer believe that many of the violent things that
governments used to do habitually are legitimate anymore. Nobody does
ritual sacrifice to the ruler-god-king; few would now endorse locking the
King's estranged wife in a tower, or killing her; fewer and fewer believe
that war is glorious. 

On the other half of the walnut, non-government power centers now have
powers formerly reserved only to governments. Private security guards
assume some of the role of the police, and corporate espionage and
counter-espionage is getting more and more interesting. "Superstars" in 
all fields have interesting powers over other people.

We're not seeing a net decrease in the forces impinging on the individual,
but rather a broader distribution, which might even be an increase. 

Let's call those half-developed ideas my $0.01.

-rich