From: "Stephan Vladimir Bugaj" <stephan@studioarchetype.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:43:38 +0800
To: liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray)
Subject: Micropayments, Anarchy, It's All The Same... ;P
In-Reply-To: <199606181405.KAA52510@osceola.gate.net>
Message-ID: <v03006f05adec4223c7d1@[204.162.75.169]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>that is associated with any new technology should be better analyzed by the
>>few who care about the future rather than those who just worship the future
>>to ensure that the decisions which are made by this almighty 'market'
>>(again, I distinguish this from either the 'people' or the 'consumers')
>
>Er...just how did you draw that distinction? I seem to have missed it.
>I suppose that by believing the free marketplace best satisfies peoples'
>and consumers' needs (not perfectly, just best) that I am a worshiper
>here. So be it, but see if you can explain the difference between
>non-marketplace decisionmaking and bureaucrat decisionmaking for me.
>
>
>
The distinction that I'm making is that the 'market' is governed by both
consumers and producers.  As such, what the market will bear can and sometimes
does diverge from what consumers want.  Taking a really silly example, let's
say you want a blue car, but the auto industry decided that blue cars
constituted
too few of their sales to justify the purchase of blue paint.  However,
they did
this study in Malibu, where everyone wanted a red car, because some
statistician
felt that was the perfect demographic for their line of cars.  He was
wrong.  Now
middle America, who loves blue cars, can't get any.  They have to settle for
red cars as the next best thing.  Next year the market will probably
readjust and blue cars will again be available, but for the year the bulk
of consumers had little say in market decisions.  Producers can and will
also 'dump'
undesirable products on the market as we have all seen before.  Sometimes
consumers complain, sometimes they just groan and bear it.  But the fact of the
matter is that the 'market' is comprised of two main elements: 'consumers' and
'producers' and the market climate is not solely determined by consumers'
needs.
Bureaucratic (government) decision making is no better.  Keep in mind, however,
that capitalist organizations (producers) are themselves bureaucratic
institutions.  Therefore, bureaucracy plays a central role in the free
(sic) market.  A balance between the power of the public and private sector
generally
best represents the peoples' and consumers' needs.

How the market diverges from the polit is clear.  The market is only concerned
with consumers, and this leaves out the poor, who are undeniably part of the
polity.  In fact, if you take just the technology market, that market is
primarily
producer-to-producer (business-to-business) and the traditional consumer
(an individual or family) is a relatively recent addition to this market.
Interbusiness concerns still drive this market.


>>'rammed down their throats'.  Sometimes people forget that technologists
>>and their venture capitalist backers aren't the best representative sample
>>of the world's population, nor are they a reliable source of objective
>>information about the correlation between the 'market' and the 'polit'.
>
>They aren't the best, they are simply more reliable than Hillary
>Clinton and co. are.
>
>
There are two ways to go on this.  It's important to realize that while
government officials are professional politicans with all the moral and
ethical compromise
that this entails, they are also ultimately responsible to their
constituency.  The role of government is different than the role of
business, and I for one would
not be willing to give up democratic government (ragardless of its
hypocracies and flaws) in favor of a business bureaucracy as our national
ruling hegemony.

Businesses, especially ones governed by unmitigated capitalists, are
responsible
only to profit.  The social darwinist perspective of most capitalists is
such that
this profit can come at any cost, and things will 'work themselves out'
according to natural (sic) social selection.  This is a morally and
ethically dangerous
viewpoint to have.

The polity is supposed to be able to count on their government to be their
voice
of power against the transgressions of more powerful individuals at the top of
the capitalist power structure.  This is not usually the case, as
government officials rely on these powerbrokers for their jobs and
kickbacks, but at least in
the United States the people have theoretical constitutional recourses against
serious infringements of their rights.  While centralized government has
serious
problems, weakening the federal protection of the bill of rights would
serve only
to increase the ability of the powerful to abuse the polity (and create
chaos since 50 different sets of state laws would provide an amazing web of
loopholes
for would-be tyrants).

Our government is supposed to be kept in check by the people, and I believe
that
is what people like the Cypherpunks are and should be doing.  However, don't go
running to Laissez Faire capitalists as your comrades in arms in the
struggle to
keep powerful institutions out of your personal lives, because you'll be
more than
just disappointed if you help private sector powerbrokers whittle away the
protective powers of the public sector.

Morally I'm more Anarchist than Centrist, but I'm also willing to face reality.

>Agreed. The most forthright possible debate comes on cypherpunks IMO.
>The least forthright comes from the government/media complex. Crypto-
>anarchists aren't proposing utopia, just improvement -- which is a
>much easier standard to meet considering what we have. I am sure
>there will be problems and frauds, just as there were Ford Pintos.
>Note that the Pinto phenomenon was possible in spite of pervasive
>and growing govt. regulation, yet the response: Even more regulation.
>Hmmmmm.
>JMR
>
>
There needs to be a balance between too much regulation, and too little.
The public sector has a system of checks and balances which doesn't always
work, but is institutionalized and respected.  The private sector, however,
is not so accountable and their only checks and balances are the laws that
we the people are obligated to insist be enforced.  Morality and justice
break down easily in the face of bribes and hush-money, but with an
institutionalized system of justice there is at least a modicum of
accountability which is necessary for a society(ies) which is far too
immature for true Anarchism.

Keep in mind the role that capitalists played along side the government in
Nazi Germany, (unchecked) power corrupts - regardless of whether you're in
the public sector or the private sector.  (Yes, capitalism was technically
regulated in Nazi Germany, but that is not the point.)

I am as unwilling to support Laissez Faire capitalism as I am to support
an intrusive and restrictive government.

ttl
Stephan

-------------------------------------------------------------------
This signature has been kidnapped by space aliens.
If you find it you can call (415) 703-8748.
I work for Studio Archetype, and they don't find any of this funny.