From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>bman@barn.pct
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:17:08 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: dbts: The Economic Cause of Privacy
Message-ID: <199810221225.OAA21798@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Remember, the reason we have no financial privacy these days is because we
>have book-entry settlement, which relies on biometric identity, known physical
>location, and the force of a nation state as the ultimate "error-handler" to
>prevent repudiation in the transaction protocol.

Yes, and cars break down because there are service shops.

Utter nonsense.

There is no financial privacy because because those who would like such thing
have less power (hired guns) than those who would not like it. And those with
controlling interests in modern societies do not like it because control would
be lost, and population harvesting (aka taxing) would have to be radically
changed, and that is expensive. The system is self-supporting.

Idea that somehow smart algorithms will bring financial privacy is a good starting
point for cryptoaddict's wet dream, but in reality has the same chance of
success as survival rate of armed citizens against the government. Zero.

(However, brandishing weapons and algorithms may alleviate some acute distress
caused by excess testosterone levels :)

Use of government-controlled, issued and supervised payment methods/instruments
is in place because it is proscribed, not because "money/checks, etc. exist".
Money is a highly artificial entity in the first place. It is "natural" to
use currency-binded valuation as it is natural to go to church. And theorizing
on money and economy in general has similarities to religious rituals.

Therefore constructing computer-assisted anon payment schemes "because it is
cheaper that way" is pointless. Money is not there to make your life easier.
Money exists so that you can be taxed and conditioned to desired behaviour at
minimal cost.

Anonymous payments defy the principal reason money exists for, and is sanctioned
(and enforced) by the state.

The only way for society (or loosely coupled individuals) to function without
abstractions like money (that need organized gun power to maintain) is direct
exchange of goods and services with enforcement based on close relationships
between parties. Has been tried, several thousand years ago, and such societies
were annihilated by others who did organize. Which seems to be the fate of any
anarchism in general.


Barnmen