From: Snow <snow@crash.suba.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:26:56 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: [NOISE] Was Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's... Is now a long ramble.
In-Reply-To: <199604281221.AA01603@october.segno.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960429021504.2417C-100000@crash.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Oh god, I'd doomed. I think I am gonna wind up on Mr. Bells side in this 
one. 

Please also note that I am cc:ing this to an individual who is both more 
knowlegable about certain aspects of the following, and interested in 
certain aspects of this.

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 mkj@october.segno.com wrote:
> Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > Income tax is the Godzilla of taxes.  It is THE TAX when it comes
> > to the US.  (Perhaps VAT has a similar status elsewhere, but both,
> 
> Most other arguments put forth so far in this thread, about how people
> "won't stand for" certain government behaviors and so forth, I don't
> find convincing.  Modern military technologies, especially in the
> U.S., make the prospects of a sucessful popular uprising dubious.

	I strongly disagree with this. (Especially within the US) Modern 
Military technology doesn't have a lot to do with it. It is modern 
stratagies and tactics that make things difficult. In a "popular 
uprising" (in quotes because most aren't) an organized armed group will 
devistate(spelling?) a mob, and the technology necessary to do this is at 
least 30 years old. 
	Fine. So change the tactics. Instead of "Rising Up", simply use 
an ages old an respected solution. Take out the leaders. Note, I am _not_ 
suggesting Mr. Bells assination politics, rather, given a violent 
revolution, or the beginings of one, shorten it by taking those who make 
the policies you disagree with.
	The things is, you HAVE to wait until the violence breaks out, 
and you HAVE to do the job quickly, and take out as much of the 
leadership as possible, otherwise your job gets much more dificult. 

	I am digressing.

	My point is not to advocate such actions, only to argue that it 
isn't the TECHNOLOGY that is the problem, rather the strategy.  

> When you cut off someone's air supply, even the nicest, gentlest
> person will go into an unrestrained, murderous frenzy.  I expect
> something similar will happen to even the most "civilized" governments
> within the next few years, as popular crypto begins to cut off their
> money supply.  As I see it, only those relatively few citizens who can
> afford to flee will dare to resist.

	As a suggestion, and using your analogy, wouldn't it be better to 
either a) drug the person you are strangling so they don't notice, or to 
simply break their neck? (I.e. make it so they don't notice they are 
strangling until it is too late, if ever, or to do it so quickly that 
they don't have time to react? In this case I think the second would be 
the most difficult. 

> Which brings us to the "flight of capital" issue.  Will nations be
> able to compete freely for the loyalty of the rich?  Or will the most
> powerful nations form effective coalitions, and perhaps simply bomb
> "rogue" nations into the stone age?

	You might want to take a look at http://lois.kud-fp.si/nsk.
(Note, you must use a graphical browser)

	Has this been discussed before?

	This Nation/State called Neue Slowenische Kunst is issuing
passports to anyone who is a citizen. Citizenship is confered (apparently)
on anyone who is willing to agree to their "constitution". These passports
are being accepted (apparently, tho' I couldn't find the list of counties
that accept them.) I disagree quite strongly with MANY of the rules/laws
that their constituion establishes, but the idea interests me. 

New Slovenia isn't a (at this point my command of the language breaks
down, or maybe there isn't an exact word for it) State. Basically, it is a
Nation without borders, where citizenship is a matter of allegence rather
than geographical location/birth. I don't know a whole lot about it, as
those particular pages are entirely GIFs, and I am not a patient person. 

It got me to thinking (yeah, you probably saw the smoke). The idea that 
citizenship--or whatever it would be called--is based on things other 
than nationality (although NSK is a nationalist organization) is not new, 
but with (Cypherpunk tie in) the ability for people to communicate freely 
across borders, would it be possible set up something similar along 
other lines? 

/* 
Semantic Note: from this point on in this ramble, Nation will be used to
describe a political entity based on philosphical allegance ala NSK, and
State will be used to describe a geographically based political entity
*/

	It would be relatively easy to set up, but recognition/validity
would be a major difficulty (Understatement). Convincing others as to the 
necessity would be damn near impossible tho'. (I am starting to think of 
many many more obsticles. Law enforcement etc) 

	The major advantage would be the impossibility of convention (or 
nuclear) attack. Simply, no land, nothing for a military to take and 
hold. Then agression against this posited nation would either devolve 
into police actions on known "citizens" and/or economic "warfare". 
	Economic warfare would take place against National banks (ala 
a digital cash type system) by States refusing to allow certain National 
banks to convert currency in their jurisdiction. etc.
	
	The intersting possiblity lies in the taxiation realm. As it 
becomes easier and easier to hide income via anonymity, these Nations 
or at least their bank[s] could act as arbiters/agents in taxation, 
paying the states for services rendered based on their population in a 
given state. 
	Another possiblity: Seperation of Powers, the States deal with 
physical matters such as roads, parks etc. operating on Service based 
taxes (gas taxes for roads, entrance fees for Parks etc. VAT to pay for 
police & fire depts) and the Nations take care of economic interests such 
as financial security currency exchange etc. 

	I think I am going to be thinking about this for a while. 

> The more I contemplate my "simple" question of yesterday, the more I
> find myself getting into deep waters which I feel ill-equipped to
> navigate.  I rapidly run up against such imponderable questions as,
> "What is government?"  and "What is wealth, really?"  Only one thing
> is certain: We live in interesting times!

	Are these the deep waters you refer to?