From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 01:33:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199811042301.RAA09484@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <v04011707b26770a8f601@[206.189.103.230]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 6:01 PM -0500 11/4/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>Forwarded message:
>
>> From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
>> Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone
>> 	 Alternative
>> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:29:47 -0800
>
>> Petro wrote:
>> > However, Privacy + Freedom == Anarchy, or close enough to be
>> > indistinguishable.
>
>This is silly.

	And you're a fool, but I can be serious.

	Try reading what I said, and (I know this is difficult for you)
THINK ABOUT IT.

	Anarchy is usually defined as the absense of government. What
exactly makes up a "government", what are it's defining characteristics?

	Simply a device for reallocating wealth?--Insufficient, there are
lots of mechanisms for that.

	A body that lays down standards and rules of conduct?--Sounds like
a church or industry consortium to me.

	A heirarchical (sp?) structure that uses fear, propaganda and force
to reallocate wealth, enforce standards and rules of conduct, and other
things at whim (for varying values of "whim", from the "whim" of a
dictator, to the "whim" of the "body politic").

	Now, THAT is a government. Yes, some of what it enforces is
probably a good idea (i.e. everyone driving on the same side of the road,
&etc) some if it is kinda silly (don't smoke dope, or you're going to jail
(Here, have a beer)), and some of it is downright stupid and shortsighted
(encryption policy, not drinking beer out of a bucket on the sidewalk).

	Anarchy is not having to be effected by that, being "free" to
follow what one thinks is right. How one gets to that state is not really
relevent. My statement above simply lays out the position having Privacy
(for large enough values of privacy to be meaningful) and Freedom (for
large enough values of Freedom to be meaningful) one is effectively in an
anarchistic state. That is what "close enough to be meaningful" meant.

	Privacy is (at least it's my understanding) the ability to hide or
mask   information in such a way that only people you wish to have access
to it do.

	There are varying degrees of Privacy, from "Well, at least they
don't analyize what's in my feeces, even if they do watch me take it" to
being able to completely hide any information at all from anyone.

	Freedom is the ability to make choices, and exercise those choices.

	Just like privacy, there are varying degrees of freedom, from the
convict who can chose wheter he/she wants to eat that slop or go hungry, to
the president of the US who can (apparently) bomb people with impunity, lie
under oath & etc.

	When the amount of freedom and privacy is high enough, it is
indistinguishable from anarchy. No one, wheter part of some heirarchial
structure or not can force you to do certain things, or to live a certain
way, or to pay a given percentage of your time (labor, money, life) to them
for "services" of dubious value.

	Now, I realize that if I were just speaking to Jim, this would be a
waste of time, because he consistently fails to read entire paragraphs,
misunderstands simple terms, and doesn't always manage to connect dependent
clauses, but there may be some out there who could provide a reasonable
critique of what I am saying, and may even be able to give me some food for
thought.

>> for privacy. In fact there is good claim that privacy will not exist in
>> anarchy except by those that decide to use the tools and methods to achieve

	Privacy doesn't exist anywhere unless one chooses to use the tools
and methods to acheive it.

	If I don't want privacy, or if it isn't of value to me, I shouldn't
have to be bound by it. If I do want it, I should be able take steps
(analagous to putting up curtains on a bay-window) to secure it.

	Governments cannot provide large values of privacy, it's not how
they work. They can limit exposure, but that is more of a false privacy
than real privacy.

--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com