From: jf_avon@citenet.net
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:47:50 +0800
To: iang@systemics.com
Subject: Re: Real issue of crypto controls: security or taxation loss?
In-Reply-To: <19970913235844.15836.qmail@aaa.aaa-mainstreet.nl>
Message-ID: <199709140141.VAA29143@cti06.citenet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On 13 Sep 97 at 23:58, iang@systemics.com wrote:

> That's right, there is a section of the population that is extremely
> interested in holding onto their e$.  Let's call them the rich, because
> they have e$ to think of.

Let's get into modelization! So, let's put first things first.

First, you shouldn't say e$ but $, because it is what thoses you 
call "the rich" have.

Now, does e-$ would permit govt to behave the same way as 
they do now?

> Then there is a section of the population that is not that so
> interested, because they fundamentally have very little e$ to
> protect.  Let's call them the poor; nothing to think about except
> lack of e$.

> The problem is that the rich win in the system known as the
> capitalist economy, but the poor win in the system known as the
> democracy.  There  is a balance between the capitalist economy and
> democracy that runs like  this:

How do they win?  By the use of coercion (and this is why guns 
should not get registered).

>    1. a democracy is the best protector of an open economy.

Out of what hat did you got that one? Who said so and why?  :-)  
My opinion is that your remark is falling into the same category as 
the the old fallacy saying "everything is uncertain but death and 
taxes". 

>    2. an open economy generates a small group of rich,
>       and a large group of poor (relatively speaking).

Statistically, yes.  But it doesn't intrinsically generates *envious* 
poors.  But that is a discussion about Values and Ethics and their 
link to emotions and nobody who's not an Ayn Rand fanatic or 
who doesn't have a few more terabytes of disk space to spare doesn't 
want to get into it...  :-)

>    3. a large group of poor will vote within a democracy
>       to tax the rich.

It depends on which moral code the legislative authorities base their 
actions.  But the sentence "a large group of poor will always try, 
within a democracy, to justify the muscling-in on the rich 
transactually-acquired wealth" would be true.

 
> It's the difference between politics and economics:  Are you going
> to tell the voters that the rich can hide their e$ or are you going
> to tell them that the Feds will spy on them?  As the voters are
> mostly poor, I'd be sticking with the second option.

True
 
> Remember, everybody gets one vote, but only the smart get lots of e$.

This one for-the-time-being reason why crypto should be deployed.


The true answers will be found in the nature of the data exchange 
system, it's robustness and reliability, and the impact of dropping 
the govt out of the money loop.  Sometimes, an invention can change 
the face of the world.  Mathematics did, gun powder did, the 
printing press did, the microprocessor did, so why not crypto?  And 
what is the most Joe Everybody consumer-oriented use of crypto?

Ciao

jfa

P.S. Anybody who has a clue about modelizing the effects  of a 
behaviour/entity (use of e$) that hamper the survival of 
another one (govt) in a complex system, please drop me a line (any 
micro-biologists online?)
-- 
Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada
 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee
    Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal
 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants
    physicists and engineers, LabView programing.
PGP encryption keys at:
   http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
   http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
ID# C58ADD0D  : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
ID# 5B51964D  : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C