From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 19:14:05 +0800
To: Hal <jamesd@echeque.com
Subject: Re:  Why does the state still stand:
Message-ID: <199605150503.WAA23902@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 04:35 PM 5/14/96 -0700, Hal wrote:

>I think the intention then is to create "fully anonymous" companies.
>These would be organizations whose principals and employees are known
>only by pseudonyms, even to each other.  Their only contact is
>electronic, via an anonymous network.  And the employees are paid in
>anonymous ecash, which they don't pay taxes on since it is unreported
>income.
>
>These companies produce products or services which they offer for sale
>across the net.  They accept payment in ecash, either from end users or
>from other companies.
>
>Such companies would be illegal, with everyone involved subject to
>criminal penalties for tax evasion (and no doubt a myriad of other
>violations).  But because the anonymity is protected cryptographically,
>the government is helpless to learn the true identities of anyone
>involved.  The companies continue to successfully sell their products
>and services, advertising and recruiting openly from anonymous sources,
>and there is nothing the government can do about it.

The goal, obviously, is to make the cost of collection of $1 in taxes 
sufficiently expensive  so that they can't do it economically.  But let me 
draw an analogy:  The easiest form of shooting is paper target practice:  
The target is fixed.  More difficult is trap and skeet, where the target 
moves.  More difficult still is hunting, where the target (animals) is at 
least somewhat intelligent and usually very mobile, as well as camouflaged.  
This is analogous to encryption.  But the most difficult form of shooting is 
war, in which the "target" can shoot back.

If a computer model could be constructed of it, I think you'd find that the 
most effective way to avoid taxation is to invest money to target those 
doing the collection.  In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it would 
probably cost less than 10 cents to prevent the collection of $1 worth of 
tax, and probably closer to a penny.  Any analysis of the destruction of the 
state is incomplete without considering such a scenario.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com